Based Boy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2022
I don't know, have snipers kill both protesters and police officers to make the violence spiral out of control and put Kiev under martial law to prevent a coup?
DPR/LPR were allowed to station their own troops and defend themself and their own territory if needs be after Minsk-II was signed.The fuck does that mean? As mentioned earlier in the thread, the Minsk agreements did not give DPR sovereign nation status.
Here is a shitty map from Wikipedia that shows general lines of territories under each side control after Minsk-II takes effect and semi-demilitarized zone.
It is a good map to view general situation, but it does not show where Debaltseve is and overall inaccurate. I tried to pinpoint where Debaltseve would be by imposing real maps, but they are not comparable, sadly. I pointed out general area where Debaltseve could be by compering road system, administrative borders of LPR/DNR on a real map and calculating general distance from Donetsk and Luhansk to Debaltseve, but it is in no way an accurate representation. Red dot pinpoint where Debaltseve would most likely be, in my opinion.
Here is a map from Geopolitical Monitor.
It has Debaltseve on the map, but put far away from administrative borders which, in close up of the real map you would be able to see, is not correct. There are the same problems as with Wiki map, but even less things for comparison with the real map. I suppose this one openly favors Ukraine.
And here are the real map and close up on Debaltseve (screenshots taken from DuckDuckGo maps, so you can take a look there, if you wish):
From what i can understand, the whole problem with Debaltseve was improper demarcation, which led to both sides believing that Debaltseve was rightfully theirs and other side had no right to ether attack(in case of Ukraine) or be stationed there(in case of DPR/LPR).
If you can find map that was proposed in Minsk-II i would be truly grateful. I could not find it myself, for whatever reason.
It is a good map to view general situation, but it does not show where Debaltseve is and overall inaccurate. I tried to pinpoint where Debaltseve would be by imposing real maps, but they are not comparable, sadly. I pointed out general area where Debaltseve could be by compering road system, administrative borders of LPR/DNR on a real map and calculating general distance from Donetsk and Luhansk to Debaltseve, but it is in no way an accurate representation. Red dot pinpoint where Debaltseve would most likely be, in my opinion.
Here is a map from Geopolitical Monitor.
It has Debaltseve on the map, but put far away from administrative borders which, in close up of the real map you would be able to see, is not correct. There are the same problems as with Wiki map, but even less things for comparison with the real map. I suppose this one openly favors Ukraine.
And here are the real map and close up on Debaltseve (screenshots taken from DuckDuckGo maps, so you can take a look there, if you wish):
From what i can understand, the whole problem with Debaltseve was improper demarcation, which led to both sides believing that Debaltseve was rightfully theirs and other side had no right to ether attack(in case of Ukraine) or be stationed there(in case of DPR/LPR).
If you can find map that was proposed in Minsk-II i would be truly grateful. I could not find it myself, for whatever reason.
But aren't Ukraine claims to possess Crimea? What benefit it gives to them to fuck over their own citizens?Yeah, if you send troops to seize control of territory, that's an hostile action.
It's not about humanitarianism, you can't be an absolute asshole to your neighbors and expect them to do you favors.
I don't mind them giving another reason for the invasion. And solidification of pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea in response to their actions.
Not starting a war over the fact that in the future a neighboring nation will have on it's territory at least tactical nuclear weapons, modern anti-missile defense systems and military bases of your geopolitical rival when you can get away with it makes Russian state look both weak and stupid.Starting a war over the fact that in the future a neighboring nation might become impossible to invade just makes the Russian state look neurotic.
If Ukraine did not want it to happen, then they should have stayed neutral. Or at least go about it in secret.
Why ask those things if you perfectly understand them yourself?Can you do me a favor and look up how many NATO members actually have nuclear silos? How many exist in the Baltic states? How many will be built in Finland once they join?
Can you do me another favor and actually explain what fucking difference does it make to have nuclear silos in Ukraine when missiles coming over the Arctic, bombers and submarines are more than enough for mutually assured destruction and launching from Ukrainian territory doesn't add to first strike capabilities in any way?
It does add to first strike capabilities on strategic air force base of Engels and on strategic rocket force bases of Tatishchevo, Kozelsk, Yoshkar-Ola and Teykovo. Plus first attack on command centers. Also, by joining NATO Ukraine will become a host to US anti-missile systems, which will further diminish Russian nuclear strike capabilities. Also would lead to inability to effectively project power into Black Sea, which will lead to nuclear submarines staying there unopposed.