Ukraine (Topical thread)

[LastPoet]

Zellie, Zellie... defending yourself is one thing. Attacking the home of the attacker is another.

Huh? It sounds a decent strategy. Forces the enemy to defend the homeland, diverting means to that effort instead of going all in the battlefront. The rule of war is just that, there are no rules. Or like we say it here: "quem vai à guerra dá... e leva."

[Aractus]

Zellie, Zellie... defending yourself is one thing. Attacking the home of the attacker is another.

It's the US's strategy. 1. Provoke Russia into war with Ukraine. 2. Prolong the war by opposing a negotiated ceasefire and supplying munitions. 3. Impose sanctions against Russia that are designed to hurt civilians and provoke a civil war, and 4. Wait for Vladimir Putin's government to collapse/be overthrown.

This whole conflict was intentionally started by the US in 2014 when they overthrew the democratically elected Yanukovych government. And on the issue of NATO expansion, Russia is NOT an outlier - most countries are opposed to NATO expansion, with basically the only ones in favour of it being the NATO countries themselves. Plus the US absolutely gaslit Russia. Security assurances that NATO would never expand eastward were repeatedly made to Russia in 1990 and 1991 by the US, France, Germany, the UK and NATO itself.

[pocaracas]

Zellie, Zellie... defending yourself is one thing. Attacking the home of the attacker is another.

Huh? It sounds a decent strategy. Forces the enemy to defend the homeland, diverting means to that effort instead of going all in the battlefront. The rule of war is just that, there are no rules. Or like we say it here: "quem vai à guerra dá... e leva."

Pretty sure Russia's diverted forces to Moscow are negligible for the invasion of Ukraine.

[Deesse23]

1. Provoke Russia into war with Ukraine.

Like Prigozin provoked Putin to kill him, eh?
Nope, you are still full of it. Russia invaded Ukraine, and it was Russias decision. The only provoking factor was the existence of ukraine itself. Read it from Putins lips.

2. Prolong the war by opposing a negotiated ceasefire and supplying munitions.

Like the US prolonged WWII with lend-lease?
Nope

3. Impose sanctions against Russia that are designed to hurt civilians

Which ones?

and provoke a civil war, and

Where? When? Evidence please.

4. Wait for Vladimir Putin's government to collapse/be overthrown.

You say that as if would be a bad thing.

This whole conflict was intentionally started by the US in 2014

Nope

when they overthrew the democratically elected Yanukovych government.

Which they didnt

And on the issue of NATO expansion,

...which is a red herring, according to Russia who invaded because Ukraine is supposed to be a part of a greater Russia. I am not saying this, Putin is. Read it.

Russia is NOT an outlier - most countries are opposed to NATO expansion

...like Sweden or Finland? Or those who already had joined in the past 20 years, because....you know because, right? Oh i forgot, its a long lasting international conspiracy to make NATO take over the world. MUAHAHA


...and even if true that NATO wanst to expand. That justifies, ich which way exactly, invasions of foreign countries?
NATO was never a reason. Read it from Putins lips.
If Putin had "legitimate" reasons to invade Ukraine, then why pulling the "special police action" and "denazification" card? If the religious had good reasons to believe they would not need faith, and if Putin had legitimate reasons to invade ukarine he would not make up denazification. Putin knew exactly that his was of agression is in no way justifiable, thats why he made up shit wholesale in the first place.

Plus the US absolutely gaslit Russia. Security assurances that NATO would never expand eastward were repeatedly made to Russia in 1990 and 1991 by the US, France, Germany, the UK and NATO itself.

Lets grant you, for the sake of argument, that promises were made, but not kept. Does that justiy invading foreign countries?

[pocaracas]

It's a long read, but it seems to be decently documented.

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-prote...ato-crimea

Feb.07.2022

A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War



Like today’s Russia-NATO tensions more broadly, at the heart of the Maidan protests was the push by some Western governments, especially the United States, to isolate Russia by supporting the integration of peripheral parts of the former Soviet Union into European and Atlantic institutions — and Moscow’s pushback against what it saw as an encroachment on its sphere of influence.

In 2014, the man forced to navigate these tensions, Viktor Yanukovych, was taking his second crack at the Ukrainian presidency. He had first been ousted after the 2004 Orange Revolution that followed widespread charges of vote-rigging in the election that brought him to power. Before running again six years later, Yanukovych had worked to rebuild his reputation, becoming the country’s most trusted politician.

By 2010, international monitors had declared the most recent election free and fair, an “impressive display” of democracy, even. But once in power, Yanukovych’s rule was again marred by widespread corruption, authoritarianism, and, for some, an uncomfortable friendliness to Moscow, which had made no secret of its backing him in the previous election. The fact that Ukraine was starkly divided between a more Europe-friendly West and Center and a more pro-Russia East — the same lines that largely determined the election — only added to the complication.

Yanukovych was in a tricky spot. Ukraine relied on cheap gas from Russia, but a plurality of the country — not, crucially, an absolute majority — still wanted European integration. His political career was caught in the same bind: with his party formally allied to Vladimir Putin’s own United Russia party, his pro-Russia base wanted to see closer relations with its neighbor; but the oligarchs who were the real reason he had gotten anywhere near the presidency were financially entangled with the West, and they feared competition to their grip on the country from across the Russian border. All the while, two geopolitical powers in the form of Washington and Moscow hoped to use these cleavages to draw the country into their respective orbits.

So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries — even if much of it went nowhere — along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor’s move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament.
[...]
Meanwhile, Yanukovych worked with and publicly encouraged Western involvement in updating Ukraine’s natural gas infrastructure and insisted again and again that “European integration is the key priority of our foreign policy.” He kept working toward European Union membership, and to that end pursued a free trade agreement with the EU as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan the West urged him to take.
[...]
To halt this drift to the West, Putin performed a one-man good-cop, bad-cop routine, offering Yanukovych a no-strings-attached loan the same size as the IMF’s, while squeezing him with what amounted to a mini–trade blockade. With the EU failing to offer anything that would match the catastrophic loss of trade with Russia that Ukraine was looking at, Yanukovych made the calculated choice to go with Moscow’s offer. In November, he abruptly reneged on the EU deal, sparking the protests that would topple him from power.

(read the whole thing for more details)

It is clear that Both the US and Russia were trying to influence Ukraine's politics. And the sore loser took the path that many sore losers do - violence.

[Aractus]

Like Prigozin provoked Putin to kill him, eh?
Nope, you are still full of it. Russia invaded Ukraine, and it was Russias decision. The only provoking factor was the existence of ukraine itself. Read it from Putins lips.

Russia invaded Ukraine, and that was their decision, but they were deliberately proactively provoked into doing it by the US and NATO. Military experts warned about it for years, and the provocation continued regardless: “The sixteen members of NATO will soon invite Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and possibly others to join. There are strong arguments for enlarging the alliance, above all securing the democratic and Western orientation of selected former Warsaw Pact states and hedging against political uncertainty in Russia.

“But there are arguments at least as strong against enlargement. Expanding NATO could complicate its ability to achieve consensus, weaken the security of those countries not brought in, increase demands on defense budgets when they are already overstretched, and alienate Russia. In the process, Europe’s security could well diminish, not grow.” (Richard N. Haass, 1997)

The only way the war ends is with diplomacy, yet the NATO countries led by the US have continually told Ukraine to refuse diplomacy and to continue fighting against a far larger aggressor that they can't possibly win against.

The US wants this war to continue, and that's obvious. In March 2022 the Israeli Prime Minister and mediator reported Russia and Ukraine were close to a negotiated ceasefire, and then the US, France, and UK opposed it and stopped it from happening with the US President saying “for God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” (referring to Vladimir Putin).

Sleepy Joe himself directly provoked Russia by overthrowing the Yanukovych presidency. From Wikipedia: “A member of the pro-Russian Party of Regions, his removal from the presidency via revolution in 2014 led to the Russo-Ukrainian War.” See? That happened under the Obama administration when Biden was VP, and that US-led insurgence is what has most directly provoked the war. Here's the leaked Nuland-Pyatt call and transcript here:



My favourite line is “Fuck the EU.” There's also the academic peer-reviewed paper on it by Wade 2015. So this is a fact that is absolutely not in dispute. The US went in and overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russia Ukrainian government.

Also you need to understand that what Russia wants is not unreasonable. Yes them starting a war cannot be justified, provoked by the US and NATO or not (although NOR CAN PROVOKING THEM BE JUSTIFIED), but what Russia wants is simple: They don't want expansion of the US led military alliance NATO they think it's grown large enough. China has the same policy. Most of the world agrees, basically the only nation States that disagree are the NATO countries themselves and allies of the US that will repeat whatever rhetoric the US comes out with. But even if you disagree with this being a reasonable position, the fact is assurances were repeatedly made directly to Russia that NATO would never expand eastward and those assurances are documented in that link. Assurances were made by James Baker, George HW Bush, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Helmut Kohl, Robert Gates, Francois Mitterrand, Margaret Thatcher, Douglas Hurd, John Major, and Manfred Woerner in 1990 and 1991 - that covers the USA, Germany, France, the UK, and NATO. Warnings about NATO expansion provoking war with Russia were made by military experts from 1990 all the way up to the start of the war itself.

Now if you're complaining that Russia wants to overthrow Zelensky and reinstate Yanukovych, then you definitely need to explain what you're not complaining about the US covertly and violently overthrowing Yanukovych's premiership.

So here's what we know, these are the indisputable facts: 1. The US and NATO actively provoked Russia into war with Ukraine, 2. They have actively blocked efforts for a negotiated end to the war, and 3. The US officially wants regime change in Russia - Europe does not.

and provoke a civil war, and

Where? When? Evidence please.
[/quote]

Boris Johnson speaking as Prime Minster went on-record as saying regime change in Moscow is the end-game goal, that's probably the most direct proof.

This whole conflict was intentionally started by the US in 2014

Nope

Yes.it.was. And even if it wasn't you cannot possibly justify the US overturning a democratically elected government. But that said, of course it was. After the US did that then Russia annexed Crimea in direct response.

when they overthrew the democratically elected Yanukovych government.

Which they didnt

They absolutely did. Here's a peer-review paper on it: Wade 2015. The US overthrew the government and Russia annexed Crimea in response. And then a few years later invaded Ukraine.

Lets grant you, for the sake of argument, that promises were made, but not kept. Does that justiy invading foreign countries?

No of course it doesn't, but the point is that Putin was coaxed into it and he fell for it hook-line-and-stinker.

It is clear that Both the US and Russia were trying to influence Ukraine's politics. And the sore loser took the path that many sore losers do - violence.

Ah, no. The US took it first in 2014 by violently overthrowing the democratically elected Yanukovych government.

[pocaracas]

Ah, no. The US took it first in 2014 by violently overthrowing the democratically elected Yanukovych government.

Come now... the US supported (with money and intel at least) the movement that overthrew Yanukovych.
It's not the same as what you said. It's a move that would not be beyond Mr Putin himself.

[Deesse23]

Like Prigozin provoked Putin to kill him, eh?
Nope, you are still full of it. Russia invaded Ukraine, and it was Russias decision. The only provoking factor was the existence of ukraine itself. Read it from Putins lips.

Russia invaded Ukraine, and that was their decision, but they were deliberately proactively provoked into doing it by the US and NATO

Who is responsbile for Russias decision to invade Ukraine? Who is responsible for Russias lack of skill and measure in politics?
Whos fault is it when he cant keep his dick in his pants? The slut with in short dress?

The only way the war ends is with diplomacy

It started in the first place, initiated by whom? Whose incompetence and/or unwillingness to "diplomacy" was the cause? Who pulled out of the grain deal, dialing diplomatic effords back...how many steps (ignoring the fact that some poor African sobs have to effing starve to death because of this)? Who refuses to talk about a renewal of the grain deal to begin with?

The US went in and overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russia Ukrainian government.

IF so, that justifies what and how?
You also conveniently *forgot* to adress the underlying fact that according to Putin, Ukraine does not exist culturally and should not as a sovereign political entity.
No matter how much you are bending backwards in order to argue that US/NATO/whoever wants to meddle in Ukraines affairs: Putin is the one who OPENLY said that it should not exist, at all.

Also you need to understand that what Russia wants is not unreasonable.

What Russia wants is Ukraine cease to exist, and be (at best) a part of a "greater Russia", 100% under Russias control. And this position has nothing to do with NATO, US or anything else. Its a political doctrine, footed on some serious ignorance (or lying) about recent history, personal grandiosity playing a significant role as well (someone picturing himself as the scond coming of Peter the Great).

If Ukraine is going to further exist, with reduced territory, after some successful negotiations, then its because Russia was denied to remove Ukraine from the map entirely.

Yes them starting a war cannot be justified, provoked by the US and NATO

Then why do you keep bringing this up over and over? You know you cant defend the indefensible, thus you are trying to minimize it. You are enabling Putin and his invasion.

(although NOR CAN PROVOKING THEM BE JUSTIFIED),

Which international law was allegedly broken? What crime against humanity has been comitted so you dare to compare it with the one Russia has commited, and is continuing to do so.
Again, you are trying to minimize what Russia has done be pulling up ANYthing that ever has been done to Russias disfavour., or just making shit up.

but what Russia wants is simple: They don't want expansion of the US

No, it wants Ukraine to cease to exist. Its time you start to acknowledge this. Want me to link to Putins speech, where he laid out his view in detail? Or do you directly want to go to "he did not mean what he clearly and unequivocally said"?

Now if you're complaining that Russia wants to overthrow Zelensky and reinstate Yanukovych, then you definitely need to explain what you're not complaining about the US covertly and violently overthrowing Yanukovych's premiership.

I didnt, now why are you strawmanning me with irrelevancies?
Russia wants Ukraine to cease to exist. Yes or no?
The only reason Ukraine still exists, in whatever form and under whatever influence is because Russia was prevented to cease its existence in early 2022.

Boris Johnson speaking as Prime Minster went on-record as saying regime change in Moscow is the end-game goal, that's probably the most direct proof.

BJ saying he wanted regime change is proof of.....BJ wanting regime change, not civil war. If this is your best argument, then you have no argument at all.
Is BJ btw a spoekesperson for EU/NATO/US/the rest of the world? Asking for a friend.

Yes.it.was. And even if it wasn't you cannot possibly justify the US overturning a democratically elected government. But that said, of course it was. After the US did that then Russia annexed Crimea in direct response.

...because thats what you do when country #1 overthrows countriy #2 government: You annex country #2 territory. You dont want to give country #2 back its legitimate government. I mean, who would do this?!

...and all of that is relevant after you provide evidence that this overthrow of government even happened.

The US overthrew the government and Russia annexed Crimea in response. And then a few years later invaded Ukraine.

Because thats what you do...right?

Lets grant you, for the sake of argument, that promises were made, but not kept. Does that justiy invading foreign countries?

No of course it doesn't, but the point is that Putin was coaxed into it and he fell for it hook-line-and-stinker.

And here you go, minimizing again.
If it was not justified to invade Ukarine, why all the buts?...like in "..but she was wearing this short dress".

It is clear that Both the US and Russia were trying to influence Ukraine's politics. And the sore loser took the path that many sore losers do - violence.

Thank you.
Not that US/NATO/whoever is without blame or fault, but its ONE particular side who choose to go to war, with a six figure number of dead people and many more suffering. And thats exactly why its so indefensible to defend someone CHOOSING to go to war and call this ongoing death and destruction out for what it is: An uncalled for war of aggression

We should never forget who is to be burdened with the overwhelming amount of blame for all of this

Thats why i will keep resisting all of this minimizing and thinly veiled apologetics for this decision of Russia to bring death and devastation to Ukraine.

Ah, no. The US took it first in 2014 by violently overthrowing the democratically elected Yanukovych government.

Are you really trying to equivocate an (alleged!) "violent overthrow of govermnet" (aka. Maidan) with an invasion of another country and the death of tens of, if not hundreds of thousand people?
Do you have no shame?

[Aegon]

It's a long read, but it seems to be decently documented.

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-prote...ato-crimea

Feb.07.2022

A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War



Like today’s Russia-NATO tensions more broadly, at the heart of the Maidan protests was the push by some Western governments, especially the United States, to isolate Russia by supporting the integration of peripheral parts of the former Soviet Union into European and Atlantic institutions — and Moscow’s pushback against what it saw as an encroachment on its sphere of influence.

In 2014, the man forced to navigate these tensions, Viktor Yanukovych, was taking his second crack at the Ukrainian presidency. He had first been ousted after the 2004 Orange Revolution that followed widespread charges of vote-rigging in the election that brought him to power. Before running again six years later, Yanukovych had worked to rebuild his reputation, becoming the country’s most trusted politician.

By 2010, international monitors had declared the most recent election free and fair, an “impressive display” of democracy, even. But once in power, Yanukovych’s rule was again marred by widespread corruption, authoritarianism, and, for some, an uncomfortable friendliness to Moscow, which had made no secret of its backing him in the previous election. The fact that Ukraine was starkly divided between a more Europe-friendly West and Center and a more pro-Russia East — the same lines that largely determined the election — only added to the complication.

Yanukovych was in a tricky spot. Ukraine relied on cheap gas from Russia, but a plurality of the country — not, crucially, an absolute majority — still wanted European integration. His political career was caught in the same bind: with his party formally allied to Vladimir Putin’s own United Russia party, his pro-Russia base wanted to see closer relations with its neighbor; but the oligarchs who were the real reason he had gotten anywhere near the presidency were financially entangled with the West, and they feared competition to their grip on the country from across the Russian border. All the while, two geopolitical powers in the form of Washington and Moscow hoped to use these cleavages to draw the country into their respective orbits.

So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries — even if much of it went nowhere — along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor’s move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament.
[...]
Meanwhile, Yanukovych worked with and publicly encouraged Western involvement in updating Ukraine’s natural gas infrastructure and insisted again and again that “European integration is the key priority of our foreign policy.” He kept working toward European Union membership, and to that end pursued a free trade agreement with the EU as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan the West urged him to take.
[...]
To halt this drift to the West, Putin performed a one-man good-cop, bad-cop routine, offering Yanukovych a no-strings-attached loan the same size as the IMF’s, while squeezing him with what amounted to a mini–trade blockade. With the EU failing to offer anything that would match the catastrophic loss of trade with Russia that Ukraine was looking at, Yanukovych made the calculated choice to go with Moscow’s offer. In November, he abruptly reneged on the EU deal, sparking the protests that would topple him from power.

(read the whole thing for more details)

It is clear that Both the US and Russia were trying to influence Ukraine's politics. And the sore loser took the path that many sore losers do - violence.

I wonder what horrid right-wing dictator we'll install in Ukraine that will commit humans rights abuses for 20 years

[epronovost]

Huh? It sounds a decent strategy. Forces the enemy to defend the homeland, diverting means to that effort instead of going all in the battlefront. The rule of war is just that, there are no rules. Or like we say it here: "quem vai à guerra dá... e leva."

Pretty sure Russia's diverted forces to Moscow are negligible for the invasion of Ukraine.

These attack are mostly symbolic. The Wagner mutiny has shown that Russia is politically unstable. Those attacks are aimed at making the political situation in Russia more unstable. Should Russia be destabilized enough, even if Putin manages to maintain power, it diminishes the capacity of his government to procecute the war effectively.

[Dom]

Pretty sure Russia's diverted forces to Moscow are negligible for the invasion of Ukraine.

These attack are mostly symbolic. The Wagner mutiny has shown that Russia is politically unstable. Those attacks are aimed at making the political situation in Russia more unstable. Should Russia be destabilized enough, even if Putin manages to maintain power, it diminishes the capacity of his government to procecute the war effectively.

Yes, I think it's mostly to alert people in Russia that there is a war going on, apparently that's not a topic in Moscow.

[pocaracas]

It's a long read, but it seems to be decently documented.

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-prote...ato-crimea
(read the whole thing for more details)

It is clear that Both the US and Russia were trying to influence Ukraine's politics. And the sore loser took the path that many sore losers do - violence.

I wonder what horrid right-wing dictator we'll install in Ukraine that will commit humans rights abuses for 20 years

[cough]Trump[/cough]

[Aegon]

I wonder what horrid right-wing dictator we'll install in Ukraine that will commit humans rights abuses for 20 years

[cough]Trump[/cough]

No the US has a history of propagating actual dictators, like Pinoche.

[Rhythmcs]

I wonder what horrid right-wing dictator we'll install in Ukraine that will commit humans rights abuses for 20 years

Zelinskyy the nazi jew, obviously?

[Cavebear]

It's a long read, but it seems to be decently documented.

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-prote...ato-crimea

Feb.07.2022

A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War



Like today’s Russia-NATO tensions more broadly, at the heart of the Maidan protests was the push by some Western governments, especially the United States, to isolate Russia by supporting the integration of peripheral parts of the former Soviet Union into European and Atlantic institutions — and Moscow’s pushback against what it saw as an encroachment on its sphere of influence.

In 2014, the man forced to navigate these tensions, Viktor Yanukovych, was taking his second crack at the Ukrainian presidency. He had first been ousted after the 2004 Orange Revolution that followed widespread charges of vote-rigging in the election that brought him to power. Before running again six years later, Yanukovych had worked to rebuild his reputation, becoming the country’s most trusted politician.

By 2010, international monitors had declared the most recent election free and fair, an “impressive display” of democracy, even. But once in power, Yanukovych’s rule was again marred by widespread corruption, authoritarianism, and, for some, an uncomfortable friendliness to Moscow, which had made no secret of its backing him in the previous election. The fact that Ukraine was starkly divided between a more Europe-friendly West and Center and a more pro-Russia East — the same lines that largely determined the election — only added to the complication.

Yanukovych was in a tricky spot. Ukraine relied on cheap gas from Russia, but a plurality of the country — not, crucially, an absolute majority — still wanted European integration. His political career was caught in the same bind: with his party formally allied to Vladimir Putin’s own United Russia party, his pro-Russia base wanted to see closer relations with its neighbor; but the oligarchs who were the real reason he had gotten anywhere near the presidency were financially entangled with the West, and they feared competition to their grip on the country from across the Russian border. All the while, two geopolitical powers in the form of Washington and Moscow hoped to use these cleavages to draw the country into their respective orbits.

So, for four years, Yanukovych toed a fine line. He pleased his base with symbolic and cultural measures, like talk of unity or cooperation with Moscow in key industries — even if much of it went nowhere — along with more serious steps like making Russian an official language, rejecting NATO membership, and reversing his pro-Western predecessor’s move to glorify Nazi collaborators as national heroes in school curricula.

His biggest sop to Moscow, though, came early in his term, when he struck a deal letting the Russian Black Sea Fleet use Crimea as a base until 2042, in exchange for discounted Russian gas. Its hurried passage was marked by fistfights and smoke bombs in the Ukrainian parliament.
[...]
Meanwhile, Yanukovych worked with and publicly encouraged Western involvement in updating Ukraine’s natural gas infrastructure and insisted again and again that “European integration is the key priority of our foreign policy.” He kept working toward European Union membership, and to that end pursued a free trade agreement with the EU as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan the West urged him to take.
[...]
To halt this drift to the West, Putin performed a one-man good-cop, bad-cop routine, offering Yanukovych a no-strings-attached loan the same size as the IMF’s, while squeezing him with what amounted to a mini–trade blockade. With the EU failing to offer anything that would match the catastrophic loss of trade with Russia that Ukraine was looking at, Yanukovych made the calculated choice to go with Moscow’s offer. In November, he abruptly reneged on the EU deal, sparking the protests that would topple him from power.

(read the whole thing for more details)

It is clear that Both the US and Russia were trying to influence Ukraine's politics. And the sore loser took the path that many sore losers do - violence.

I have a hard time supporting an idea that democracy in Ukraine is a bad goal...

[Cavebear]

It's a long read, but it seems to be decently documented.

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-prote...ato-crimea
(read the whole thing for more details)

It is clear that Both the US and Russia were trying to influence Ukraine's politics. And the sore loser took the path that many sore losers do - violence.

I wonder what horrid right-wing dictator we'll install in Ukraine that will commit humans rights abuses for 20 years

Our only hope in Eastern Europe is to support nations that are at least trying to construct/support a democratic government. They may succeed, they may not. But if we do nothing, it allows Putin to rebuild the Soviet Union, but with just him in charge. It feels strange to say, but at least in the Soviet Union there was the Politboro that kept some controls on the Premier.

[Aegon]

I wonder what horrid right-wing dictator we'll install in Ukraine that will commit humans rights abuses for 20 years

Zelinskyy the nazi jew, obviously?

Bold of you to assume he's surviving the next few years.

Whoever leads Ukraine at the end of all this will likely be a truly despicable fascist who will create significant suffering. That's usually how it goes for any country outside of North America and western Europe after the US has gotten involved.

Our only hope in Eastern Europe is to support nations that are at least trying to construct/support a democratic government. They may succeed, they may not. But if we do nothing, it allows Putin to rebuild the Soviet Union, but with just him in charge. It feels strange to say, but at least in the Soviet Union there was the Politboro that kept some controls on the Premier.

Then we can only hope the US isn't involved in the democratization process...

[Dom]

Zelinskyy the nazi jew, obviously?

Bold of you to assume he's surviving the next few years.

Whoever leads Ukraine at the end of all this will likely be a truly despicable fascist who will create significant suffering. That's usually how it goes for any country outside of North America and western Europe after the US has gotten involved.

Our only hope in Eastern Europe is to support nations that are at least trying to construct/support a democratic government.  They may succeed, they may not.  But if we do nothing, it allows Putin to rebuild the Soviet Union, but with just him in charge.  It feels strange to say, but at least in the Soviet Union there was the Politboro that kept some controls on the Premier.

Then we can only hope the US isn't involved in the democratization process...

I didn't think he would live this long, but there he is. And I think you fail as prophet. But we'll wait and see, of course.

[epronovost]

Bold of you to assume he's surviving the next few years.

Whoever leads Ukraine at the end of all this will likely be a truly despicable fascist who will create significant suffering. That's usually how it goes for any country outside of North America and western Europe after the US has gotten involved.

You are aware that the Baltic States are all functioning democracies with Estonia being more democratic than the US itself. The same can be said for many countries of the Balkan who have all become more democratic over the years with the exception of Hungary which is backsliding into dictatorship, but not because of US or Western Europe influence, but due to Russian influence and, especially, internal problems. In fact, the Eastern European countries with the least healthy democracies are those heavily influenced by Russia not the US. The US and Western Europe was extraordinarily important for the development of democracies in Eastern Europe and the Balkan. Fuck, without the US and NATO the post WWII genocides of the Balkan would have been, much, much worst. We really dodged the worst of the atrocities over there. The very idea that US involvment is bad for democracies in general is simply false. While the US did destroy democracies in Chile, Iran, Honduras and San Salvador most notably the list of countries where it help foster it is very long too: Germany's reunification, most of Eastern Europe, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, Kenya and many others.

Since 2014 and until the beginning of the war in 2022, the democratic institutions of Ukraine have improved. Yanukovich was elected in a tight election marred with cases of voter and opposition supression that made the government legitimacy inside Ukraine fragile. The elections that followed were cleaner. Corruption, a massive problem in Ukraine, has diminished from 2014 to 2022 with most of it's oligarch losing political power and wealth. The US and Western involvement in Ukraine has also grown since that date. It thus seems, that in Ukraine, US and Western Europe involvement resulted, so far, in more democratic elections, an improved economy and lower corruption. There is a big reason why "pro western" government in Ukraine are so fucking popular even before the invasion. They make for good allies.

Finally, for this whole NATO expansion thing. This is a complete non-argument. Putin did not justify his action on the ground he fears an attack from NATO country. He feared that NATO expansion would prevent Russia from building back it's empire. Eastern European country are former imperial subjects and colonies of the USSR and before that the Russian Empire and, like most colonial subjects, they suffered greatly under its boot. Like most former colonial subjects these States both fear the return of imperialism in Russia and are too weak to defend themselves or dissuade convincingly Russia thus they needed allies for their security. Russia has a long history of broken treaties that doesn't make them trusworthy especially after its invasion of Georgia which had security guaranties from Moscow and even less after the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 (now, in 2022, you would have to be idiot to trust a Russian promise of security). All the States who joined NATO post Cold War really disliked Russia and did not trust it for a second to hold its promises of security and peace. No country is owed a sphere of influence. Russia would very much like to have it's empire back, but the USSR was a disaster for the world and its population. It's agood thing it's gone and those who lived under its heel are the last one's who want to see it back even if it's under a new coat of paint.

As for the argument that Ukraine can't win the war, this is also false. They absolutely have the manpower and political willpower to win this war. They do need more weapons for that though. It's Russia who can't win this war anymore. Never will the Ukrainian accept the death of their State and Russia no longer has the equipment to take Kyiv or launch a major offensive now. They would need the disengagement of NATO aligned countries, especially the US, Germany and the UK to make another attempt at large offensive operations. As for the argument that Ukraine wants peace now and is ready to give up some territory for it, this is also completely false. Their peace plan is basically a return to the internationaly recognized frontiers of Ukraine, the procecution of Russian war crimes and war reperations. They are currently in a diplomatic offensive in Africa and South East Asia to popularize their position in these neutral States. Ukraine and Eastern European countries are not puppets and poker chips of Great Powers. They are nations filled with people who have their own history and agency. Let's not forget this.

[Deesse23]

Zelenski said in an interview that "once we reach the borders of crimea, a demilitarisation could be enforced", indicating the possibility of a political solution.

A ship with grain for Africa left Odessa for Istanbul , and is so far unharmed by russian forces, although Russia stepped out of the grain deal. Maybe someone has overplayed his cards (again)?

[Dom]

Ukraine apparently hit the bull's eye today...

[Minimalist]

Good for them.

And fuck the republiKKKunts who are rootin' for Putin.

[Dom]

 
Ukraine launched a missile attack on the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet on Friday, the latest and perhaps one of the most ambitious of Kyiv’s recent strikes on Russian military targets in Crimea.

“The enemy launched a missile attack on the headquarters of the fleet,” Sevastopol’s Russian-appointed governor Mikhail Razvozhayev said on Telegram.

Over the past month, Ukraine has stepped up attacks on Russian military bases and other installations, including air defenses, in Crimea.

Sevastopol, home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet headquarters, is one of the largest cities on the Crimean peninsula and was illegally annexed by Moscow’s forces in 2014.

Russian’s Ministry of Defense (MOD) said a Russian soldier was missing after the missile attack. The ministry had previously put out a statement that the soldier was killed as a result of the attack. They clarified in an updated statement that the soldier is missing, not killed.

[epronovost]

Zelensky made his first stop in Canada in the flesh yesterday and is leaving with a trade and military aid deal of at least 650 millions for brand new armored vehicles, new sanctions on Russia as well as fundings for mental healthcare in Ukraine. That last one is particularly important and too often neglected. This war will have left a lot of heavy scars.

[Deesse23]

Five dutch F16 have landed on an airbase near Constanta, Romania, so training of ukrainian pilots can commence.