5 ms·

> Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his country would not accept any outcome from the talks since Kyiv didn’t take part, and he postponed his own tri

> Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his country would not accept any outcome from the talks since Kyiv didn’t take part, and he postponed his own trip to the kingdom scheduled for Wednesday. every article, when directly quoting, uses weasel words like this. "Ukraine" decided they didn't want to participate because Europe wasn't involved, or Ukraine "didn't get a paper invitation". even though Zelenskyy was supposed to be in country at the time, he decided not to. I will source the actual facts later, but keep downvoting stuff you don't like. Downvote this comment too, here, i'll help: Russia was promised by the US that NATO would not expand. by someone named Baker. Stuff shifted, but under no circumstances was russia going to let Ukraine "join NATO". When Ukraine started saying they were in talks to join NATO and get their own nukes, russia perked up and started fucking with the border. Russia warned Ukraine about the murders occuring in "ethnically" russian "speaking" areas of ukraine, near the border. I bet you can name them. Russia waited eight years to actually respond to this injustice, and it was after Ukraine started talking about joining NATO. Again. So if you are pragmatic, and you don't want an all out war in europe, you withdraw the US support for NATO. Simple as. Now you don't get to threaten russia with US forces anymore. The US doesn't want to fight Russia, and certainly not for a leader that "loses" hundreds of billions of dollars. "whoops, we can't find half of it" is bad enough when it's an amazon order, it's a lot different when you're talking about sending nearly 400,000,000,000.00 USD to ... Ukraine. The thing that gets me though, is does anyone really believe this is all russia is capable of? moving a front line 10 meters, or a kilometer? Europe needs to stop prepping for a war, because Europe is the most war-hungry population on the planet, historically. They can't help themselves. The rest of the world is about to find out what it's like to not have the US backing up your stupid decisions. We, as taxpayers, are tired of paying for the EU experiment, for sabre rattling from the UK and France and Germany. It boils down to the need to "read between the lines" and not just accept any article put forth in the last 4 years. there is a lot more nuance than "orange man bad" and "Comedian War Hero", ok?

jxjnskkzxxhx 2y ago
> Russia was promised by the US that NATO would not expand. by someone named Baker This is Russian propaganda. Russia claims this was promised verbally. Surely if this was something that Russia wanted why didn't they demand in writing, like they did about many other concessions made to them? The answer is that Putin made that up. It never happened.
- koonsolo 2y ago
  When people state this obvious lie, I always ask: So which NATO member states voted for not expanding to the east? Same with the Ukraine "coup", I always ask: So which dictator did they install in 2014?
  - riehwvfbk 2y ago
    When a group of Americans were mad that their preferred candidate didn't win and stormed the Capitol, were they heroes or traitors? When a group of Ukrainians did the same, why does your answer flip?
    - jxjnskkzxxhx 2y ago
      Trump lost fairly, so storming the capitol is treason. Yanukovich didn't win fairly, so removing him is warranted. The answer flips because the situations are the opposite.
      - riehwvfbk 2y ago
        The people who stormed the Capitol didn't think Trump lost fairly. So the real difference is whether they succeeded. Had the Capitol protesters succeeded, they would have made the media feed people like you and I their narrative and make sure we saw them as freedom fighters. I'm sure you'll disagree with the above, so here's a thought experiment. What would the Euromaidan protesters be called if they had lost?
        koonsolo 2y ago
        To be clear, Yanukovych was fairly elected in 2010 and there are no claims that this was somehow rigged or undemocratic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election#Conduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...). The protests started when he switched his stance on getting closer to EU. The protesters got him out and had a new election. How can you compare that to not accepting an election result? Edit: To answer your question: if the Euromaidan protest didn't succeed, it was just a protest like it was now. They would have had another election a bit later, possibly pissing off Russia again (In 2004 Russia poisoned a pro-EU candidate).
koonsolo 2y ago
My theory is that Russia invaded Ukraine for the same reason they invaded Chechnya. Can you provide an argument why Russia invaded Chechnya?
- genewitch 2y ago
  Oil?
rat87 2y ago
> Russia was promised by the US that NATO would not expand. by someone named Baker. This is untrue Russian propaganda. There was no independent Russia at that time and Baker didn't promise Gorbachov anything of the sort, as Gorbachov has publicly stated. > Stuff shifted, Right this is an important thing to note. Russia isn't the soviet union even if it claimed to be the successor state. And in the 90s Russia under the Yeltsin (the guy who picked Putin to be his successor) agreed that these countries had a right to join NATO. Of course that wasn't needed since there was no such promise but it happened. Oh people will claim that the Poles gave Yeltsin too much to drink but the reality is that Russia needed US support and good relations with their neighbors in the 90s financial disaster just like Ukraine (which agreed to give away its nukes to Russia) > but under no circumstances was russia going to let Ukraine "join NATO". First who is this Russia we speak of. It was Putin's decision to invade, a move that many Russians even those who didn't like Ukraine getting closer to the EU were skeptical of. > When Ukraine started saying they were in talks to join NATO and get their own nukes, russia perked up and started fucking with the border. That is incorrect. Russia invaded in 2014 when Ukraine was not seeking to join NATO (only became a goal after the Russian invasion). Plus everyone including Russia and Putin knew there was no chance of Ukraine joining nato in 2014 or 2022. Russia must invade Ukraine to stop it from joining NATO is not just propaganda, its stupid and obvious propagnada. > Russia warned Ukraine about the murders occuring in "ethnically" russian "speaking" areas of ukraine, near the border. Is it ethnically Russian or Russian speaking? You know there's a difference. Much of the area was Russian speaking but not all of it. Many of the more rural areas in the east were primarily Ukrainian speaking. And it had an ethnic Ukrainian majority. Hell a lot more Ukrainians used to speak russian not just in the south and east. The main driver in the change isn't nationalism or discrimination but Russian invasion. Either way its ridiculous propaganda. Those areas were largely peaceful despite economic issues and crime. Russia invaded and then set up a couple of local thugs and neonazis as warlords pretending this was a local thing or a civil war. They blamed Ukraine for a war they started and then blamed them for shooting back. Then they massively enlarged the war killing a lot more people (a significant share of whom were russian speakers or ethnic russians because of the part of Ukraine they invaded). > I bet you can name them. Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (sometimes transliterated lugansk via russian) > Russia waited eight years to actually respond to this injustice, and it was after Ukraine started talking about joining NATO. Again. Russia could not care less about them or injustice. Russia barely even cares about its own citizens (if it's all for the glory of the modern czar, what does an individuals life or rights matter) and despite claiming area for annexation it does not treat them as citizens. It forced them to be used as a meetshield against their own countrymen(no training and ancient guns). Did you see how they destroyed the mostly Russian speaking city of Mariupol? Or many smaller cities? But then they changed the sign from Маріуполь to Мариуполь and I'm sure the survivors considered it all worth it /s. >So if you are pragmatic, and you don't want an all out war in europe, you withdraw the US support for NATO. Simple as. If you're pragmatic you back them to the hilt and try to prevent Russia starting such a war. >Now you don't get to threaten russia with US forces anymore. The one threatening to nuke London is Russia not the other way around. > The US doesn't want to fight Russia Right neither does Europe. Neither does Ukraine. So Russia can get get out of Ukraine (including Crimea and Dpnbas) and everyone will be better off. >The thing that gets me though, is does anyone really believe this is all russia is capable of? moving a front line 10 meters, or a kilometer? Yes because that's all they have accomplished. And if we had done more to swiftly back Ukraine it would have been less. > Europe needs to stop prepping for a war, because Europe is the most war-hungry population on the planet, historically. They can't help themselves. Europe is prepping because Russia started a major war. And sadly we the US are not reliable allies right now even though Ukrainian and European victory us clearly in our interest. >The rest of the world is about to find out what it's like to not have the US backing up your stupid decisions. We, as taxpayers, are tired of paying for the EU experiment, for sabre rattling from the UK and France and Germany. Again the saber rattling is all coming from Russia. Do you even understand Russian? Do you watch Russian by to hear the stuff the state propaganda news put out? >there is a lot more nuance than "orange man bad" and "Comedian War Hero", ok? Sure but being more nuance doesn't stop both those statements from being totally accurate and important. Total nuance is not claiming the Donbas is just russian anyway or that Ukraine provoked russia when even Russian newspapers (Moscow times, Medusa) posted many articles disproving state propaganda.

jxjnskkzxxhx 2y ago

> Russia was promised by the US that NATO would not expand. by someone named Baker This is Russian propaganda. Russia claims this was promised verbally. Surely if this was something that Russia wanted why didn't they demand in writing, like they did about many other concessions made to them? The answer is that Putin made that up. It never happened.

koonsolo 2y ago
When people state this obvious lie, I always ask: So which NATO member states voted for not expanding to the east? Same with the Ukraine "coup", I always ask: So which dictator did they install in 2014?
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  When a group of Americans were mad that their preferred candidate didn't win and stormed the Capitol, were they heroes or traitors? When a group of Ukrainians did the same, why does your answer flip?
  - jxjnskkzxxhx 2y ago
    Trump lost fairly, so storming the capitol is treason. Yanukovich didn't win fairly, so removing him is warranted. The answer flips because the situations are the opposite.
    - riehwvfbk 2y ago
      The people who stormed the Capitol didn't think Trump lost fairly. So the real difference is whether they succeeded. Had the Capitol protesters succeeded, they would have made the media feed people like you and I their narrative and make sure we saw them as freedom fighters. I'm sure you'll disagree with the above, so here's a thought experiment. What would the Euromaidan protesters be called if they had lost?
      - koonsolo 2y ago
        To be clear, Yanukovych was fairly elected in 2010 and there are no claims that this was somehow rigged or undemocratic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election#Conduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...). The protests started when he switched his stance on getting closer to EU. The protesters got him out and had a new election. How can you compare that to not accepting an election result? Edit: To answer your question: if the Euromaidan protest didn't succeed, it was just a protest like it was now. They would have had another election a bit later, possibly pissing off Russia again (In 2004 Russia poisoned a pro-EU candidate).

koonsolo 2y ago

My theory is that Russia invaded Ukraine for the same reason they invaded Chechnya. Can you provide an argument why Russia invaded Chechnya?

genewitch 2y ago
Oil?

rat87 2y ago

> Russia was promised by the US that NATO would not expand. by someone named Baker. This is untrue Russian propaganda. There was no independent Russia at that time and Baker didn't promise Gorbachov anything of the sort, as Gorbachov has publicly stated. > Stuff shifted, Right this is an important thing to note. Russia isn't the soviet union even if it claimed to be the successor state. And in the 90s Russia under the Yeltsin (the guy who picked Putin to be his successor) agreed that these countries had a right to join NATO. Of course that wasn't needed since there was no such promise but it happened. Oh people will claim that the Poles gave Yeltsin too much to drink but the reality is that Russia needed US support and good relations with their neighbors in the 90s financial disaster just like Ukraine (which agreed to give away its nukes to Russia) > but under no circumstances was russia going to let Ukraine "join NATO". First who is this Russia we speak of. It was Putin's decision to invade, a move that many Russians even those who didn't like Ukraine getting closer to the EU were skeptical of. > When Ukraine started saying they were in talks to join NATO and get their own nukes, russia perked up and started fucking with the border. That is incorrect. Russia invaded in 2014 when Ukraine was not seeking to join NATO (only became a goal after the Russian invasion). Plus everyone including Russia and Putin knew there was no chance of Ukraine joining nato in 2014 or 2022. Russia must invade Ukraine to stop it from joining NATO is not just propaganda, its stupid and obvious propagnada. > Russia warned Ukraine about the murders occuring in "ethnically" russian "speaking" areas of ukraine, near the border. Is it ethnically Russian or Russian speaking? You know there's a difference. Much of the area was Russian speaking but not all of it. Many of the more rural areas in the east were primarily Ukrainian speaking. And it had an ethnic Ukrainian majority. Hell a lot more Ukrainians used to speak russian not just in the south and east. The main driver in the change isn't nationalism or discrimination but Russian invasion. Either way its ridiculous propaganda. Those areas were largely peaceful despite economic issues and crime. Russia invaded and then set up a couple of local thugs and neonazis as warlords pretending this was a local thing or a civil war. They blamed Ukraine for a war they started and then blamed them for shooting back. Then they massively enlarged the war killing a lot more people (a significant share of whom were russian speakers or ethnic russians because of the part of Ukraine they invaded). > I bet you can name them. Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (sometimes transliterated lugansk via russian) > Russia waited eight years to actually respond to this injustice, and it was after Ukraine started talking about joining NATO. Again. Russia could not care less about them or injustice. Russia barely even cares about its own citizens (if it's all for the glory of the modern czar, what does an individuals life or rights matter) and despite claiming area for annexation it does not treat them as citizens. It forced them to be used as a meetshield against their own countrymen(no training and ancient guns). Did you see how they destroyed the mostly Russian speaking city of Mariupol? Or many smaller cities? But then they changed the sign from Маріуполь to Мариуполь and I'm sure the survivors considered it all worth it /s. >So if you are pragmatic, and you don't want an all out war in europe, you withdraw the US support for NATO. Simple as. If you're pragmatic you back them to the hilt and try to prevent Russia starting such a war. >Now you don't get to threaten russia with US forces anymore. The one threatening to nuke London is Russia not the other way around. > The US doesn't want to fight Russia Right neither does Europe. Neither does Ukraine. So Russia can get get out of Ukraine (including Crimea and Dpnbas) and everyone will be better off. >The thing that gets me though, is does anyone really believe this is all russia is capable of? moving a front line 10 meters, or a kilometer? Yes because that's all they have accomplished. And if we had done more to swiftly back Ukraine it would have been less. > Europe needs to stop prepping for a war, because Europe is the most war-hungry population on the planet, historically. They can't help themselves. Europe is prepping because Russia started a major war. And sadly we the US are not reliable allies right now even though Ukrainian and European victory us clearly in our interest. >The rest of the world is about to find out what it's like to not have the US backing up your stupid decisions. We, as taxpayers, are tired of paying for the EU experiment, for sabre rattling from the UK and France and Germany. Again the saber rattling is all coming from Russia. Do you even understand Russian? Do you watch Russian by to hear the stuff the state propaganda news put out? >there is a lot more nuance than "orange man bad" and "Comedian War Hero", ok? Sure but being more nuance doesn't stop both those statements from being totally accurate and important. Total nuance is not claiming the Donbas is just russian anyway or that Ukraine provoked russia when even Russian newspapers (Moscow times, Medusa) posted many articles disproving state propaganda.