EU started an economic war with Russia and then was surprised when Russia retaliated. Why would Russia sell energy to EU when EU is openly hostile to Russia?
Russia started the war on Ukraine and was surprised that Ukraine (and it’s allies) retaliated. Why would the Ukraine stop fighting Russia if Russia is obviously invading the Ukraine?
I’m not sure where you got this notion that Russia was surprised by anything here. If anything, it’s pretty clear that Russia was well prepared for the war unlike the west. Ukraine should stop fighting because the longer the war goes on the more of their country becomes destroyed, and eventually there may not be an Ukraine left. Ukraine cannot win this war.
In fact, Ukraine was going to negotiate peace with Russia back in April at which point it would’ve kept all of its territory. That’s when Bojo intervened to convince Ukraine to walk away from the deal. Now, Ukraine has lost four regions, and will keep losing territory.
Ukraine should stop fighting because the longer the war goes on the more of their country becomes destroyed, and eventually there may not be an Ukraine left.
Stop fighting will definitely result into no Ukraine being left. I don’t think this is a viable alternative.
Ukraine cannot win this war.
Well the future is not looking bright for Ukraine but I’ll hope there will be peace sooner than later. It’ll probably end up in a frozen war. But you can not expect the Ukraine to not defend it’s county just because the chance are higher that it looses. Still no justification of the Russian aggression.
Now, Ukraine has lost four regions, and will keep losing territory.
Let’s see. Current events suggests otherwise. But no one knows for sure.
Stop fighting will definitely result into no Ukraine being left. I don’t think this is a viable alternative.
If Ukraine agreed to remain neutral and respect Minsk protocol then it would have lost no territory.
If Ukraine negotiated peace in April then it would have lost less territory than Russia annex this week.
The longer this war goes on the more territory Ukraine will lose, and the worse position it will be in both militarily and economically. These are the basic facts of the situation.
Well the future is not looking bright for Ukraine but I’ll hope there will be peace sooner than later. It’ll probably end up in a frozen war. But you can not expect the Ukraine to not defend it’s county just because the chance are higher that it looses.
Russia is methodically grinding down Ukrainian military and eventually it will break. At that point Russia will install a friendly government there. That is the most likely outcome of this situation.
The only thing the regime in Ukraine is defending is American interest in weakening Russia and Europe.
Still no justification of the Russian aggression.
The fact that Ukraine fought a civil war for eight years against the Russian speaking population in the east instead of implementing Minsk agreements is the justification for Russia intervening.
Let’s see. Current events suggests otherwise. But no one knows for sure.
Current events do not suggest otherwise. Russia chose to cede some territory by pulling troops back while they build up their 300k reserves. Ukraine did not defeat Russian army or the LPR and DPR militias in combat to gain the territory they captured. The balance of power has not changed. This is a war of attrition where Ukrainian army is being ground down.
Russia is methodically grinding down Ukrainian military and eventually it will break. At that point Russia will install a friendly government there. That is the most likely outcome of this situation.
This is wishful thinking. This war will grind to a halt some time in the future, like so many other wars do as well. There is no clear “winner”
The only thing the regime in Ukraine is defending is American interest in weakening Russia and Europe.
What about all the lives of the Ukrainian civilization? What about the right to be a sovereign state. Do you really think Ukraine is just fighting because the US said so? How stupid.
The fact that Ukraine fought a civil war for eight years against the Russian speaking population in the east
The framing … it sounds like Ukraine was starting the fight. AFAIK it was the rebel groups in the east who started the civil war. At the very least both were fighting and both sides were violating the Minsk agreements / the ceasefire.
You keep repeating and cherry picking details supporting the Russian narrative. Please for once take other perspectives into consideration. Your current comments just sound like well educated and good formulated propaganda.
This is wishful thinking. This war will grind to a halt some time in the future, like so many other wars do as well. There is no clear “winner”
It’s not, it’s the reality of the situation and if you learn to parse western media and Pentagon briefings then you’ll see that even they are reporting this. There absolutely is a clear winner here. Ukraine started in the best position possible to stop Russia. They since lost most of their machinery and much of the troops they had. The west is not able to resupply them at the rate they are losing what they have.
What about all the lives of the Ukrainian civilization? What about the right to be a sovereign state. Do you really think Ukraine is just fighting because the US said so? How stupid.
Perhaps Ukraine should’ve thought of that when they refused to respect Minsk protocols, refused to stay neutral, and continued to try to get into NATO. The reality is that there is no scenario where Russia will tolerate nukes on their doorstep.
The framing … it sounds like Ukraine was starting the fight. AFAIK it was the rebel groups in the east who started the civil war.
Ukrainian right wing regime absolutely started the fight. The rebel groups in the east started fighting back against ethnic cleansing by the regime the west installed via a coup in 2014.
At the very least both were fighting and both sides were violating the Minsk agreements / the ceasefire.
No, both sides were not violating Minsk agreements. Ukrainian government was doing that with the backing from the west.
You keep repeating and cherry picking details supporting the Russian narrative. Please for once take other perspectives into consideration. Your current comments just sound like well educated and good formulated propaganda.
This isn’t Russian narrative. This is what plenty of western experts have been saying for decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Propaganda is ignoring decades of history and pretending that Russia just decided to attack Ukraine out of the blue because they’re evil orcs who can’t be reasoned with.
But still you are cherry picking western resources. Even the new Atlas is arguing very one sided.
Propaganda is ignoring decades of history and pretending that Russia just decided to attack Ukraine out of the blue because they’re evil orcs who can’t be reasoned with.
Never ever have I pretended that. There are favorable geopolitical and historical reasons for Russia to start the war against the Ukraine, no doubt. But morally speaking there is still no justification of the war.
The rebel groups in the east started fighting back against ethnic cleansing by the regime the west installed via a coup in 2014.
Alright now we are in conspiracy theory territory. Let’s stop here. You are not making it better for yourself proving your image wrong of arguing one sided in perfect alignment with the Russian narrative.
But still you are cherry picking western resources. Even the new Atlas is arguing very one sided.
What specifically are you contesting there?
Never ever have I pretend that. There are favorablegeopolitical and historical reasons Russia started the war against the Ukraine, no doubt. But morally speaking there is still no justification of the war.
Morally speaking it’s no different than what the west has been doing. This is the world we live in, only way to avoid such conflicts is to respect boundaries. Russia has reasonable demands that their security concerns are respected. They were perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own things until the coup there. If NATO did not continue to expand and encircle Russia since the 90s then there would’ve been no war.
Alright now we are in conspiracy theory territory. Let’s stop here. You are not making it better for yourself proving your image wrong of arguing one sided in perfect alignment with the Russian narrative.
Everything you wrote applies to the west in equal parts. The choice isn’t between Ukraine being neutral or being under Russian influence. It’s whether Ukraine is in western or Russian sphere of influence. The west has meddled in Ukrainian politics far more aggressively than Russia ever had. Nuland is literally on record picking the government after 2014 coup.
You actively support NATO which is a genocidal alliance responsible for deaths of millions of people. You have no moral high ground here.
EU started an economic war with Russia and then was surprised when Russia retaliated. Why would Russia sell energy to EU when EU is openly hostile to Russia?
Russia started the war on Ukraine and was surprised that Ukraine (and it’s allies) retaliated. Why would the Ukraine stop fighting Russia if Russia is obviously invading the Ukraine?
I’m not sure where you got this notion that Russia was surprised by anything here. If anything, it’s pretty clear that Russia was well prepared for the war unlike the west. Ukraine should stop fighting because the longer the war goes on the more of their country becomes destroyed, and eventually there may not be an Ukraine left. Ukraine cannot win this war.
In fact, Ukraine was going to negotiate peace with Russia back in April at which point it would’ve kept all of its territory. That’s when Bojo intervened to convince Ukraine to walk away from the deal. Now, Ukraine has lost four regions, and will keep losing territory.
Stop fighting will definitely result into no Ukraine being left. I don’t think this is a viable alternative.
Well the future is not looking bright for Ukraine but I’ll hope there will be peace sooner than later. It’ll probably end up in a frozen war. But you can not expect the Ukraine to not defend it’s county just because the chance are higher that it looses. Still no justification of the Russian aggression.
Let’s see. Current events suggests otherwise. But no one knows for sure.
If Ukraine agreed to remain neutral and respect Minsk protocol then it would have lost no territory.
If Ukraine negotiated peace in April then it would have lost less territory than Russia annex this week.
The longer this war goes on the more territory Ukraine will lose, and the worse position it will be in both militarily and economically. These are the basic facts of the situation.
Russia is methodically grinding down Ukrainian military and eventually it will break. At that point Russia will install a friendly government there. That is the most likely outcome of this situation.
The only thing the regime in Ukraine is defending is American interest in weakening Russia and Europe.
The fact that Ukraine fought a civil war for eight years against the Russian speaking population in the east instead of implementing Minsk agreements is the justification for Russia intervening.
Current events do not suggest otherwise. Russia chose to cede some territory by pulling troops back while they build up their 300k reserves. Ukraine did not defeat Russian army or the LPR and DPR militias in combat to gain the territory they captured. The balance of power has not changed. This is a war of attrition where Ukrainian army is being ground down.
This is wishful thinking. This war will grind to a halt some time in the future, like so many other wars do as well. There is no clear “winner”
What about all the lives of the Ukrainian civilization? What about the right to be a sovereign state. Do you really think Ukraine is just fighting because the US said so? How stupid.
The framing … it sounds like Ukraine was starting the fight. AFAIK it was the rebel groups in the east who started the civil war. At the very least both were fighting and both sides were violating the Minsk agreements / the ceasefire.
You keep repeating and cherry picking details supporting the Russian narrative. Please for once take other perspectives into consideration. Your current comments just sound like well educated and good formulated propaganda.
It’s not, it’s the reality of the situation and if you learn to parse western media and Pentagon briefings then you’ll see that even they are reporting this. There absolutely is a clear winner here. Ukraine started in the best position possible to stop Russia. They since lost most of their machinery and much of the troops they had. The west is not able to resupply them at the rate they are losing what they have.
This channel does a very good job breaking these things down using western sources https://www.youtube.com/c/TheNewAtlas/videos
Perhaps Ukraine should’ve thought of that when they refused to respect Minsk protocols, refused to stay neutral, and continued to try to get into NATO. The reality is that there is no scenario where Russia will tolerate nukes on their doorstep.
Ukrainian right wing regime absolutely started the fight. The rebel groups in the east started fighting back against ethnic cleansing by the regime the west installed via a coup in 2014.
No, both sides were not violating Minsk agreements. Ukrainian government was doing that with the backing from the west.
This isn’t Russian narrative. This is what plenty of western experts have been saying for decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Propaganda is ignoring decades of history and pretending that Russia just decided to attack Ukraine out of the blue because they’re evil orcs who can’t be reasoned with.
But still you are cherry picking western resources. Even the new Atlas is arguing very one sided.
Never ever have I pretended that. There are favorable geopolitical and historical reasons for Russia to start the war against the Ukraine, no doubt. But morally speaking there is still no justification of the war.
Alright now we are in conspiracy theory territory. Let’s stop here. You are not making it better for yourself proving your image wrong of arguing one sided in perfect alignment with the Russian narrative.
What specifically are you contesting there?
Morally speaking it’s no different than what the west has been doing. This is the world we live in, only way to avoid such conflicts is to respect boundaries. Russia has reasonable demands that their security concerns are respected. They were perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own things until the coup there. If NATO did not continue to expand and encircle Russia since the 90s then there would’ve been no war.
This is not a conspiracy theory it’s a documented fact. You continue to show disturbing amount of ignorance regarding the topic you’re attempting to debate. Here’s a research paper you should read to educate yourself https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299383810_The_Separatist_War_in_Donbas_A_Violent_Break-up_of_Ukraine
deleted by creator
Everything you wrote applies to the west in equal parts. The choice isn’t between Ukraine being neutral or being under Russian influence. It’s whether Ukraine is in western or Russian sphere of influence. The west has meddled in Ukrainian politics far more aggressively than Russia ever had. Nuland is literally on record picking the government after 2014 coup.
You actively support NATO which is a genocidal alliance responsible for deaths of millions of people. You have no moral high ground here.