Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread - Episode III - Revenge of the Ruski (now unlocked with new skins and gameplay modes!!!)

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Nuland said: "Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine's European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals." Nuland said the United States will continue to "promote Ukraine to the future it deserves." 2013

The difference between you and me is that you're so far in the conspirological weeds that for you nothing can be just as it appears on the surface anymore.
I read and see intention to help Ukraine build more prosperous country, undoubtedly to America's benefit as well (such as having access to Ukraine's natural resources through trade).
You read it and see clandestine efforts to undermine Ukraine and turn it into a puppet state to threaten Russia.

What fucking reforms? The basis of the conflict with eastern Ukraine began with the fight against the Russian ethnicity with which the eastern Ukrainians associated themselves, in addition to the fact that their representative was unconstitutionally thrown out of office.Mass protests were almost all over Ukraine demanding a new referendum, to which Turchinov, the acting president, responded with violence.

Putin doesn't represent me and my interests, how do we go about it? The person who could he threw in prison to rot on trumped up charges, and that's the fate of everyone who threatens his position.

By the way, that whole ethnic purge bullshit is a straight up lie. There was friction for sure, but: a) They weren't systemic; b) They weren't irreconcilable; c) They weren't common. To say that Russian invasion was the only solution doesn't make you look reasonable in the least.
As well as the fact that you refuse to entertain the possibility that Euromaidan protests were organic, but see anti-Maidan ones as true and honest, determining factor being your own bias.

You think you're clever, but you're probably new to the vatnikdom as a Westerner (I presume). I've been having these talks with genuine articles for years now at home, before you even found out there was such a thing as Ukraine.

 

[AgendaPoster]

The difference between you and me is that you're so far in the conspirological weeds that for you nothing can be just as it appears on the surface anymore.
I read and see intention to help Ukraine build more prosperous country, undoubtedly to America's benefit as well (such as having access to Ukraine's natural resources through trade).
You read it and see clandestine efforts to undermine Ukraine and turn it into a puppet state to threaten Russia.

Putin doesn't represent me and my interests, how do we go about it? The person who could he threw in prison to rot on trumped up charges, and that's the fate of everyone who threatens his position.

It's extremely possible that neither US nor Russia care about Ukraine's wellbeing and prosperity and that geography and history are simply having their way with this poor country, like it's usually the case with buffer areas where imperial desires converge.
The fact that Russia is doing this shit now does not make the US into a benevolent country, although yes, for some parts of the world, it is the lesser evil by far. For now.
I don't think it should be controversial to state that the US has an interest into weakening Russia too. And Russia has an interest in weakening the US. We need not see this in terms of morality or evil vs good. Such binaries are for propagandists and simple minded useful idiots. Instead, power, resources and scarcity.
---
Anyway, I see that the jannitorial action on the Ukraine uncomfy happening is resulting in the merger of the discussion here, instead of thread separation based on who you side with.
Since I proposed it for like 15 times, I see this as a good move, although I am sure the motives behind it are not the ones I wanted it to happen.
Since articles are usually boring and fewer than opinions, I assume the other thread will slowly die, and most people there will not engage here too much.
We shall see...

 

[Fait Accompli]

It's extremely possible that neither US nor Russia care about Ukraine's wellbeing and prosperity and that geography and history are simply having their way with this poor country, like it's usually the case with buffer areas where imperial desires converge.
The fact that Russia is doing this shit now does not make the US into a benevolent country, although yes, for some parts of the world, it is the lesser evil by far. For now.
I don't think it should be controversial to state that the US has an interest into weakening Russia too. And Russia has an interest in weakening the US. We need not see this in terms of morality or evil vs good. Such binaries are for propagandists and simple minded useful idiots. Instead, power, resources and scarcity.
---
Anyway, I see that the jannitorial action on the Ukraine uncomfy happening is resulting in the merger of the discussion here, instead of thread separation based on who you side with.
Since I proposed it for like 15 times, I see this as a good move, although I am sure the motives behind it are not the ones I wanted it to happen.
Since articles are usually boring and fewer than opinions, I assume the other thread will slowly die, and most people there will not engage here too much.
We shall see...

Sounds realistic, im not with the crowd that think the US has planned this all to weaken Russia, its all just reactive to gain as much from this as possible. And its not the west doing this because of purely humanitarian reasons, i think its a mix. Showing that the west will defend and strengthen the individual and democracy, but at the same time using this narrative to demilitarize Russia at a fraction of a cost a real war would cost. The west has already completed several objectives, Russia has lost a majority of its professional army, half of its combat ready vehicle fleet and lost alot of economical trade routes.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Sounds realistic, im not with the crowd that think the US has planned this all to weaken Russia, its all just reactive to gain as much from this as possible. And its not the west doing this because of purely humanitarian reasons, i think its a mix. Showing that the west will defend and strengthen the individual and democracy, but at the same time using this narrative to demilitarize Russia at a fraction of a cost a real war would cost. The west has already completed several objectives, Russia has lost a majority of its professional army, half of its combat ready vehicle fleet and lost alot of economical trade routes.

Nobody really cares about democracy and individuals. Everything is power dynamics. Ideologies are all just a cover for the eternal competition for resources. Even the most progressive ones (in their "charter", at least), like socialism and various flavors of progressivism/liberalism are easily exposed during events like the pandemic or the BLM chimpout.
Western desires are also exposed when they back dictators up when it fits their geopolitical goals, so we do know pretty well that it's all realpolitik.
Ideally, this means that more and more people will stop lying and instead recognize that they have a vested interest in power and resources belonging to them and the groups they belong to, and that their competition, i.e. enemies, is kept weak and incapable.
I know this is cynical, but I don't think it's false.

 

[Napoleon Bonerfart]

It will take over 6 momths to train them to NATO tank crew standards. Even then, 10 isn't going to do a danf thing.

At the current rate of progress, Russia would take 3 years just to occupy a single Oblast. Ukraine has some time.

 

[Fait Accompli]

Nobody really cares about democracy and individuals. Everything is power dynamics. Ideologies are all just a cover for the eternal competition for resources. Even the most progressive ones (in their "charter", at least), like socialism and various flavors of progressivism/liberalism are easily exposed during events like the pandemic or the BLM chimpout.
Western desires are also exposed when they back dictators up when it fits their geopolitical goals, so we do know pretty well that it's all realpolitik.
Ideally, this means that more and more people will stop lying and instead recognize that they have a vested interest in power and resources belonging to them and the groups they belong to, and that their competition, i.e. enemies, is kept weak and incapable.
I know this is cynical, but I don't think it's false.

In geopolitics, i can agree that democracy and individualism plays a lesser role, especially when it comes to hard power. But in my experience, lots of people see this as a fight for democracy and individulism against authoritarian oligarchy. Some people i've talked to extrapolate this to include nations like China, Iran, North Korea. Bloc against bloc, cold war style.

I dont think that western leaders see this as a liberation fight for the individual freedom, its mostly a screen to convince their population. But boiled down, its a conflict between agreements, democracy, soft power and individualism versus oligarchy, authoritiansim and hard power. Knowing what we know now, i doubt any side would start this conflict as it has been very destructive for both sides. I think that the west has taken the punch and now want to realize the punch against Russia, so that they can focus on China. Conventially, Russia has suffered an enormous blow to their trade and especially their military. All it took was bankrolling Ukraine and supplying them with ( mostly ) reserve/outdated equipment. A win for the west militarily

Russia and Ukraine is a corrupted clusterfuck, Russia relies on their military might and primitive energy extraction ( kind of like the african nations, but more powerful ) to get their way. If Russia was ruled optimally, they could have used their enormous supplies of natural resources to build a strong versatile economy and used this to expand their influence, soft power style. Instead, alot of the money gets stolen by the corrupt oligarchs, and the mismanaged ( but large ) Russian military invade neighbouring countries to keep the region in line with overwhelming artillery and air power, this is though very short-sigthed. Russia has already lost the long game, now its up to the west and Ukraine to decide how much of their comfy lifestyle they are willing to sacrifice to destroy Russian capabilities.

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

It's extremely possible that neither US nor Russia care about Ukraine's wellbeing and prosperity and that geography and history are simply having their way with this poor country, like it's usually the case with buffer areas where imperial desires converge.
The fact that Russia is doing this shit now does not make the US into a benevolent country, although yes, for some parts of the world, it is the lesser evil by far. For now.
I don't think it should be controversial to state that the US has an interest into weakening Russia too. And Russia has an interest in weakening the US. We need not see this in terms of morality or evil vs good. Such binaries are for propagandists and simple minded useful idiots. Instead, power, resources and scarcity.
---
Anyway, I see that the jannitorial action on the Ukraine uncomfy happening is resulting in the merger of the discussion here, instead of thread separation based on who you side with.
Since I proposed it for like 15 times, I see this as a good move, although I am sure the motives behind it are not the ones I wanted it to happen.
Since articles are usually boring and fewer than opinions, I assume the other thread will slowly die, and most people there will not engage here too much.
We shall see...

I'm not naive to think that these things are done out of sheer altruism. But sometimes doing something good happens to be selfishly beneficial.
USSR fell apart and US rushed to secure allies in the region by building relationships and investing money, it only makes sense. Russia was doing the same thing all along, they were playing the same game and started throwing toys out of the pram when they lost, hence military escalation. They did it because they knew they would get away with it, they attacked Ukraine because it was defenseless, most importantly while it still was.

If we accept the premise that Ukraine is important as a buffer between Europe and Russia, russiaboos should at the very least admit that NATO has as much vested interest here as Russia, and that it shouldn't be outrageous that they were open to Ukraine joining the alliance and encouraged their integration in the EU, while Russia tried to keep them in their sphere of influence.
Let's not act that just because USSR formally dissolved, all that made it adversarial to the West magically disappeared. It has not. The power was inherited by former USSR functionaries, with the country being ruled by former intelligence officer of KGB for almost its entire post-USSR history who expressed regret about its dissolution and desire to remedy that, no less.
Perhaps both sides were justified in being wary of the other. The fight for influence might've been inevitable. But it was Russia who resorted to violence in this matter and unleashed pandemonium. This is what I have a problem with.

Putin portrays it as a preemptive strike against NATO, like it was necessary to do as soon as possible, with the unfounded assumption that NATO was going to attack Russia if we don't. It's absurd, which NATO's unwillingness all along to respond to Russia in kind supports. No one wants to get tangled up in a nuclear dick measuring again.
If you say that it would've happened long term, then Russia had ample time to come up with another solution. But I don't believe it either way. If nukes is what's stopping them now, I don't see how that would change in coming decades if not century. Explain this to me.

In geopolitics, i can agree that democracy and individualism plays a lesser role, especially when it comes to hard power. But in my experience, lots of people see this as a fight for democracy and individulism against authoritarian oligarchy. Some people i've talked to extrapolate this to include nations like China, Iran, North Korea. Bloc against bloc, cold war style.

I dont think that western leaders see this as a liberation fight for the individual freedom, its mostly a screen to convince their population. But boiled down, its a conflict between agreements, democracy, soft power and individualism versus oligarchy, authoritiansim and hard power. Knowing what we know now, i doubt any side would start this conflict as it has been very destructive for both sides. I think that the west has taken the punch and now want to realize the punch against Russia, so that they can focus on China. Conventially, Russia has suffered an enormous blow to their trade and especially their military. All it took was bankrolling Ukraine and supplying them with ( mostly ) reserve/outdated equipment. A win for the west militarily

Russia and Ukraine is a corrupted clusterfuck, Russia relies on their military might and primitive energy extraction ( kind of like the african nations, but more powerful ) to get their way. If Russia was ruled optimally, they could have used their enormous supplies of natural resources to build a strong versatile economy and used this to expand their influence, soft power style. Instead, alot of the money gets stolen by the corrupt oligarchs, and the mismanaged ( but large ) Russian military invade neighbouring countries to keep the region in line with overwhelming artillery and air power, this is though very short-sigthed. Russia has already lost the long game, now its up to the west and Ukraine to decide how much of their comfy lifestyle they are willing to sacrifice to destroy Russian capabilities.

Soft power VS hard power, I thought something along these lines just now. I would've preferred to live in Russia that pursued soft power and exerted influence through a developed economy instead, but this kleptocratic abomination of a government is incapable of building such a thing. Siloviki that seized power are mostly versed in exploitation and oppression, which is rather ironic considering Russia's communist past and aspirations.
And it fucking blows.

 

[White_N]

Putin doesn't represent me and my interests, how do we go about it?

I don't know you, and I don't care to know you. I have no idea why you bring up Putin. I was talking about Yanukovych, who was consistently elected by the pro-Russian east and overthrown by pro-western nationalists. Who would have guessed that would lead to problems?

By the way, that whole ethnic purge bullshit is a straight up lie. There was friction for sure, but: a) They weren't systemic; b) They weren't irreconcilable; c) They weren't common.

Nah dude that's bullshit, mowing people by tanks because in the bright ukrainian future there in no russians was pretty much a docctrine. Hell they made Mariupol the base of Azov to terrorize locals.

To say that Russian invasion was the only solution doesn't make you look reasonable in the least.

Oh, if only there was an alternative...

https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/11/the-minsk-agreements-and-merkels-political-amnesia/

Minsk deal was used to buy time – Ukraine’s Poroshenko

https://thepressunited.com/updates/minsk-deal-was-used-to-buy-time-ukraines-poroshenko/

 

[Ancient Pioneer]

Alright, glad you're informed. Whether its more of the same or not, it comes from key figures within the western military. I just thought it would be interesting to share, atleast its better than most of these posts that are just throwing pies at eachother. Kindly pick apart or choose a part where you disagree and lets discuss it

While its a nice post I would caution you from believing the claims about Russian KIA or casualties. The British put on a flair that they know what they're talking about, but as we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq, they're absolutely incompetent just like the American intelligence, the intelligence community signal boosts sources they like and ignore ones they dislike hearing, this leads to massive detachment from reality given a long enough timeline, and yes, literal fucking newspaper articles are considered "sources" to them. Stuff like "this armored division is moving here" or "there is xyz amount of troops in this area given what we've seen from this aerial video footage" are large tangible things they can't fuck up, but when they start talking about intent of individuals and speculating about stuff such as what damage was done in a tactical level just ignore it. Also Russia is a complex democracy just like the ones in the West, probably a bit "too complex" given that they're still trying to untangle the byzantine mess of legal hurdles over this "Special Military Operation." which explains their reluctance to conduct strategic bombing campaigns until 7-9 months into the war.

Its clear that initiative has returned to the Russian side after Surovikin cleaned up the fucking mess by dropping unproductive fronts like Kherson, there also seems to be some real observation that Russia has learned what serious flaws it has with its military in a rubber hits the road moment and is trying to correct them, unfortunately for the troops on the ground some of these changes wont see real tangible benefits this war, maybe even 10-20 years from now. Some of the problems are cultural and the US bashed its head against this wall dealing with the IA and ANA over the years. What requires a Sergeant in the US military requires a Major, what requires a Major requires a Colonel, almost everything gets bogged down into waiting games because shit doesn't self correct without a heavy dose of supervision by people way too high in the command for such shit. Having a NCO-centric military is something that is unique to the West and even then, some still don't manage it well.

 

[Fait Accompli]

While its a nice post I would caution you from believing the claims about Russian KIA or casualties. The British put on a flair that they know what they're talking about, but as we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq, they're absolutely incompetent just like the American intelligence, the intelligence community signal boosts sources they like and ignore ones they dislike hearing, this leads to massive detachment from reality given a long enough timeline, and yes, literal fucking newspaper articles are considered "sources" to them. Stuff like "this armored division is moving here" or "there is xyz amount of troops in this area given what we've seen from this aerial video footage" are large tangible things they can't fuck up, but when they start talking about intent of individuals and speculating about stuff such as what damage was done in a tactical level just ignore it. Also Russia is a complex democracy just like the ones in the West, probably a bit "too complex" given that they're still trying to untangle the byzantine mess of legal hurdles over this "Special Military Operation." which explains their reluctance to conduct strategic bombing campaigns until 7-9 months into the war.

Its clear that initiative has returned to the Russian side after Surovikin cleaned up the fucking mess by dropping unproductive fronts like Kherson, there also seems to be some real observation that Russia has learned what serious flaws it has with its military in a rubber hits the road moment and is trying to correct them, unfortunately for the troops on the ground some of these changes wont see real tangible benefits this war, maybe even 10-20 years from now. Some of the problems are cultural and the US bashed its head against this wall dealing with the IA and ANA over the years. What requires a Sergeant in the US military requires a Major, what requires a Major requires a Colonel, almost everything gets bogged down into waiting games because shit doesn't self correct without a heavy dose of supervision by people way too high in the command for such shit. Having a NCO-centric military is something that is unique to the West and even then, some still don't manage it well.

I can agree with that Surovkin sorted some of the madness that was russian doctrine, i can also agree that western analysts arent precise when it comes to casualites. It was more a curiosity to know what the western analysts had in mind.

But the Russians arent better, in my mind they are at best comparitable with western intelligence and at worst completely retarded. What i have found is that no side have no idea ( or knows, but are reluctant to share for the public ) when it comes to losses. All we can use are anecdotal sources, geolocated sources and general military logic.

Depends how you define initiative, i can agree that Russia at this moment has more iniative than Ukraine. But i think its quite 50/50. Wagner scored a success in Soledar, thats it. Ukraine scored some success near Kreminna, but the last month it has been quiet with a stalemate. I see it more that Russia has turned the month long Ukraine initiavtie to a stalemate.

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

Nah dude that's bullshit, mowing people by tanks because in the bright ukrainian future there in no russians was pretty much a docctrine. Hell they made Mariupol the base of Azov to terrorize locals.

> 2014
> Pro-Russian militants
So it's just a failed attempt by Russian cells to take over like they did in so-called LNR and DNR, which just so happened to coincide along with the annexation of Crimea as Russia activated their assets all over Eastern Ukraine. Like I said, you won't be able to bullshit me.
Same goes for the rest of your drivel, by the way.

Yeah, Ukraine needed military for the same reason Russia claims they need Ukraine - security. At the time when Russia is fueling separatism on their territory and have annexed an important region of the country, violating previous agreement regarding Ukraine's sovereignty. The writing was on the wall.
You seriously think that after facing Russia's aggression they were supposed to just sit and wait to find out whether they would honor their word, after demonstrating that said word means fuck all?
Besides, Minks agreement doesn't say that Ukraine isn't allowed to have a military or that they couldn't grow it, genius.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Putin portrays it as a preemptive strike against NATO, like it was necessary to do as soon as possible, with the unfounded assumption that NATO was going to attack Russia if we don't. It's absurd, which NATO's unwillingness all along to respond to Russia in kind supports. No one wants to get tangled up in a nuclear dick measuring again.
If you say that it would've happened long term, then Russia had ample time to come up with another solution. But I don't believe it either way. If nukes is what's stopping them now, I don't see how that would change in coming decades if not century. Explain this to me.

Soft power VS hard power, I thought something along these lines just now. I would've preferred to live in Russia that pursued soft power and exerted influence through a developed economy instead, but this kleptocratic abomination of a government is incapable of building such a thing. Siloviki that seized power are mostly versed in exploitation and oppression, which is rather ironic considering Russia's communist past and aspirations.
And it fucking blows.

All I can say is that I understand the frustration and deeply empathize, and that you should be very careful and focus on staying safe at all times, never underestimate the hatred you'd face as a Russian opposing Z if you get exposed. I'd be livid if I woke up to some chimp out military endeavor against Hungary or Poland or something, hard to imagine how unpatriotic my feelings would be for such a thing if it happened where I live.
As for Putin, he has to repackage the whole thing for internal consumption. After seeing what his propagandists and media figures have to say, Putin literally seems the lesser evil. Soft power worked quite well too, he was stupid to get provoked into this adventure. But that's history now.

 

[Ancient Pioneer]

I can agree with that Surovkin sorted some of the madness that was russian doctrine, i can also agree that western analysts arent precise when it comes to casualites. It was more a curiosity to know what the western analysts had in mind.

Its nothing complex, Surovkin just stopped and asked "what the fuck are we doing at this particular moment and where do we plan to go?" from there its a natural consequence to abandon Kherson when you have zero intention of progressing onward to Odessa in 2022, 2023, or ever. The Russian General Staff just seem to have been moving entirely off of inertia and nobody was tendering serious questions about the integrity of the lines. The Germans did this exact stunt in 1915 after the Schlieffen Plan sputtered out, withdrawals to better defensive ground, straightening the lines out, sorting logistics. Its shit "unsexy" work but its the most important thing that can be done. Once it was done I think everyone has noticed a massive uptick in Ukrainian casualties and a sharp reduction in Russian casualties.

But the Russians arent better, in my mind they are at best comparitable with western intelligence and at worst completely retarded. What i have found is that no side have no idea ( or knows, but are reluctant to share for the public ) when it comes to losses. All we can use are anecdotal sources, geolocated sources and general military logic.

Agreed

Depends how you define initiative, i can agree that Russia at this moment has more iniative than Ukraine. But i think its quite 50/50. Wagner scored a success in Soledar, thats it. Ukraine scored some success near Kreminna, but the last month it has been quiet with a stalemate. I see it more that Russia has turned the month long Ukraine initiavtie to a stalemate.

The Ukrainian footage has switched from laughable shit like farmers stealing tanks and other military equipment, Russian vehicles foundered in mud and casualties all over from ATGM strikes. Now Ukranian footage is limited to minor shit like catching several Russians offguard and gunning them down when they have shit cover, consumer drone grenade attacks or a drone recording a HIMAR attack. Russia has sorted out the clown car shit and its reflective in the video footage, now we see insane videos like buildings with 10-20 dead Ukranians piled up into corpse mounds and hanging off windows nonstop, this isn't just limited to Soledar either, its coming from most of the hot spots.

 

[🇷🇺Fuck Ukraine🇷🇺]

Well the UK's solution to population decline was importing Indians en mass. They breed like rabbits, and are as ruthless with money as the Jewiest Jew. They even took over the British national dish. The Mayor of London and the Prime Minister are from the ex-colony of India.

I thought it was more of the towel head niggers from Pakistan? London is predominantly muslim now, also they infest most of the country even in the fucking shithole sump of the north east england.

You mean occupiers? I know you're a simp for Russia, but atleast be honest about their success

Check the accounts given by Greek refugees on their return to Greece about their treatment by the Ukratards then their treatment under the Russians. Liberated is the correct term.

 

[Fait Accompli]

The Ukrainian footage has switched from laughable shit like farmers stealing tanks and other military equipment, Russian vehicles foundered in mud and casualties all over from ATGM strikes. Now Ukranian footage is limited to minor shit like catching several Russians offguard and gunning them down when they have shit cover, consumer drone grenade attacks or a drone recording a HIMAR attack. Russia has sorted out the clown car shit and its reflective in the video footage, now we see insane videos like buildings with 10-20 dead Ukranians piled up into corpse mounds and hanging off windows nonstop, this isn't just limited to Soledar either, its coming from most of the hot spots.

But we also see multiple videos of drone strikes on russians position, HIMARS strikes on russian bases, russian POW's marching.
Sure, the NAFO crowd see this as Ukraine owning russians. They're retarded, just as the pro-russian crowd

In general, we see both sides conducting drone strikes and precision missile strikes. This makes me feel that it has gone from Ukrainian initiative to a stalemate where both sides are destroying eachother equally. Your post kind of confirms this

Russias best scenario is freezing the front, taking Donbass and creating a stalemate. Far from their initial goals, but would be good in their situation. Neither side has the capability for large scale offensives, the west are lobbying for a western transfer on heavy equipment, they've seen some positive response on this front but we'll see if it comes to fruition. IF the west commits entirely for the first time when it comes to large scale modern platforms, i think that Russia is doomed, militarily

 

[🇷🇺Fuck Ukraine🇷🇺]

They wanted to topple the capital and occupy it. Everyone thought they would. Including everyone in this thread. Biden offered their president a lift. No one thought Ukraine would last a month. Whether or not Russia would install a puppet government we’ll never know because they underperformed. It’s embarrassing for the supposed second most powerful military to slowly grind it out against a fifth rate power aided by trannies.

Let me rephrase it, I dislike the hypocrisy of crying over American adventurism while cheerleading for Russian and/or Chinese expansionism.

I don't think that was the plan at all. That is an imperialist mindset held by the US. It's been proven repeatedly that the Russian heirarchy doesn't think the same way as their western counterparts.

Also, attempted installation of a government isn't adventurism, it is imperialism. The US have proceeded to do this to multiple countries on false premises (Iraq WMD's for one) or because it challenged their hegemony (Libya - attempts to create a fiat currency). Russia's military response isn't expansionism, US backed Maidan coup overthrew a legitimately elected government because it was friendly to Russia.

Merkel and the previous French president have both confirmed that the Minsk agreements were specifically to buy time to build up UKR forces and arm them. Then, from 2014, the UKR neo-nazis proceeded to terrorise ethic Russians in the four regions liberated by Russia. Russia choice was to allow it to happen then have NATO park weapon systems on their border capable of launching on Moscow or push back using the only language they understand, violence.

 

[Fait Accompli]

I don't think that was the plan at all. That is an imperialist mindset held by the US. It's been proven repeatedly that the Russian heirarchy doesn't think the same way as their western counterparts.

Also, attempted installation of a government isn't adventurism, it is imperialism. The US have proceeded to do this to multiple countries on false premises (Iraq WMD's for one) or because it challenged their hegemony (Libya - attempts to create a fiat currency). Russia's military response isn't expansionism, US backed Maidan coup overthrew a legitimately elected government because it was friendly to Russia.

Merkel and the previous French president have both confirmed that the Minsk agreements were specifically to buy time to build up UKR forces and arm them. Then, from 2014, the UKR neo-nazis proceeded to terrorise ethic Russians in the four regions liberated by Russia. Russia choice was to allow it to happen then have NATO park weapon systems on their border capable of launching on Moscow or push back using the only language they understand, violence.

I believe it was. I dont think that Russia wanted to annex the entirety of Ukraine.

I believe that their mission was to flex their muscles, annex territories close to the " Novorussia " idea, and demilitarizie and subject the rest of Ukraine, just like Belarus.
The invasion gives signs of this, a paratrooper attack on a Kiev airport, which was thwarted. Then the long convoy, special operators fighting in Kyiv. I think that Putin counted on that most of the Ukraine military would collapse in a shock and awe attack, then dispose the government and force a peace deal that benefited Russia.

I was and am against the invasion or Iraq, whether they knew it or not, the WMD was an easy excuse to invade. The difference is that a historical rival of the western system invaded a European nations, this couldnt just stand. The west had to react, just giving up would have been disastrous.

I hope that all serious debators see the " denazification " and " protection of the donbass people " is just a lame excuse for their conquering and geopolitical war.

 

[The Ugly One]

So much bullshit, Christ. Most of the government remained in place when Putin's bitch Yanukovich was ousted, that's hardly "shoot or exile everyone in charge", eh? Reforms took place and new democratic elections were held, it wasn't nearly as radical as you portray it.

The elections happened after Ukraine lost control of Donbas and Crimea.

Here's the timeline.

Revolution of Dignity: 18-23 Feb 2014
Donbas War begins: 6 Apr 2014
Crimean "Military Operation: 23 Feb 2014-26 Mar 2014
Post-coup Elections: 25 May 2014

So, no, the Euromaidan government never really had control of the entire territory.

You're framing it as if the entire government was replaced with some foreign regime, which is convenient for the argument you're trying to make but has nothing to do with reality. Because it implies absence of continuity and thus illegitimacy, somehow giving right for Russia to do what they did.

What "rights?" I'm talking about what actually happened, not what the UN or whomever you think is the final authority on the rights of states has decreed. The problem with your entire framing is you think there's some sort of cosmic authority you can appeal to when it comes to the "rights" of states. There isn't. It doesn't exist. You can cry and whine about who has the right to rule a patch of land, but the claims of states are negotiated via diplomacy and, when diplomacy fails, force of arms.

The undeniable reality is that the Euromaidan government failed to secure control over Crimea and Donbas. If you disagree, show me evidence that Kiev is still in control of these areas.

See, your entire argument hinges on the idea that the whole thing was orchestrated by foreign entity (CIA)

My entire argument-which is that Ukraine lost control of Crimea and Donbas due to a coup-"hinges" on the fact that they have actually lost control of Crimea and Donbas, as evidenced by the fact that the Kiev government is not able to send any agents there without being shot, and that 2014 coup being the event that precipitated this.

Nowhere can you argue against this, of course, as it's an uncontested fact. All you can do is moralfag about mythical rights and cosmic principles that supposedly determines where the boundaries of a government's territory lies.

and has no iota of authenticity, despite there being every reason for it to happen organically. If you lived anywhere in ex-USSR, you'd understand the appeal of European association.

You have to strawman about this, as though I'm ignorant of the fact that color revolutions can't get off the ground without a critical mass of popular support. If there were a Chinese-backed or Russian-backed revolution in the USA, they couldn't do it without finding a critical mass of people to enable.

The problem with revolutions, though, is they never have universal support. Much like the USA had no trouble finding (and funding, and arming) people who didn't like Yanukovych, turns out Russia found quite a few people who didn't care for Poroshenko or Zelensky.

Should we go over Russia's regime changes and issues with continuity and problems it presents for your arguments or have you had enough schooling for today?

What in Russian history contradicts my argument that revolutions and coup d'etats are often followed by territorial maps being redrawn?

 

[Mista House]

I genuinely wonder if the west is prepared for Putin losing. If you follow Adam Curtis he has some really good insight on Putin and his inner circle. He was in Russia during the end of the USSR and the rise of Putin. He has links with many journalists across Russia. Putin came into power to ensure the Oligarchs maintained power over the country and that the balance of power between them was maintained. After that it was holding Russia together.

Lets say Putin loses, what do people think will happen, all the Russian people will suddenly peacefully march on the Kremlin? Theyll sing Kum-bayah while Putin steps down? No. Putin will either anhero or be anherod by someone even more hardline than him. Or it's a bloody civil war as the Federation collapses.

 

[Fait Accompli]

I genuinely wonder if the west is prepared for Putin losing. If you follow Adam Curtis he has some really good insight on Putin and his inner circle. He was in Russia during the end of the USSR and the rise of Putin. He has links with many journalists across Russia. Putin came into power to ensure the Oligarchs maintained power over the country and that the balance of power between them was maintained. After that it was holding Russia together.

Lets say Putin loses, what do people think will happen, all the Russian people will suddenly peacefully march on the Kremlin? Theyll sing Kum-bayah while Putin steps down? No. Putin will either anhero or be anherod by someone even more hardline than him. Or it's a bloody civil war as the Federation collapses.

The west is not ready for a Russian implosion, where multiple republics declare independence from Moscow

The west is hoping that the Russian federation keeps intact, but with a more soft ruler