I partly agree with you - what you mentioned were the Ukrainian proxy backed by the Russians. The west had their own Ukrainian political leaders that they backed who also worked to divide the country. This is why I blame the Ukrainian leaders, first and foremost, for this mess - they couldn't unite their country, and allowed foreign meddling. One leader sought help from Russia, one from UK / NATO and now from US / EU to consolidate power. In the Angela Merkel interview that I have shared above, she too points this out:
> Merkel: First, Ukraine wasn't the Ukraine we know now. Politically, Ukraine was deeply divided between Yanukovych and Yushchenko, and even the reformers Tymoshenko and Yushchenko didn't like each other ...
When a nation is not united, it is easy to exploit it, and that is what the western superpowers and Russia did in Ukraine. The west was more successful here as the western backed coup managed to overthrow the democratically elected Russian friendly (I wouldn't call him a Russian stooge) leader. They then immediately branded all parties and leaders perceived as anti-west as "enemies" and either banned them, jailed them or exiled them. Then, after eliminating all competition, they held a "democratic election" which was hailed by the west as the "most democratic" in Ukraine's history while it created a permanent schism between the East Ukraine and West Ukraine.
Russia recognized the coup for what it was - a foreign backed coup - and so immediately annexed Crimea (to protect its own military interests).
Zelensky was elected on a platform to unite the people. He too failed, partly due to his inexperience and also because he followed the same destructive policies (guided by the west to whom he is beholden), like his predecessors that ignored Ukraine's history and culture and trying to end multiculturalism. He in fact exacerbated the issue by using violence against East Ukrainians, triggering a civil war. As Putin saw Zelensky's political actions were increasingly guided by the west, and increasingly militant, and he had no interest in a rapprochement with Russia, he escalated, which finally resulted in the illegal invasion of Ukraine.
(And now West Ukraine has a militia compromised of unmarked members of western armed forces, security services, and people under their direct control, with whom Zelensky too has to contend).
- Instead of a rapid advance toward Kyiv, Russian ground forces were met by fierce Ukrainian resistance ...
I agree that the initial Ukrainian resistance was good, and completely unanticipated by the Russians. The direct intelligence provided by NATO was also very helpful to slowdown the Russian invasion. All that said, a major reason for Russians dropping the advance towards Kiev, and later tactically withdrawing,, was because of request for urgent negotiations by the west and Ukraine. Remember that the first diplomatic negotiation took place just 4 days after the war, and one of the western pre-conditions to this was that negotiations shouldn't happen with the barrel of a gun to the face (i.e. Kiev surrounded) and required the Russians to withdraw, which the Russians partially complied with because they arrogantly and foolishly thought the negotiations would happen in good-faith and in their favour.
- Good of you to mention bullying ...
Oh, I am not defending Russia when it comes to such things. Even my own country gave in to the Russian demands to not vote in the UN resolution. (That was a cowardice on the part of the Modi government - the Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal, by international laws, and India should have upheld that principle). My point remains that western superpowers are no different from Russia or China in this, and so the west does not have any moral ground to claim superiority here.
- RT is trash-tier propaganda outlet ...
As is any media outlet, funded by the government, like the BBC, NPR, DW or PressTV. When everyone is doing propaganda, all we can do is analyse the facts based on which the propaganda is crafted. Facts are facts, and only the propaganda around it differ. Civilians are killed (collateral damage) by the actions of both sides. Fact. And both sides deliberately claim that civilians are deliberately targeted. Propaganda. I don't believe either Zelensky nor Putin is deliberately targeting civilians, as it isn't in their interest. Neither of them is an extremist or a fundamentalist like Netanyahu, for example, who is actually indulging in a genocide.
- Russia demanded the right to place troops into Poland and expected the French and the British to coerce the Polish government into accepting it ..
And was it the right call from a military perspective, to fight Hitler's army? Obviously, Yes. Everyone knew that Germany (and Hitler) wanted Russia. And there were only so many fronts from which the German army could advance towards Russia. Remember that this was not the first war Russia was fighting against an invading army, especially the Germans.
- Poland was naturally opposed to the presence of foreign soldiers on their soil, out of fear that the troops would never leave. History proved them correct.
No, history did not prove them correct. No one can confidently say that if Poland had acquiesced to Russian terms to provide right of way to the Russian military, and for a stage hold territory, backed by British and the French guarantees of sovereignty, Soviet Russia would not have withdrawn after defeating the Germans. It would have disrupted the new alliance and potentially made war with the British and the French a reality.
- Stalin was simply shopping around for a way to exploit the looming German-Polish war and gain an opportunity to invade Poland.
That's all bullshit and a modern excuse. Stalin's main concern was always Hitler and Germany, for historical reasons. Sure, like any other superpower, USSR was also interested in expanding their Sphere of Influence, but they were just as pragmatic about it as the French or the British (i.e. they would try to do it without warfare). Every political move the USSR took during, and after, WW2 was based because of the initial hostility of the western superpowers to an alliance with it, and then because of the hostilities towards it post-WW2 (resulting in the cold war). To blame everything on the Russians, is just western hubris and propaganda. European superpowers are just as much to blame, then, as they are now for renewed hostilities with the Russians.
As Fico once said:
> We have our own experience with Munich in 1938, when the powers bound to us by treaty deceived us, betrayed us and served us up to Hitler like a roasted chicken. ( https://x.com/RobertFicoSVK/status/2101382211370893658 )
That is also a fact. But your predictable response to this would be sidestep the facts (that this was typical superpower politics) and say, "Oh no, he is a Putin / Russian stooge" (at some point, this kind of propaganda gets really tiring).
- National governments were replaced with communist dictatorships under Russian control ...
Again, you disregard west's own hostility towards USSR in taking those actions. I also find it funny how quick the west is to attack any kind of "revolution" that is against their own interest, but to quickly praise similar "revolution" whose leaders are aligned to the west - "My dictators are ok, only yours are bad!". Today, you in the west have no problem with the US invading Venezuela and violating its sovereignty, or supporting and defending a genocide by your allies in Gaza, or killing children in Iran, or fully backing and whitewashing a "revolution" in Ukraine that overthrew a democratically elected leader ... all that is ok for you. But, at the same time, you also want us to think that the only "evil" in this world is your enemy (the Russians) ... like I said, all this kind of propaganda has become tiring to us in the Global South.
It is also very clear that the western superpowers wrongly thought that Russia was weak and could be conquered and divided amongst themselves. And Ukraine was the proxy they used to test it. You westerners prove that with your cowardice in not fighting alongside the Ukrainians ... If the west wants to preach from a moral high ground, the west needs to display the very ethical and moral values that they espouse. Sadly, they don't.
- Only morons go around yapping about "Russian security concerns" when Russia itself is the main threat to peace and security in Europe. ...
You guys are like the bullies that humiliate and provoke someone weaker repeatedly. And when they one day fight back and hurt you, go crying to your mama that you are the real victim.
> it was agreed in Helsinki that using force to violate territorial integrity and redraw European borders was unacceptable conduct for any European state.
And ofcourse, you guys have always upheld that, have you? (cough NATO invasions cough). Look up every western action against another country that was done without UN approval - it's all illegal to the rest of the world. Like I said, you guys have no moral standing to preach to the rest ...
> The west was more successful here as the western backed coup managed to overthrow the democratically elected Russian friendly
> Russia recognized the coup for what it was - a foreign backed coup - and so immediately annexed Crimea (to protect its own military interests).
> Zelensky was elected on a platform to unite the people /---/ He in fact exacerbated the issue by using violence against East Ukrainians, triggering a civil war.
> All that said, a major reason for Russians dropping the advance towards Kiev, and later tactically withdrawing,, was because of request for urgent negotiations by the west and Ukraine.
> As is any media outlet, funded by the government, like the BBC, NPR, DW or PressTV.
> Stalin's main concern was always Hitler and Germany, for historical reasons.
> No one can confidently say that if Poland had acquiesced to Russian terms to provide right of way to the Russian military, and for a stage hold territory, backed by British and the French guarantees of sovereignty, Soviet Russia would not have withdrawn after defeating the Germans.
> And ofcourse, you guys have always upheld that, have you? (cough NATO invasions cough). Look up every western action against another country that was done without UN approval - it's all illegal to the rest of the world. Like I said, you guys have no moral standing to preach to the rest ...
It is such a blatant violation of established norms that even some of Russia's closest allies like Belarus have not recognized it.
Ofcourse, those who support the "revolution" obviously don't like when it is labelled a coup. I am sure it is the same with the "revolutionaries" in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal too, who, like the west-backed Ukrainians, violently overthrew their democratically elected leaders. (And, again, like the Ukrainians, these so-called "revolutionaries" then attacked or banned or jailed or exiled all their opponents and then held the farce of a "democratic election" without any opposition. Wait a minute - isn't this the kind of "communist revolution" that the west often derides and believes is undemocratic!? But, I guess it's ok when "your guys" do it ...).
And we also have the embarrassing leaked tapes of one of the brains behind the "revolution" discussing how to install the "right" Ukrainian leaders (aka western puppets) - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 ... Ofcourse, once the opposition had been decimated violently, and the west's open role in the coup revealed, that was quite easy to do so - all the "surviving" Ukrainian leaders knew that they had to submit to the western superpowers to politically survive in Ukraine. And they did so openly and blatantly.
- Can't be true.
The medals, the manufactured controversy over the dates are all irrelevant. It has always been public knowledge that for Russia, not losing Crimea and its naval base has always been the primary goal in negotiations with Ukraine. Even the unrest in Crimea, involving a referendum against the Ukrainian government, demanding independence / autonomy was supported by Russia. And if Ukraine was unwilling to renew its lease of Crimea to Russia, annexation was always the plan. Nearly 2+ decades back, Putin had publicly said that if Ukraine joins NATO, Ukraine would do so without Crimea and the Eastern regions. In other words, the political and military plan was always ready (if negotiations failed) as Plan B, and the western backed coup was one of the "red lines" that triggered Crimea's quick annexation.
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has publicly stated in an interview that he took a message from Putin to Zelensky that Russia would not invade Ukraine if he publicly committed to not join NATO. Zelensky was willing. But all subsequent negotiations (before and during the war) failed because the western superpowers always dissuaded him from signing and committing to "permanent neutrality" - the original condition on which the USSR had granted independence to the Ukrainians, and the condition on which the Russians had guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty.
- I honestly don't know what "civil war" you are talking about.
Lookup on the failures of the Ukranian side to uphold the Minsk treaties (which, as I have already shared, has now been acknowledged by the leaders of the west, and Ukraine, as a ruse that they didn't have any intention to honour, but were only using to buy time, especially after the coup).
- Stalin infamously misjudged Hitler's intentions ...
Not exactly. You again deliberately ignore that the first parties he approached for an alliance were the British and the French, because Germany and Russia have a history of animosity. Stalin knew that a German invasion would inevitably happen, and he wanted to buy time because he knew the Soviet economy and military wasn't ready to face any western superpower, alone. (The experience of fighting the Germans, with an impoverished army, during WW1 were still fresh for the Russians). That is why he reluctantly joined hands with Hitler, who, again, was never his first choice, to buy time to strengthen Soviet military positions. It was always an uneasy alliance, with both prepared for one to turn against the other. (Stalin was right that the Russians were ill-prepared for a war, as at the start of the war, they even struggled against smaller foes due to poor logistics and being ill-equipped. Hitler and his generals thus concluded that the Soviet military was weak, and turned against them, hoping for a decisive victory. The timing may have taken Stalin unaware. But the Russians managed to hold their own, and as a realignment of forces happened, ultimately repelled the German invasion resulting in Hitler's defeat).
I will however concede that Stalin wasn't much of a military strategist - his idea of warfare was brutal numeric superiority in the frontline, throwing men after men in wave after wave, to overwhelm the enemy. It worked, but at a heavy cost. (We see this same Russian strategy in Ukraine too, though Putin is being more pragmatic in his mobilisation).
- Lithuanian government accepted all demands, and Russian forces did not leave until 1994 ... Most of Central and Eastern Europe was covered by communist dictatorships
And ofcourse, this is again something to be seen in isolation, and we should all ignore the development of the cold war, right? Selective picking of a political event without the underlying context is easy to twist to fit some narrative. Post WW2, as Russia supported the independence of western colonies, and communist revolutions everywhere, the western superpowers again turned hostile towards USSR. It in turn obviously took countermeasures to protect itself. The west too were busy installing and supporting their own dictators during this period.
- The Helsinki peace process and the agreement reached there has little to do with generic anti-American rhetoric.
Oh, it isn't anti-American rhetoric. European superpowers were just as bad.
- One of the key adopted principles was that no European country may invade another country by force...
And you seriously think the west has upheld that since 1975?
That's only true if you ignore the illegal NATO bombing of Yugoslavia by the US, UK, Germany, Turkey etc. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal under modern international law because it has no UN approval. Similarly, all unilateral NATO military actions are also illegal. As was NATO bombing against Libya. As is the attack on Iran.
In other words, Russia as a superpower is not doing anything different to what western superpowers do (or have done).
(I think it is time to end this discussion, as we both understand each others position on this issue. Thank you for your time.)
> Ofcourse, those who support the "revolution" obviously don't like when it is labelled a coup
> The medals, the manufactured controversy over the dates are all irrelevant
> Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has publicly stated in an interview that he took a message from Putin to Zelensky that Russia would not invade Ukraine if he publicly committed to not join NATO.
> Zelensky was willing. But all subsequent negotiations (before and during the war) failed because the western superpowers always dissuaded him from signing and committing to "permanent neutrality" - the original condition on which the USSR had granted independence to the Ukrainians
> Nearly 2+ decades back, Putin had publicly said that if Ukraine joins NATO, Ukraine would do so without Crimea and the Eastern regions.
> And ofcourse, this is again something to be seen in isolation, and we should all ignore the development of the cold war, right? Selective picking of a political event without the underlying context is easy to twist to fit some narrative. Post WW2, as Russia supported the independence of western colonies, and communist revolutions everywhere, the western superpowers again turned hostile towards USSR.
The Cold War was triggered by the same Russian suppression of independence of other European nations during the final phase of WWII and in its immediate aftermath.
> In other words, Russia as a superpower is not doing anything different to what western superpowers do (or have done).
Any political action under violence, and then the threat of violence (whether it be by so called "revolutionaries" or an army) resulting in the opposition capturing power undemocratically is exactly that - a coup ... that they made it "legal", after eliminating their opposition, has no bearing on this. Otherwise you should have no problem in accepting the referendum in Crimea or in Eastern Ukraine where the people also voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
- ... 20 February 2014. The first Russian troop movements (810th marine brigade) were observed on the same date.
Again deliberately avoiding the context with selective facts that are irrelevant. I am saying Russia was always prepared to annex Crimea - Putin had declared that 20+ years ago, and repeatedly told this to every western leaders he met during this period, subsequently. That is why Russia has always had agents in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. The coup, and the elimination of Ukrainian politicians that were either pro-Russian or weren't pro-west, was the trigger for the Russians annexing Crimea. That they were in Crimea in February 20 is irrelevant here because recall that the "revolution" began with protests in November 2013. Russian intelligence were keeping close tabs on it (remember the tape leak about the US planning who to install in Ukraine?), and prepared for any eventuality. As it became clear that the West supported the right-wing extremists against President Viktor Yanukovych, and they too were pressuring him to resign and hand over power to the Western backed "revolutionaries" the Russians asked him to sign the transitional plan, offered him asylum in Russia (as he feared he may be assassinated) and activated their plan to annex Crimea ( https://www.politico.eu/article/yanukovych-signs-transition-... ) as it had become clear that Ukraine would no longer be neutral to Russia:
> In late February, a few days after Ukraine’s pro-Moscow president was ousted from power, strange bands of armed gunmen began seizing government buildings in Crimea. Some Crimeans held rallies to show support for the ousted president and, in some cases, to call to secede from Ukraine and re-join Russia. The bands of gunmen grew until it became obvious they were Russian military forces, who forcefully but bloodlessly brought the entire peninsula under military occupation. On March 16, Crimeans voted overwhelmingly for their region to become a part of Russia. ( https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you... )
Even those in the west now publicly acknowledge that what happened in Ukraine is perceived as a coup by many - A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War - https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia... ).
- This is another factually incorrect statement. Benett met Putin on 5 March 2022, nine days after the invasion had started...
I am repeating what he said. Note that he has met Putin before the war too, where he informed Putin that Zelensky wanted to meet him and talk to him. Putin conveyed he wasn't interested. Benett also points out that Zelensky did publicly renounce Ukraine joining NATO. Benett has also said that all the negotiations were very carefully coordinated with the US, Germany, France and UK. And once Putin and Zelensky compromised and agreed to a deal and a ceasefire, the West then blocked it because they wanted to "keep striking Russia". (And remember, as he says, this is after the west once advised Zelensky to surrender and run away to the US - as the negotiations revealed that Putin was ready to really compromise, they perceived this as "weakness" in Putin and then advised Zelensky to not end the war).
Here's the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs&t=8392s
Even Kissinger has publicly said that it wasn't in the interest of the west for Ukraine to make peace with Russia (in the early stages of war), as the West had already given the Ukrainian military many arms and munitions in preparation, and during the war:
> “We have now armed Ukraine to a point where it will be the best-armed country and with the least strategically experienced leadership in Europe. We shouldn’t end it in the wrong way.” (It was in the Economist ...)
(The underlying implication was that the West was afraid that if Ukraine - Russia ties improved, or if Ukraine felt isolated and angry at the West, those weapons may be used against it).
- He made no such public statement.
It's all in the public domain, even if you wish to ignore it:
> The strategy was set in motion at NATO’s annual summit in Bucharest in April 2008, when the alliance announced that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members.” Russian leaders responded immediately with outrage, making it clear that this decision was an existential threat to Russia, and that they had no intention of letting either country join NATO. According to a respected Russian journalist, Putin “flew into a rage,” and warned that “if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.” William Burns, who is now the head of the CIA ... wrote a memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that succinctly describes Russian thinking about Ukraine joining NATO. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite, not just Putin. In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” NATO, he said, “would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze…It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” ( https://cirsd.org/horizon-article/the-causes-and-consequence... )
Unbeknownst to the Russians, that was the first step of the trap that the Anglo-Americans had created to draw Russia into a proxy war through Ukraine ...
- All these Russian narratives depend on the listener being lazy and not checking basic facts like the order of events.
Ofcourse I make silly mistakes as I am posting everything from memory - unlike you, I am not paid to post here and so don't have a database of resources to immediately refer to get the facts or copy paste prepared rebuttals. Hopefully my posts here will give your division more work and make you all more sharp (and less brainwashed)!
- Ukraine was not "granted" independence by anyone....
Sure, if you wish to resort to technicalities and legalspeak, that is partly true. But the delaration of independence, and subsequently the constitution of Ukraine proclaimed that it would not join any military alliance. The declaration said:
> The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in any military bloc ...
- The statement alone would've been a severe violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.
That is one of my points - Superpowers have never cared about the sovereignty of other countries when their own political self-interest was involved. There are umpteen examples of this in history and modern times. You can see it with the Ukraine war too - Russia invaded it to protect its self-interest, and the West now doesn't end it to protect its own self-interests.
- The Cold War was triggered by the same Russian suppression of independence of other European nations
The cold war was triggered because the Russians and the western superpowers couldn't reach an agreement to define their spheres of influences clearly. The superpowers then did what they always do - fight amongst themselves through proxies. The rest of us suffer.
- Since the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, Russia is the only country to have invaded another European country by force and declared its territory to be its own.
You had to carefully choose your words to write that sentence, didn't you? Otherwise NATO invasions post 1975 shows how little the Western superpowers have cared about international law or sovereignty even in Europe...
- That's the difficult thing with lying: you have to have a really good memory to cover all the ways that the truth can slip out.
No, the problem with the West today is that they rely too much on politics of propaganda than value politics - Western politicians increasingly think that just because your propaganda is good enough to fool some of their own citizens, others will also be fooled by it, and thus there is no need to have any dialogue with those who disagree with it. Their mentality is if anyone doesn't agree with you even by a small iota, they should be identified as "enemies". Such a black-and-white way of thinking is why even established parties in the West are losing election left and right to even fringe extremist parties - Western citizens now find it hard to see any difference between such politicians and the extremist parties. It is a failure to recognize that the politics of propaganda isn't enough. You need to have dialogues with people who don't agree with you, and listen to them seriously, without attacking them. It is also why they are increasingly alienating people, like me, around the world, even when we don't have any animosity or hatred towards the West.
> Any political action under violence, and then the threat of violence (whether it be by so called "revolutionaries" or an army) resulting in the opposition capturing power undemocratically is exactly that - a coup ...
> Again deliberately avoiding the context with selective facts that are irrelevant. /---/ remember the tape leak about the US planning who to install in Ukraine?
Next week, the US is holding midterm elections. At any given moment, there are probably hundreds of phone calls taking place between all sorts of people discussing whom they'd like to see in the House and Senate. A bunch of Ukrainians are probably discussing among themselves who would be the best for them too. You'd be a fool to characterize that as "planning who to install" in the US. Of all the Ukraine-related talking points, this one is easily one of the laziest.
> Benett has also said that all the negotiations were very carefully coordinated with the US, Germany, France and UK. And once Putin and Zelensky compromised and agreed to a deal and a ceasefire, the West then blocked it because they wanted to "keep striking Russia".
Russian propagandists took this lengthy interview out of context and clipped different parts together to show Bennett saying that "the US, Germany and France BLOCKED Ukraine from signing peace with Russia and FORCED Ukraine to continue fighting". That's an obvious distortion.
Despite all the huffing and puffing about other people falling for propaganda, you're the one who's fallen for a cheap trick here.
> It's all in the public domain, even if you wish to ignore it:
> Sure, if you wish to resort to technicalities and legalspeak, that is partly true. But the delaration of independence, and subsequently the constitution of Ukraine proclaimed that it would not join any military alliance.
Neutrality was mentioned only once in the earliest declaration of sovereignity (July 1990) as an aspirational goal. It was not included in subsequent legislation like the 1993 law on the main directions of Ukraine's foreign policy or the 1996 constitution, because it was considered an obstacle to cooperation with European regional security frameworks. So contrary to your claim, Ukraine did not make a commitment of neutrality to anyone.
> You had to carefully choose your words to write that sentence, didn't you? Otherwise NATO invasions post 1975 shows how little the Western superpowers have cared about international law or sovereignty ...
Gaslighting is the lowest form of propaganda. As I said before, this kind of politics is why even an idiot like Trump managed to beat Biden ("there is no genocide in Gaza, Ukraine is winning ..."), and why the warmongers in UK, Germany and France are now losing electoral popularity at such a fast rate to even fringe political groups who otherwise have a tough time getting votes. In the long term, political lies don't stand up to stark facts.
- You'd be a fool to characterize that as "planning who to install" in the US.
Facts remains facts, whoever spins a propaganda out of it. You are intelligent enough to understand that I didn't make any conclusion only on the basis of that "one call alone" and that my reasoning is based from the pre-coup to the post-coup scenario. That you are willing to defend the undemocratic and violent actions of the extreme right- in Ukraine, just because they hate Russians like you do, really shows how low the west / Europe has fallen in its political thinking ...
- If you're relying on English subtitles, then they're a well-known mistranslation. ... you're the one who's fallen for a cheap trick here.
Yeah, when facts don't suit you, it is ofcourse fake or "misinterpretation" or even irrelevant because of the "source" along with snide subtle remarks that imply how you alone are superior in intellect, and everyone else who doesn't agree with you is automatically dumb.
- There is no such public statement...
Again with the pedantic gaslighting. It is public knowledge that is even cited in a book. If you had any real interest to verify it, you can easily do so online.
- The declaration of independence makes no mention of neutrality
You aren't dumb. I have even cited the exact line from it. Read it again. And if you still don't understand it, I'll kindly assume that English isn't your first language - in that case, make a post on https://ell.stackexchange.com/ and they will explain it to you in more simpler terms than I can.
- So contrary to your claim, Ukraine did not make a commitment of neutrality to anyone.
I respect your right to choose to be ignorant.
- The "context" is a standard mishmash of Russian tropes ...
I guess even Henry Kissinger was brainwashed by the Russians -
> ... Russia is strategically threatened on each of its borders: by a demographic nightmare on its Chinese border; by an ideological nightmare in the form of radical Islam along its equally long southern border; and to the West, by Europe, which Moscow considers an historic challenge. Russia seeks recognition as a great power, as an equal, and not as a supplicant in an American-designed system ... Russia was built by an elite who transported serfs to distant fields and by Tsars who proclaimed, “This swamp land will be the city of Odessa or the city of St. Petersburg.” They are sustained in part by a sort of mystic relationship with their hardships and their vision. They had survived centuries under the Mongols. Charles XII of Sweden marched into Russia because he thought it would be easy to impose a Swedish ruler in Moscow. What he found were Russian peasants burning their own crops in order to deny food to the invaders. They would starve themselves before they would let him take over their country. He had marched across Europe, but he had never seen this before. His troops were forced to go south into Ukraine just to survive, where they were ultimately defeated ... Geopolitically, Putin governs a country with 11 time zones. Few countries in history have started more wars or caused more turmoil than Russia in its eternal quest for security and status. It is also true, however, that at critical junctures Russia has saved the world’s equilibrium from forces that sought to overwhelm it: from the Mongols in the 16th century, from Sweden in the 18th century, from Napoleon in the 19th century, and from Hitler in the 20th century. In the contemporary period, Russia will be important in overcoming radical Islam, partly because it is home to some 20 million Muslims, particularly in the Caucasus and along Russia’s southern border. Russia will also be a factor in the equilibrium of Asia.
> ... I favor an independent Ukraine that is militarily non-aligned. If you remove the two Donbas regions from eastern Ukraine, you guarantee that Ukraine is permanently hostile to Russia, since it becomes dominated by its Western part, which only joined Russia in the 1940s. The solution, then, is to find a way to give these units a degree of autonomy that gives them a voice in military entanglements, but otherwise keeps them under the governance of Ukraine.
- ..."everyone's the same" narrative doesn't hold water.
Oh, everyone is NOT the same. If it were not for the political wisdom of the Americans and the Russians, warmongering Europeans would gladly start WW3. Thank god for Trump and Putin!
> Facts remains facts, whoever spins a propaganda out of it.
> Yeah, when facts don't suit you, it is ofcourse fake or "misinterpretation" or even irrelevant because of the "source" along with snide subtle remarks that imply how you alone are superior in intellect, and everyone else who doesn't agree with you is automatically dumb.
This can come as a surprise only if you've read prepackaged narratives from Russian propagandists instead of following the news and forming your own opinion.
> Again with the pedantic gaslighting. It is public knowledge that is even cited in a book. If you had any real interest to verify it, you can easily do so online.
> You aren't dumb. I have even cited the exact line from it. Read it again.
Here is the English translation of the document: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Declaration_of_Indepen...
It makes no mention of neutrality.
> I guess even Henry Kissinger was brainwashed by the Russians
> If it were not for the political wisdom of the Americans and the Russians, warmongering Europeans would gladly start WW3.
Stalin was simply shopping around for a way to exploit the looming German-Polish war and gain an opportunity to invade Poland. The French and the British did not agree to pressure the Polish government, so Stalin struck a deal with Hitler who had no such inhibitions.
The governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania accepted all demands and in return they were overthrown from the very same military bases on their soil that were supposed to satisfy Russian "security concerns". National governments were replaced with communist dictatorships under Russian control, and the entire countries remained under full military occupation until 1994. During this period, Russians committed genocide against the local populations, through actions such as mass deportations to Siberian labor camps. Facts speak a different story. Immediately at the start of the war, Russians established the Finnish Democratic Republic and its government and signed a treaty with it that subordinated Finland to the USSR. Finnish DR was supposed to take the place of the legitimate Finnish government, much like Russians set up puppet governments in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which "asked" to be absorbed into the USSR, to add a veneer of legitimacy to the conquest. After the invasion failed, the Finnish DR was quietly disbanded. Only morons go around yapping about "Russian security concerns" when Russia itself is the main threat to peace and security in Europe. Russia has severely violated the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, which established guiding principles for security and cooperation in Europe. Among other things, it was agreed in Helsinki that using force to violate territorial integrity and redraw European borders was unacceptable conduct for any European state.