War Invasion of Ukraine News Megathread - Thread is only for articles and discussion of articles, general discussion thread is still in Happenings.

Status
Not open for further replies.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday said that the United States will impose sanctions “far beyond” the ones that the United States imposed in 2014 following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” Biden said in a White House speech, signaling a shift in his administration’s position. “We will continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates,” he added.

Russian elites and their family members will also soon face sanctions, Biden said, adding that “Russia will pay an even steeper price” if Moscow decides to push forward into Ukraine. Two Russian banks and Russian sovereign debt will also be sanctioned, he said.

Also in his speech, Biden said he would send more U.S. troops to the Baltic states as a defensive measure to strengthen NATO’s position in the area.

Russia shares a border with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

A day earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops to go into the separatist Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine after a lengthy speech in which he recognized the two regions’ independence.

Western powers decried the move and began to slap sanctions on certain Russian individuals, while Germany announced it would halt plans to go ahead with the Russia-to-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

At home, Biden is facing bipartisan pressure to take more extensive actions against Russia following Putin’s decision. However, a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that sending troops to Ukraine is a “bad idea,” and a slim minority believes it’s a good one.

All 27 European Union countries unanimously agreed on an initial list of sanctions targeting Russian authorities, said French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, and EU foreign affairs head Josep Borell claimed the package “will hurt Russia … a lot.”

Earlier Tuesday, Borell asserted that Russian troops have already entered the Donbas region, which comprises Donetsk and Lugansk, which are under the control of pro-Russia groups since 2014.

And on Tuesday, the Russian Parliament approved a Putin-back plan to use military force outside of Russia’s borders as Putin further said that Russia confirmed it would recognize the expanded borders of Lugansk and Donetsk.

“We recognized the states,” the Russian president said. “That means we recognized all of their fundamental documents, including the constitution, where it is written that their [borders] are the territories at the time the two regions were part of Ukraine.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Putin said that Ukraine is “not interested in peaceful solutions” and that “every day, they are amassing troops in the Donbas.”

Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday morning again downplayed the prospect of a Russian invasion and proclaimed: “There will be no war.”

“There will not be an all-out war against Ukraine, and there will not be a broad escalation from Russia. If there is, then we will put Ukraine on a war footing,” he said in a televised address.

The White House began to signal that they would shift their own position on whether it’s the start of an invasion.

“We think this is, yes, the beginning of an invasion, Russia’s latest invasion into Ukraine,” said Jon Finer, the White House deputy national security adviser in public remarks. “An invasion is an invasion and that is what is underway.”

For weeks, Western governments have been claiming Moscow would invade its neighbor after Russia gathered some 150,000 troops along the countries’ borders. They alleged that the Kremlin would attempt to come up with a pretext to attack, while some officials on Monday said Putin’s speech recognizing the two regions was just that.

But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Tuesday that Russia’s “latest invasion” of Ukraine is threatening stability in the region, but he asserted that Putin can “still avoid a full blown, tragic war of choice.”

Article
 
Honeslty Woopi is just retadred in nature. But I don't really understand the narrative of "Putin didn't invade Ukraine when Trump was in office because Trump was his puppet". It makes zero sense. Isn't it good to invade when you have a puppet in office since you probably won't have to worry about harsh sanctions. Instead of after your "puppet" leaves?
They would probably say that invading Ukraine while Trump was in office would make Trump look bad. Although I think it's because Trump DID threaten to nuke Moscow if they stepped one foot into Ukraine.
 
WTF I love the DSA now!

In all seriousness, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Shame the second someone on the right agrees, they'll go right back to shrieking about fascism and xenophobia.
Yeah, when they're right they're right. Shame the mainstream Dems couldn't take a lesson.
 
... and just announced ban on Russian energy imports to US


"Today I am announcing the United States is targeting the main artery of Russia's economy. We're banning all imports of Russian oil and gas and energy," Biden said in remarks from the White House. "That means Russian oil will no longer be acceptable at US ports and the American people will deal another powerful blow to Putin's war machine."
The US expected to make the move unilaterally, without its European allies, due to disagreement among European nations about whether to ban Russian energy imports. EU countries have significantly more exposure to Russian energy than the US. Not long before Biden's announcement, the United Kingdom announced that it planned to phase out Russian oil imports by the end of the year.
 
Honeslty Woopi is just retadred in nature. But I don't really understand the narrative of "Putin didn't invade Ukraine when Trump was in office because Trump was his puppet". It makes zero sense. Isn't it good to invade when you have a puppet in office since you probably won't have to worry about harsh sanctions. Instead of after your "puppet" leaves?
And Hillary Clinton did some sales of various stuffs to Russians and nobody blinked an eye.
 
1991, first McDonalds in USSR, Moscow


1646762226460.png


2022, McDonalds temporarily closes all it's 850 franchises in Russia



Detroit (AP) -- McDonald’s said Tuesday it is temporarily closing all of its 850 restaurants in Russia in response to the country's invasion of Ukraine.


The burger giant said it will continue paying its 62,000 employees in Russia “who have poured their heart and soul into our McDonald’s brand.” But in an open letter to employees, McDonald’s President and CEO Chris Kempckinski said closing those stores for now is the right thing to do.
 
They would probably say that invading Ukraine while Trump was in office would make Trump look bad. Although I think it's because Trump DID threaten to nuke Moscow if they stepped one foot into Ukraine.
That sounds even more dumb.

But Exactly Trump threatening to nuke Moscow if they invaded Ukraine. these leftie cult members don't want to belive that.
 
At this point, plenty of people will believe anything that agrees with their worldviews. If they think Putin is the good guy, then they will believe every word he says, while making apologies for every time he breaks his word.
Well, there's more context to it. Most russians, especially on the older side, have 90's PTSD, not the "Oh, it's kinda bad, but we'll make", but more like "Fuck I should save some pack of uncoocked macaronies while everyone around me are dying from drugs, alcohol and povetry". I remember how the way to school, bus stops and stairways were littered with used syringes, packs of different meds and your neighbours could cook some good old krokodil or heroin. No hope, no future, no money. And then Putin came. Life started to change slowly but surely, people started to get their paychecks, grandpas and granmas started to get their pension money, even some rules begin to work.
Of course they'd stick by Putin's side, while he was driving away any competitors. And also? Putin created us vs. them narrative and slowly began to restrict media. Georgia vs. Osetia, conflicts with USA and Ukraine back then, news were pretty... one-sided like we have them now.

Add to that Stockholm syndrom the fact that not every russian is good at English or really any other language, so they kinda closed in one space with no political competitor in sight (Navalny is considered untrustworthy by some), while sanctions keep feeding their us vs. them narrative. I believe none of them, except really fucked in the head ones, wanted this war. Russians by nature are very hardy people, they tend to endure and endure, and endure and sometimes it doesn't work in their favour. But they are afraid to lose Putin, because that 90's PTSD is still alive in their memory. At least this is what happens in barely-middle class circles outside of big cities like Moscow.
 
Even Russians prefer western brands to their own. Gee, I wonder why...........

I was in Moscow in 1990, I remember the adds and the press.

For historical context, this was the time of warming up between USSR and the west, changing times when iron curtain was falling and people of USSR could glimpse how the West lived, culture etc. This is something that was foreign to us, might as well be from Mars because Soviet press never bothered to cover what life was like outside the curtain, unless it was something bad, like unemployment, racism, economic uncertainty, union strikes, unjustice.

In part, this was a curiosity, because no equivalent of "burger" existed and the adds looked super appetizing. In part it was a taste of exclusivity because none of my friends ever tasted this. Kind of Pepse was actually bottled in USSR, as well as USSR also made Marlboro smokes, but some licensing magic. Those were stupid expensive luxury items that you could show off to your friends on special occasions.

A lot of western products used to be much higher quality too, compared to locally made things like shoes, clothing. Even Socialist countries like Bulgaria made far better shoes than Soviet Union for internal use.
 
Just found this article from back in 2014 that talks about the growing geopolitical troubles that were brewing back then in the region, using the Monroe Doctrine to explain why everything the USA was doing at the time was a bad idea. The writer probably has Cassandra Syndrome pretty bad right about now.

The US Needs to Recognize Russia’s Monroe Doctrine
The current U.S. attitude is more than a little hypocritical.

U.S. leaders once understood and accepted that strong powers would insist on a security zone and broad sphere of influence in their immediate geographic region. Indeed, as just a middling power, the United States boldly asserted such a policy with the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. The key passage warned conservative European monarchies: “We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.”

Yet, U.S. policymakers now denounce as illegitimate similar bids to establish even modest security zones by other major powers. That point is especially evident in Washington’s conduct toward Russia.

The United States and its NATO allies officially repudiate even the concept of spheres of influence, contending that it has no place in the modern international system. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, made that point explicitly in response to Moscow’s 2008 military intervention in Georgia. She scorned the notion of Russian primacy along the perimeter of the Russian Federation as the manifestation of “some archaic sphere of influence.” Secretary of State John Kerry expresses similar views. In November 2013, he even declared that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin’s unsubtle support for secessionist forces in eastern Ukraine, Kerry asserted that “you don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion” by invading a neighbor.

The current U.S. attitude is more than a little hypocritical. Contrary to Kerry’s rhetoric, the Monroe Doctrine is very much alive. Washington has intervened militarily as recently as the 1980s (Grenada and Panama) or even the 1990s (Haiti) within its traditional sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Russia’s brass knuckles tactics toward Kiev may be jarring to Western observers, but U.S. leaders need to recognize that Ukraine has long had economic and strategic relevance to Moscow. Any Russian government was bound to resent an attempt to wrench Ukraine into the West’s geopolitical orbit. And that is what Washington and its European allies did by supporting the Maidan Square demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine’s pro‐Russian, but duly elected, president, Viktor Yanukovych.

It is always a useful exercise for policymakers to view a situation as though the positions of the various parties were reversed. Imagine what the U.S. reaction would be if Russia (or any other major power) expanded a military alliance that it led and proceeded to incorporate Caribbean and Central American countries. That scenario is analogous to how a U.S.-led NATO expanded to include East European nations near or on Russia’s border. Consider further how Washington would likely react if the rival power then spoke openly of offering membership in its alliance to Canada and Mexico, and used its influence to unseat a pro‑U.S. government in one of those countries. At a minimum, U.S. officials would be screaming about a blatant violation of the Monroe Doctrine and would regard the rival power’s moves as profoundly threatening.

It is illogical to assume that Moscow should view comparable Western machinations differently. The blunt truth is that the United States and its allies intruded into a traditional Russian sphere of influence—indeed, into a zone that Moscow considers essential to national security. U.S. leaders should recognize that their conduct has violated an implicit Russian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine. The West needs to back off before it triggers what former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev aptly described in a recent speech as a new Cold War.

Indeed, such a confrontation might not remain cold. Already, Russian military aircraft and their NATO counterparts have come dangerously close. The potential for an inadvertent clash or a tragic miscalculation by one side or the other is reaching worrisome levels. There is no justification for running such risks.

Russia’s behavior toward its neighbors may be abrasive, but it is operating as major powers tend to do in their sphere of influence. U.S. leaders once understood that reality. It is unfortunate, and potentially disastrous, that our current policymakers apparently do not.
 
I was in Moscow in 1990, I remember the adds and the press.

For historical context, this was the time of warming up between USSR and the west, changing times when iron curtain was falling and people of USSR could glimpse how the West lived, culture etc. This is something that was foreign to us, might as well be from Mars because Soviet press never bothered to cover what life was like outside the curtain, unless it was something bad, like unemployment, racism, economic uncertainty, union strikes, unjustice.

In part, this was a curiosity, because no equivalent of "burger" existed and the adds looked super appetizing. In part it was a taste of exclusivity because none of my friends ever tasted this. Kind of Pepse was actually bottled in USSR, as well as USSR also made Marlboro smokes, but some licensing magic. Those were stupid expensive luxury items that you could show off to your friends on special occasions.

A lot of western products used to be much higher quality too, compared to locally made things like shoes, clothing. Even Socialist countries like Bulgaria made far better shoes than Soviet Union for internal use.
The Soviets should have allowed the debauchery of the West first to shock the Soviet people what globalhomo wanted of their kids.
 

Attachments

  • download (1) (15).jpeg
    download (1) (15).jpeg
    14.2 KB · Views: 11
E-Begging.png

Holy shit! Melodramatic cringe aside, the unprecedented levels of e-begging has been the most impressive aspect of this war so far.

Edit:
E-Grifting.png

Like a fucking clockwork. By the Emperor and the Golden Throne! Ukraine's corpse is an all you can eat buffet for all kinds of shills, grifters and Internet shysters!
 
Last edited:

McDonald's to temporarily close 850 stores in Russia​

DETROIT — McDonald’s said Tuesday it is temporarily closing all of its 850 restaurants in Russia in response to the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
The burger giant said it will continue paying its 62,000 employees in Russia “who have poured their heart and soul into our McDonald’s brand.” But in an open letter to employees, McDonald’s President and CEO Chris Kempckinski said closing those stores for now is the right thing to do.

“Our values mean we cannot ignore the needless human suffering unfolding in Ukraine,” Kempczinski said.
Kempczinski said it’s impossible to know when the company will be able to reopen its stores.
“The situation is extraordinarily challenging for a global brand like ours, and there are many considerations,” Kempczinski wrote in the letter. McDonald’s works with hundreds of Russian suppliers, for example, and serves millions of customers each day.


McDonald’s has also temporarily closed 108 restaurants in Ukraine and continues to pay those employees.

McDonald’s could take a big financial hit because of the closures. In a recent regulatory filing, the Chicago-based company said its restaurants in Russia and Ukraine contributed 9% of its annual revenue, or around $2 billion.
Unlike other big fast food brands in Russia that are owned by franchisees __ including KFC, Pizza Hut, Starbucks and Burger King __ McDonald’s owns 84% of its Russian locations.
Yum Brands, the parent company of KFC and Pizza Hut, said Monday that it is donating all of the profits from its 1,050 restaurants in Russia to humanitarian efforts. It has also suspended new restaurant development in the country. Starbucks has said it is also donating profits from its 130 Russian stores to humanitarian efforts.


McDonald’s said Tuesday it has donated more than $5 million to its employee assistance fund and to relief efforts. It has also parked a Ronald McDonald House Charities mobile medical care unit at the Polish border with Ukraine; another mobile care unit is en route to the border in Latvia, the company said.
Pressure has been mounting for McDonald’s and other companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo that remain in Russia to pull out. Many corporations have ceased operations in the country in protest of the Ukraine invasion. Among them is consumer goods conglomerate Unilever, which on Tuesday said it has suspended all imports and exports of its products into and out of Russia, and that it will not invest any further capital into the country.
Last week, New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli __ a trustee of the state’s pension fund, which is a McDonald’s investor __ sent a letter to McDonald’s urging it to consider pausing its operations in Russia.
“We believe that companies that continue to operate in Russia and invest in Russian assets face significant and growing legal, compliance, operational, human rights and personnel and reputational risks,” DiNapoli wrote.

Link to the article.
 
Just found this article from back in 2014 that talks about the growing geopolitical troubles that were brewing back then in the region, using the Monroe Doctrine to explain why everything the USA was doing at the time was a bad idea. The writer probably has Cassandra Syndrome pretty bad right about now.

The US Needs to Recognize Russia’s Monroe Doctrine
The current U.S. attitude is more than a little hypocritical.

U.S. leaders once understood and accepted that strong powers would insist on a security zone and broad sphere of influence in their immediate geographic region. Indeed, as just a middling power, the United States boldly asserted such a policy with the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. The key passage warned conservative European monarchies: “We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.”

Yet, U.S. policymakers now denounce as illegitimate similar bids to establish even modest security zones by other major powers. That point is especially evident in Washington’s conduct toward Russia.

The United States and its NATO allies officially repudiate even the concept of spheres of influence, contending that it has no place in the modern international system. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, made that point explicitly in response to Moscow’s 2008 military intervention in Georgia. She scorned the notion of Russian primacy along the perimeter of the Russian Federation as the manifestation of “some archaic sphere of influence.” Secretary of State John Kerry expresses similar views. In November 2013, he even declared that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin’s unsubtle support for secessionist forces in eastern Ukraine, Kerry asserted that “you don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion” by invading a neighbor.

The current U.S. attitude is more than a little hypocritical. Contrary to Kerry’s rhetoric, the Monroe Doctrine is very much alive. Washington has intervened militarily as recently as the 1980s (Grenada and Panama) or even the 1990s (Haiti) within its traditional sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Russia’s brass knuckles tactics toward Kiev may be jarring to Western observers, but U.S. leaders need to recognize that Ukraine has long had economic and strategic relevance to Moscow. Any Russian government was bound to resent an attempt to wrench Ukraine into the West’s geopolitical orbit. And that is what Washington and its European allies did by supporting the Maidan Square demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine’s pro‐Russian, but duly elected, president, Viktor Yanukovych.

It is always a useful exercise for policymakers to view a situation as though the positions of the various parties were reversed. Imagine what the U.S. reaction would be if Russia (or any other major power) expanded a military alliance that it led and proceeded to incorporate Caribbean and Central American countries. That scenario is analogous to how a U.S.-led NATO expanded to include East European nations near or on Russia’s border. Consider further how Washington would likely react if the rival power then spoke openly of offering membership in its alliance to Canada and Mexico, and used its influence to unseat a pro‑U.S. government in one of those countries. At a minimum, U.S. officials would be screaming about a blatant violation of the Monroe Doctrine and would regard the rival power’s moves as profoundly threatening.

It is illogical to assume that Moscow should view comparable Western machinations differently. The blunt truth is that the United States and its allies intruded into a traditional Russian sphere of influence—indeed, into a zone that Moscow considers essential to national security. U.S. leaders should recognize that their conduct has violated an implicit Russian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine. The West needs to back off before it triggers what former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev aptly described in a recent speech as a new Cold War.

Indeed, such a confrontation might not remain cold. Already, Russian military aircraft and their NATO counterparts have come dangerously close. The potential for an inadvertent clash or a tragic miscalculation by one side or the other is reaching worrisome levels. There is no justification for running such risks.

Russia’s behavior toward its neighbors may be abrasive, but it is operating as major powers tend to do in their sphere of influence. U.S. leaders once understood that reality. It is unfortunate, and potentially disastrous, that our current policymakers apparently do not.
I think bringing up the Monroe Doctrine when that was specifically the US saying that they would oppose the colonial expansion of European powers by military force. Even then, colonial powers like the UK continued to dominate their external trade - for instance with Mexico - and the US did not declare war on them. The Ukraine choosing to align to the West is not a case of US or European meddling, it's what the Ukrainian people want.

With that said, it is fair to say that the US is being hypocritical if directly comparing modern russia with the US of the cold war, due to the predatory behaviour of the US in South and Central America. However, it's been 61 years since the Bay of Pigs, for example, so continuing to call a nation hypocritical for that is kinda dumb.
 
Just found this article from back in 2014 that talks about the growing geopolitical troubles that were brewing back then in the region, using the Monroe Doctrine to explain why everything the USA was doing at the time was a bad idea. The writer probably has Cassandra Syndrome pretty bad right about now.

The US Needs to Recognize Russia’s Monroe Doctrine
The current U.S. attitude is more than a little hypocritical.

U.S. leaders once understood and accepted that strong powers would insist on a security zone and broad sphere of influence in their immediate geographic region. Indeed, as just a middling power, the United States boldly asserted such a policy with the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. The key passage warned conservative European monarchies: “We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.”

Yet, U.S. policymakers now denounce as illegitimate similar bids to establish even modest security zones by other major powers. That point is especially evident in Washington’s conduct toward Russia.

The United States and its NATO allies officially repudiate even the concept of spheres of influence, contending that it has no place in the modern international system. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, made that point explicitly in response to Moscow’s 2008 military intervention in Georgia. She scorned the notion of Russian primacy along the perimeter of the Russian Federation as the manifestation of “some archaic sphere of influence.” Secretary of State John Kerry expresses similar views. In November 2013, he even declared that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin’s unsubtle support for secessionist forces in eastern Ukraine, Kerry asserted that “you don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion” by invading a neighbor.

The current U.S. attitude is more than a little hypocritical. Contrary to Kerry’s rhetoric, the Monroe Doctrine is very much alive. Washington has intervened militarily as recently as the 1980s (Grenada and Panama) or even the 1990s (Haiti) within its traditional sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Russia’s brass knuckles tactics toward Kiev may be jarring to Western observers, but U.S. leaders need to recognize that Ukraine has long had economic and strategic relevance to Moscow. Any Russian government was bound to resent an attempt to wrench Ukraine into the West’s geopolitical orbit. And that is what Washington and its European allies did by supporting the Maidan Square demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine’s pro‐Russian, but duly elected, president, Viktor Yanukovych.

It is always a useful exercise for policymakers to view a situation as though the positions of the various parties were reversed. Imagine what the U.S. reaction would be if Russia (or any other major power) expanded a military alliance that it led and proceeded to incorporate Caribbean and Central American countries. That scenario is analogous to how a U.S.-led NATO expanded to include East European nations near or on Russia’s border. Consider further how Washington would likely react if the rival power then spoke openly of offering membership in its alliance to Canada and Mexico, and used its influence to unseat a pro‑U.S. government in one of those countries. At a minimum, U.S. officials would be screaming about a blatant violation of the Monroe Doctrine and would regard the rival power’s moves as profoundly threatening.

It is illogical to assume that Moscow should view comparable Western machinations differently. The blunt truth is that the United States and its allies intruded into a traditional Russian sphere of influence—indeed, into a zone that Moscow considers essential to national security. U.S. leaders should recognize that their conduct has violated an implicit Russian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine. The West needs to back off before it triggers what former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev aptly described in a recent speech as a new Cold War.

Indeed, such a confrontation might not remain cold. Already, Russian military aircraft and their NATO counterparts have come dangerously close. The potential for an inadvertent clash or a tragic miscalculation by one side or the other is reaching worrisome levels. There is no justification for running such risks.

Russia’s behavior toward its neighbors may be abrasive, but it is operating as major powers tend to do in their sphere of influence. U.S. leaders once understood that reality. It is unfortunate, and potentially disastrous, that our current policymakers apparently do not.

I'd like to address one key point for the 2014 so called US meddling, since it seems to be the corner stone for all the theories about US funded "coup". My thesis is that US had done shit to cause or steer it and it was driven by the younger generation of Ukrainians, who were exposed to better life in the west, and had no desire to go back to USSR times.

I was in Kiev in the fall of 2013, have family there, friends, so I know the state of mind fairly well, just prior to the unrest. As to all western Slav experts, as a lithmus test, you may ask if they can explain the photo from Maidaners wearing pasta strainers on their heads. If they can't they probably don't know much about the protests to throw judgement around.

I have not seen any tangible evidence that people at the protests have received money or were directed. Also, when you look for that evidence, look for timestamps as it was fluid situation. As usual, Western politicians sperg about "muh democracy" but in practical terms can't offer anything but 5000 used helmets when asked for help.

I can tell you that 3% theory is proven time and again, when small minority can cause change. In this case, "election" of pro-Russian puppet Yanuk was an indication how older generations felt. The younger generation, futbol fans (right sector) had fairly good view of the west and its prosperity as well as stagnation in Russia. It's a no brainer decision.

The protests were sparked by Yanuk signing the Russian Taiga customs union, not some CIA directive. As usual, the confrontation led to 100% tried and true scenario of power escalation and I know of no shills risking their life and limb on Maidan for pay. In fact, the leaked phone convo between US officials supports that as US had no idea how react to this after the fact.

As to other facts. Yanuk fled to Russia amid growing calls to find responsible for killed protesters. He fled on his own accord. That's a fact not even Russia disputes.


This is just a great example how directly or indirectly Russia is causing all the problems that they accuse the West of. Same with Maidan in 2014, same with Donbass/Crimea, same with invasion of 2022. Ukrainians went from 20% wanting to join NATO before 2014 to over 60% after. This is no one's fault but Russia's. Same is with Finland wanting to follow the suit. Russia, if they can, only need to look into the mirror to find the culprit of all their misfortunes.
 
This is just a great example how directly or indirectly Russia is causing all the problems that they accuse the West of. Same with Maidan in 2014, same with Donbass/Crimea, same with invasion of 2022. Ukrainians went from 20% wanting to join NATO before 2014 to over 60% after. This is no one's fault but Russia's. Same is with Finland wanting to follow the suit. Russia, if they can, only need to look into the mirror to find the culprit of all their misfortunes.

That has been the Russian strategy for over 300 years, "invade your neighbors and incorporate it to create a bigger buffer zone". And it had worked fine until the Soviets in Afghanistan, they don't see the need to change strategy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back