- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
Russia has more territory than they know what to do with. It’s not about territory it’s about two things. Security and the Russian minority.What does Russia even want with Ukraine?
1. Ukraine has (had) the second largest army in Europe. With Ukraine in NATO, that would mean the possibility of nuclear missiles a few hundred kilometers from Moscow. That’s a security threat that Russia can’t live with given their experience from WW2. Consider how America would react if Mexico or Cuba joined an anti-American alliance. (Shit, the US almost started WW3 over similar reasons in ‘63.)
2. Ukraine east of Dniepr is populated by Russians (culturally and language-vise). Ukraines started a brutal “anti terrorism operation) in 2014, suppressing their civil and political rights. Russia wanted their language rights to be respected (Which btw they’re fully entitled to according to EU standards.) and for the eastern Oblasts to have increased autonomy while still remaining in Ukraine. Something Kiev initially agreed to, and then subsequently went back on.
Nah. There was nothing in terms of neither troops nor security guarantees in the deal. The closest was a vague formulation that “The US would support Ukraine getting security guarantees” elsewhere.Because as far as I can parse the deal is U.S. access to REMs in exchange for troops and support.
The deal was mostly meaningless in terms of mineral rights and other income sources too, and wasn’t legally binding. It was basically a framework for future, further discussions, and a way Trump could say: “Hey we got something out of it!” Trump knew that Zelensky (or his successor) would likely go back on it first chance he got, so when Z acted like a tard, it wasn’t a big loss.
Mind you: Minerals that nobody really knows whether exists or not, nor if they’re possible to extract.Ukraine keeps its minerals,
As I recall, a recent studies by American geologists cast doubt on the old, Soviet surveys that the whole “BILLIONS OF DOLLARSNOF MINERALS!”-nonsense is based on.