3 ms·
It's "peace" at the expense of Ukraine, though.
by emteycz 5y ago
It's "peace" at the expense of Ukraine, though.
- naoqj 5y agoYeah, well.
- colechristensen 5y agoSmall wars are better than big ones. NATO getting dragged into a big war wouldn't be better so the "at the expense" bit is doubtful, these things would still happen but be orders of magnitude worse.
- wheelerof4te 5y agoSay "thank you" to the US for the 2014th regime change. It all started with that little forgotten incident. Please.
- emteycz 5y agoWhat do you mean? The US had practically nothing to do with that. The Ukrainian people wanted a regime change. That there might've been some contact really doesn't mean it's all the making of US in spite of Ukrainians. And they wanted a regime change much earlier than 2014 btw, they just were silenced (fairly brutally).
- civilized 5y agoActually, it wasn't a coup. The President of Ukraine fled in 2014 because of a few protesters. It was essentially an abdication. Russia invading Ukraine to attack its capital and try to install a puppet government - now that's a coup. Although in this case, it'll be an attempted coup, because unlike Yanukovych, Zelensky cares about his country.
- AlexandrB 5y agoNah, it all started when Ukraine gave up its nukes in 1994. It was naive to think that Russia would honour the Budapest Memorandum.
- wheelerof4te 5y agoIn that case, it was a doubly stupid move to antagonize Russia against denuclearized Ukraine. Unless it was done on purpose.