I'd honestly take anything the British Government says with a feckton of salt.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
I'd honestly take anything the British Government says with a feckton of salt.
I think the laws are relevant in the sense that they appeared to mostly target those in the east of Ukraine and stoked division at a time when they should have been looking to unite the country. Of course it's not the cause, but I don't think the laws helped.
Yes it may be a "russian invasion of Ukraine" thread but the recent history is incredibly important in understanding the conflict just like the history prior to October 7th is important context in the Palestine conflict. I think if we are to have long term peace in the region then the will of the people in the disputed territories is critical too.
Completely agree with the last paragraph in relation to the Donbas as it seems their economy was severely hit after the collapse of the Soviet union and this possibly contributes to some of the feelings there. I also don't think there is any united support there like there is in Crimea so I agree. I think depending on the area that the opinion probably differs.
What's your opinion of the Istanbul Communique 2.5 years on? Do you think if similar agreements were drawn up today that it would be a peace deal worth considering? Or what sort of concessions from either side do you think are needed to find peace?
Below is an alleged 10 point plan from Instanbul communique. I can't 100% confirm this source so if its incorrect I apologise but I do post it in good faith:
https://faridaily.substack.com/p/ukraines-10-point-plan
Ukraine’s problems, meanwhile, are worsening mainly because of manpower issues. The army is long out of willing recruits, and its mobilisation campaign is falling short, recruiting barely two-thirds of its target. A senior Ukrainian official says he is worried the situation may become irretrievable by the spring. An even bigger problem is the quality of the new recruits. “Forest”, a battalion commander with the 65th brigade, says the men being sent from army headquarters are now mostly too old or unmotivated to be useful. All but a handful are over the age of 45. “I’m being sent guys, 50 plus, with doctors’ notes telling me they are too ill to serve,” he says. “At times it feels like I’m managing a day-care centre rather than a combat unit.”
A visit to the brigade’s training range underscores the commander’s point. The recruits are here for zlagodzhennia, formal induction into their units. It is the final stage of preparation before heading, in a few days’ time, to the front. The newest of the recruits is Grigory, a 51-year-old former labourer from the central Poltava region. Gold-toothed and ruddy faced, he squints through +9 prescription glasses, and his ill-fitting body armour flaps unfastened over a short, stocky frame. Grigory admits he was as surprised as anyone when he was enlisted; he did not expect the officers to mobilise someone who was half blind. Unsurprisingly, he is struggling with the physical demands; it’s hard enough to walk with the flak jackets. But he has got used to handling firearms. “Anyone can shoot,” he says. “It’s hitting the target I’m not so good at.”
https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/11/24/ukraines-warriors-brace-for-a-kremlin-surge-in-the-south
A visit to the brigade’s training range underscores the commander’s point. The recruits are here for zlagodzhennia, formal induction into their units. It is the final stage of preparation before heading, in a few days’ time, to the front. The newest of the recruits is Grigory, a 51-year-old former labourer from the central Poltava region. Gold-toothed and ruddy faced, he squints through +9 prescription glasses, and his ill-fitting body armour flaps unfastened over a short, stocky frame. Grigory admits he was as surprised as anyone when he was enlisted; he did not expect the officers to mobilise someone who was half blind. Unsurprisingly, he is struggling with the physical demands; it’s hard enough to walk with the flak jackets. But he has got used to handling firearms. “Anyone can shoot,” he says. “It’s hitting the target I’m not so good at.”
https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/11/24/ukraines-warriors-brace-for-a-kremlin-surge-in-the-south
What "will of the people" are you talking about, out of curiosity? Donbas secession did not have majority sentiment pre-2014 and post-2014 the situation drastically changed. Many people (presumably pro-Ukrainian) fled the region and the Russians have started all kinds of programs in the occupied territories of Russifying the region.
As for the Istanbul Communique and what concessions are needed, the fundamental point is that of security guarantees IMO.
Even if Ukraine concedes territory, without security guarantees Ukraine will always remain vulnerable for further Russian aggression. Foreign investors would be unlikely to pour money into Ukraine if they aren't convinced that Ukraine will be safe. Without enough jobs and a sense of security, we might see new waves of Ukrainian refugees. And without safety guarantees, Ukraine would need large continued investments in defence to monitor and protect their borders. Who will finance a large standing army for Ukraine?
Many analysts have implies that Ukraine is sort of fecked without security guarantees. I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. From my reading, Russia demanded veto power during the early 2022 negotiations on security guarantees.
By will of the people I mean that the wishes of those who work the land are respected rather than the west/kyiv/Russia making decisions on their behalf. I think for long term peace that the opinions of these people are crucial and needs to be accounted for.
I agree in relation to the security guarantees so that any future escalations or signs of aggression can be met with similar aggression, and so we don't end up in our current situation which is a bit of a proxy war.
In terms of the foreign investment I'm not sure we both allign. Ukraine has sacrificed alot of blood in this war, if the end result of that Ukranians natural resources being bought up by foreign investors and run for foreign profits then that feels slightly imperialist to me. This is another thing I personally believe the Ukranian people should have more of a say over too. If the outcome of this war are companies like Blackrock making huge profits from Ukraines natural resources then was it ever a war against "russian imperialism" to begin with?
If we can send billions of aid to Ukraine to equip them to fight then why can't we also send the same aid or arrange interest free loans for them to rebuild their infrastructure and economy too?
First bolded: this is a meaningless point. Which regions? Do we account for majority/minority sentiments? What do you mean "Kyiv"? Kyiv is the capital of Ukraine, where the government sits. It's not some entity that is illegally ruling over Ukraine.
As for foreign investment or foreign loans or whatever, yeah that includes foreign governments, not just private companies. Point being that Ukraine needs money to rebuild after the war.
Last edited:
It's not meaningless. Most people when they talk about Ukraine they talk about it as a whole which is a disservice. As already pointed out Crimea is an excellent example where many in the west tow the Kyiv line and give little thought to what Crimeans think or what.
It doesn't matter where the countries government is based - that doesn't change the rights of those who have worked the land. Just because Russias government is in Moscow it doesn't mean we should blindly follow their position on Chechnya. The same goes for those living in the disputed territories in Ukraine too. I support democracy and the people to have their say - is that not what democracy is all about?
It does include foreign governments and companies and that's why I worry that Ukraine could be the biggest losers out of this. Being Ukraine in name but having all your most profitable resources bought up by foreign investors/governmenrs is not a protection of soveirnity and will just lead to further dependency in the long term towards those who buy it up. Who will come first? The needs of the Ukranian people and their quality of life? Or profits for shareholders/governments who expect a return? The cynic in me thinks the latter.
I question the motives of both the West and Russia.
It was a meaningless point in the sense that you have to be specific what you mean. You seem to focus a lot on Crimea, which is fine. But you also seem to hint that other occupied territories may not have wanted to be part of Ukraine.
You talk about the "will of the people". Should Ukraine not get those other territories of Zaporizhia and Kherson back? Is that what you are telling us, or is your focus solely on Crimea?
I'm trying to understand what it is you're arguing. As if we are being lied about Ukraine and the whole south + east actually preferred secession and Kyiv is standing in the way.
As for foreign money, can you elaborate further what it is you are arguing? For private companies to stay away from Ukraine and the foreign money must preferably come from governments in the form of loans?
Last edited:
Yanukovych and his party ran on a pro-European integration campaign in that election. Using this as a proxy for separatist sentiment is just pure fanfiction.
Everyone single Ukrainian legislator representing every voting district in the whole country including the so called separatist countries and Crimean representatives voted for EU integration in 2013.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2545883-repa...stzee-begonnen-na-vermoedelijke-sabotageactie
Data cable repair in Baltic Sea started after suspected sabotage action
‘In the Baltic Sea, the repair of a data cable that was damaged last week, presumably due to sabotage, has begun. It is a communication cable between the Finnish capital Helsinki and the German port city of Rostock.
The Finnish operator says a special ship from Calais has arrived at the site of the break. The C-Lion1 cable, a fiber optic cable of almost 1200 kilometers, needs to be repaired this month. Internet traffic is not hindered by the breakage, because there are other cables that absorb the signal's falls.
The break in the cable was determined a week ago, near the Swedish island of Öland. Less than 24 hours earlier, there had also been a break in another communication cable in the Baltic Sea. It is located between the Swedish island of Gotland and Lithuania and measures 218 kilometers.
Chinese ship
How the fractures arose is not clarified, but the Swedish police, among others, have launched an investigation due to suspicions of sabotage. Among other things, a Chinese cargo ship, the Yi Peng 3, is being looked at. That ship would have been in both places, always around the time the cables fell out.
The ship is now anchored at the island of Anholt in the Kattegat, between Denmark and Sweden. Ships from various NATO countries are keeping an eye on it. Whether the Yi Peng 3 will shut down on the orders of the authorities is unclear. China says it is "in good contact" with all parties involved.
Lost anchor
Last year, telecom cables and a gas pipeline were also damaged in the Baltic Sea. The Finnish police think a Chinese container ship was the culprit at the time. An anchor was found on the seabed that most likely came from that ship.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said last week that the cables were deliberately damaged. He rules out an accident because an anchor just ended up unlucky. "Therefore, we must conclude - without being able to clearly say who is responsible - that this is a hybrid action. And we have to assume, without having certainty, that this was sabotage."
Hybrid warfare is a military strategy that mixes conventional warfare with non-military means such as disinformation, propaganda, political intimidation and also sabotage.
Gas pipeline
Security experts have been saying for some time that Russia is waging a hybrid war against Europe, because of European support for Ukraine. Russian ships are regularly spotted in places in the Baltic Sea where important infrastructure is on the seabed.
In a joint statement, the foreign ministries of Germany and Finland said earlier last week that European security was threatened not only by Russian aggression in Ukraine but also by hybrid warfare by "malicious actors".
The biggest sabotage operation in the Baltic Sea was two years ago, when the Nord Stream gas pipeline was blown up. In Germany, an investigation is still ongoing. Conclusive evidence was never released, but in August an arrest warrant was issued against a Ukrainian. He would have been sitting on a sailing ship suspected of the sabotage.’
It's not meaningless as the conversations I've had with many people show a lack of understanding of the regional differences and its important that these are discussed as its critical context for evaluating the conflict.
The source I provided from the US government actually discussed multiple regions, not just Crimea. Please see quote again:
Ive referenced Crimea more as demographically its quite easy to display the Ukranian minority and so the divisions are easy to display. However the principle is still the same where I feel the people who have worked the land should have a say. Do you disagree with that? I can't be confident or certain on what the people as a whole in Donbas want - can you? So I support their right to democratically have a say on their own future too.
Yes if people in Zaporizhia want to be a part of Ukraine then that should be honoured. Why would I disagree with that?
I'm highlighting that I believe there is a misunderstanding of how people analyse the conflict and that many people aren't as well informed on regional differences or the recent history prior to the invasion. You've challenged my view and so I'm responding to that challenge and articulating why I think otherwise.
I made it clear in my previous posts. I think it's imperialist in nature for private corporations or governments to profit from Ukranian resources. I wouldn't support Russia absorbing industries and I don't support western privatisation either.
If we are willing to spend money arming Ukraine then we should be just as willing to help rebuild it too without the expectation of profiting from it. Western tax payers funding the war while private capitalist corporations extract profits isn't what I consider protecting a countries soverignity. And I don't think its what the Ukranian people would want either (and i support them having a say on it). I'm much more supportive of hedge funds like Blackrock doing their bit by making sacrifices to help rebuild Ukraine in the same way western tax payers and Ukranian nationalists have so far. Is that really a divisive position to have?
Indeed they were more than happy to continue with discussions in relation to joining the EU and that they did. The door on the EU was never closed by Yanukovych but he was put between a rock and a hard place due to the growing demands of the EU as well as Russia exerting pressure from the other direction. Ideally he wanted to have his cake and eat it by joining the EU as well as maintaining close trade links with Russia and other nations within the CIS customs union. This was at a time when Ukraines economy was struggling quite badly too and in the end Russia offered a deal which Yanukovych at that time thought was better.
I don't deny that decision was a divisive one but again it just goes back to the regional disparities which exist in Ukraine. Where some people want to join nato, others don't, some want closer links to Russia, some want closer links to EU. And so this correlates the argument I'm making in relation to the divisions which exist within Ukraine which should be taken into account when discussing Ukraine.
The electoral map for the 2010 election was just used to display the differences which exist rather than anything specific to that election. The same divisions in voting exist in 2004 and 2000 too as well as before that.
It's not that I dispute regional differences. It's more that just because not everybody was on board with shifting West doesn't imply that they would welcome a Russian invasion and you don't seem to be arguing that either. So I'm curious what it is you think that people are misunderstanding? What extra critical context are we missing?
I think most would be aware of pro-Russian sentiments in a place like Crimea. And given enough time, Crimeans might have very well demanded independence from Ukraine or more autonomy or some other political status or even formally joining Russia. But alas, here we are, with Putin having annexed the place.
Supposedly another strike last night as well, on more air defense around Kursk. That would suggest they're still planning more activity in that area. I don't know if that makes most strategic sense, but if the ATACMS restriction are for Kursk then at least they're making as much use of that as possible.
Think Russia has another blank IRBM missile available to answer?
Edit: Last nights strike was an airfield + surrounding air defense in Kursk, Russian source claims no planes present.
Last edited:
I think you're perceiving that my comments about how the media potray things and how the layman analyses things to be about your own interpretation of things. I imagine you're probably more informed than them. These are generalised views rather than views about you specifically.
Do you think the people in Donbas welcomed John McCain inciting people to protest against the president they elected? And do you think they welcomed their democratically elected president being overthrown? Probably not.
And for balance I doubt those in Kyiv welcomed people like Sergey Glazyev promoting antimaiden protests and separatism.
So I stand by my point that I think the way the conflict is portrayed in the west can be misleading and not necessarily representative. I also feel that by referencing "Russia invasion" as the start of it that it often discounts the history which preluded said invasion. In the same way our media often dilute the history before "October 7th".
For instance I'm getting the impression that you support the revolution of dignity? Do you not see that as undemocratic or something which could antagonise or fuel separatism?
The usual phrase we hear is "Russian Aggression" but I feel that gives a false illusion as if USA and other western players weren't already interfering themselves long before 2022, and so its important context when understanding how the conditions which led to this situation were created.
I would just like to point out again that every single MP of every "Separatist" region, in 2013, voted to integrate with the European Union. Not a single objection, not a single abstention and not a single protest.
The same districts of Luhansk and Donetsk and Crimea that has "pro-Russian" tendencies all wanted to integrate with the EU. Every single MP in Party of Regions voted for European integration.
The same party that all the Russian backed regions voted for, was the same party that ran on a platform of European integration. Do the math.
https://www.rada.gov.ua/en/news/News/News 2/73173.html
You’re right that there is context. The same could be said about what Israel is currently doing to Palestinians. But after acknowledging that, the buck just has to stop with Russia and Israel. There are always reason for people and countries to act horribly, but when causing so much needless death and destruction those reasons fade into the background and the responsibility must be put to the party who is the aggressor.
Do you not think there's quite an important distinction between trying to peddle influence in other countries (which literally every country ever does and has done), and invading them militarily?
Credible? Remember when S400 was seen as untouchable within Russian air defense layers.
I don't have a particular opinion on Maidan. The bigger context for me is that Ukraine is a young nation in terms of how long they've been independent, with many problems and a degree of oligarchy. The country needs time to mature and develop. That's not for Putin to decide with his military.
What is the false illusion exactly? It wasn't John McCain storming into Ukraine in February 2022 with a bunch of US Marines. For all this talk of Western interference, it's not America that deported 20,000 Ukrainian children back to Russia or massacred civilians in Bucha.
I know you aren't justifying that but you are hinting at some hidden-by-Western-media grand historical context that puts the "Russian aggression" narrative to bed. I don't see it? It's still a case of Russian aggression to me.
Last edited:
I don't dispute a support for joining the European Union or that the president tried to progress talks with the EU. The Party of Regions had a majority in the Verkhovna Rada and even pushed through various bills for reforms in preparation for joining the EU not long before talks broke down -I would just like to point out again that every single MP of every "Separatist" region, in 2013, voted to integrate with the European Union. Not a single objection, not a single abstention and not a single protest.
The same districts of Luhansk and Donetsk and Crimea that has "pro-Russian" tendencies all wanted to integrate with the EU. Every single MP in Party of Regions voted for European integration.
The same party that all the Russian backed regions voted for, was the same party that ran on a platform of European integration. Do the math.
https://www.rada.gov.ua/en/news/News/News 2/73173.html
1 - https://archive.kyivpost.com/articl...irations-for-european-integration-320792.html
2 - https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-eu-membership-association-agreement-government-approve/25109791.html
The perception that he just went against everyone's will I don't think is a fair representation. He was the democratically elected president and it was his role to do what he thought was best for the country. Russia were putting pressure on Ukraine but equally do were the EU with their demands too. Like "brexit" in the UK, the finer details are just as important as the concept and Brexit took many years to negotiate too.
Yanukovych inherited a struggling economy and historically Russia and other members of the CIS customs union have been important trade partners. I don't think Yanukovych was opposed to joining the EU, his actions show he was engaged in negotiations throughout. Unfortunately though both EU and Russia were applying their own pressures and changing the goal posts and this complicated the process.
It was the EU I believe who were trying to force it with setting deadlines for laws to be placed and that it was the last chance to join. In a way forcing an ultimatum on the president and that's what led to this perception he went against everyone's views. But it was actually the democratically elected members of parliment who came to that decision through not reaching an agreement - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2013/11/21/ukraine-drops-eu-plans-and-looks-to-russia/
I imagine Yanukovych still wanted to continue talks with the EU considering on that same day he proposed another potential option for membership. But had the EU not set the hard deadlines then this perception of him going against the will wouldn't be there. Its complicated. I'm still learning alot of it as I research more.
The bloodiest civil conflict in Ukraine since 1918 was not of euromaidan protestors. It was antimaden protestors locked in a town hall in Odessa and burned to death. The country was very much divided with regional disparities.
There is a difference between supporting the concept of something and then supporting the fundamentals law which make up that concept. Many people which supported brexit in the uk did not support the brexit deal.
Support for joining the EU does not mean under any conditions regardless of the economical impacts.
Does any of this justify Russias invasion? No. But I also don't think the revolution of dignity was justified, I think the decommunisation laws were an antagonation too.
And so I think all of this is important context in understanding the conflict.
I completely agree but it requires both Ukraine and Russia to negotiate. Personally I think the Istanbul Communique seemed a decent compromise with the benefit of hindsight.
Now it feels like Russia is trying to chance their arm more and take advantage of assumed weakness in Ukraine with their negotiations.
Similarly I don't expect Trump to be conceding any of the proposed economic benefits for the west post war. So I do worry if it will be the Ukranians who end up making more concessions at Russia and West benefit.
It'll certainly be interesting to see how Trump/Putin negotiations go as I feel the whole Trump/Putin special relationship is a bit fabricated. I wonder if Trump running on a manifesto about how he's going to negotiate peace may give Putin an upper hand. As Trump could end up with egg on his face if no deal is found and I could see Putin Leveraging this.
Who knows though what's in store. Hopefully long term peace.
Last edited:
The reason why Ukraine dropped EU talks because they were threatened by Russia.
Also, you know, Russia actually sanctioned Ukraine, their biggest and only major trading partner at the time for the intention to join the EU and also locked Ukraine out of their Customs Union.
I think you can cause alot of damage to a country without invading them. For sanctions see Venezuela. For funding propoganda against an acting leader and supporting a coup, see Pinochet in Chile.
Sanctions came after Venezuela's economy had already collapsed and decided the best way to deal with the protestors was to kill and batter them.
I agree it isn't for Putin or his military to decide and that's why primarily I support Ukranian self declaration. This is a country whose citizens are very aware of the corruption on all sides which has existed within it for decades. Zelensky was elected primarily on an anti corruption/establishment manifesto due to voter disillusionment.
At the same time though I feel equally it is important to question our own motives, our own interference and our own mistakes. As a western I feel a sense of accountability for our own involvement and so for me I feel its important to reflect honestly on ourselves too. If we are encapable of recognising our own problems then how can we try to play judge and jury with other nations. Diplomacy on the global stage is important and I'm not sure the United States and West as a collective are winning many friends at the moment.
I'm not trying to hint at anything however I do think there is alot of russiaphobia which gets broadcast by our media just like there is alot of bias in some of the Gaza reporting. I wouldn't call that a conspiracy though? I doubt Russia is going to be broadcasting pro western points of view. Why would we, Russia? I believe the truth is usually in the middle with both sides utilising propoganda over their citizens. So doing your own due diligence and trying to consume different sources is important.
You can indeed. There's absolutely no evidence that the situation in Ukraine bears even the remotest parallel to those situations though. And at least Pinochet had the decency to feck off once he'd done what he'd set out to. Would that the likes of Orban and Putin had such decorum.
These arguments always seem to be the equivalent of "why did you disembowel young Sven's entire family Anders?" "Well miss, he said my head was big and stole my Freddo". Even children know what a proportionate response looks like and that you're in the wrong if you exceed it, but geopolitics nerds struggle to twist any fact or opinion they can get their grubby little mitts on to justify the most appalling shit every time.
I've clearly referenced Russia throughout in my post too clearly mentioning several times that they were exerting influence and pressure.
Yanukovych wanted to have the best of both worlds. I don't ever think he was against joining the EU though or that he fully closed the door on it.
The trade embargo was of course Putin weaponising economic sanctions to exert pressure and control, and the trade embargo did impact Ukraines economy. What it also highlighted though was the dependency of that trade for Ukraines economy and further highlighted the difficulties faced.
As Russia was in CIS customs union and EU has a different customs unions I believe that would have caused significant issues with trade with Russia moving forward too.
This made me laugh out loud (even though you were right on the first two points of your quote*).
* not so much on your entire argument in my opinion but I don’t want to get into it
Ukraine is the same as Russia in this regard.
"You don't want to be Ukrainian anymore or want to leave? Well feck off and have fun, bye!"
I've not the patience to respond to everything you've written in here but the main point you came wading in with, in an unusually well presented post, is some Ukrainians wanted to be invaded and annexed by Russia? Is that it?
Please show us the "history" of any sort of separatist movement in eastern Ukraine prior to 2014. When you realise you can't, please just get fecked, we've been through it before.
I can't fathom why anyone would think it relevant at this point even if there was one. You talk about Russian "crimes" like they haven't just gone and mass murdered half a million Ukrainian, Russian, "pro-Russian" people and devastated the lives of many times that, indiscriminately. Lets talk about standard political disgruntlements that may or may not have existed 15 years ago though.
If one country invades and attacks another thats an invasion and an agression.
Maybe its not your intention but between the lines it seems like you're trying to excuse Russian invasion of Ukraine. No matter what preluded it. Putin had a choice of invading or not. He choosed the former and his forces are in Ukraine, occupying a third of the country, bombing it daily and wreaking havoc, thus destroying not only Ukraine's present but the future too.
Last edited:
Are you implying that Euromaidan only happened because the West stirred up the Ukrainian people who were actually very happy with their government? Come on.
I might be wrong, but I think harms is laughing because Russia (Putin) doesn't give a shit about anyone at all, especially not his own citizens, home or abroad. He'll happily use them to further his ambitions though of course. So if by "caring" that's what was meant, ok.
Last edited:
Yeah. Especially about their citizens (or non-citizens that Putin assumes to be Russian because they're Russian-speaking and it fits his own expansionist agenda) that live abroad, they're literally doing everything to complicate their lives and force them to move back. At least they're saying that they care about the population inside of the country (even though they treat it more like livestock — it's beneficial for you to keep it alive as you rely on it to keep you fed and, if needed, you can send some of them to the slaughter) — but they're very much openly hostile towards those who've left the country... unless they need to find an excuse to invade their neighbour.
There was a clear political divide between the (roughly) Eastern and Western regions. Both had their own political clans that fought for power, both had different economical priorities (West was, understandably, more European-oriented and the East benefited more from closer ties with Russia)... but there never were significant ideas of actual separatism/full independence in Donbass and neighbouring regions. They wanted more autonomy (mostly economical but also political) but the majority of the people there still considered (and consider) themselves to be Ukrainians... the "civil" war, people's republics etc. are an artificial thing that was instigated by Russia — not just via proxies but also by putting their own boots on the ground way before 2022 (the infamous "polite green men"), supplying endless amounts of cash and ammo to mostly criminal organizations etc.
Crimea is a different thing as a lot of people (although it's always hard to say if it was actually a majority but going by empirical evidence it was always a lot) actually wanted to join Russia but Russia decided not to bother itself with stuff like international law and legal procedures and to simply annex/steal the entire peninsula. It's been discussed a lot in this thread.
Did U.S.A. and Europe interfered with Ukrainian politics to an extent? Yep, that's international politics for you. Was that a significant factor in the subsequent invasion? Ehm, not really. Unless you strip Ukrainians themselves of any agency and count their own wish to join the European Union (an important note — not NATO, not originally) as, well, Western interference (which would be funny considering that a lot of European countries weren't too keen on fast-tracking Ukraine's application in the first place).
Hey, if Ukraine surrendered and met Russia's terms all of this wouldn't have happened, amIrite.
Not quite. I do however believe we've been meddling and interfering in politics for some time and not because of a deep care for Ukrainian democracy or human rights.
Please show me the "history" of any sort of movement in the south and east of Russia for the president they elected to be overthrown.
It's very relevant to question our motives. I can't fanthom why anyone would think we are only involved in Ukraine due to a deep care for democracy and human rights. People talk about "the west" as if they aren't funding an active genocide in Palestine at the minute but then still want to act as if they're the white knights in shining armour in Ukraine. But let's ignore all that, our media have maybe been bias on Palestine but on Ukraine we are the good guys who only have true and honest motivations to help the Ukranian people.
You're welcome to disagree with me but I don't trust our motives and I certainly don't agree with how the conflict has been portrayed either. Why do you trust our motives? What has given you the reassurance that our interference is for the greater good? And if it is, do you also oppose western privatisation of Ukranian industries and natural resources? If not, do you not consider this imperialist in nature?
My judgements and interpretations could be wrong but based on my knowledge of Western interference historically I'll continue to be cynical.
Whatever the motives if the west hasnt interfered Ukraine would be overrun. Or you dont agree about that?
I wonder how would you portray this 'conflict' exactly, which isnt a conflict but a downright Russian invasion and agression.