Ukraine Conflict - Der Weg zurück

[Bartimaeus]

  

13 hours ago, 213374U said:

Sure, let's kowtow to this foreign power in hopes that they will protect us from the attack that advancing their interests around these parts is sure to provoke.

Helpful context for others here, particularly non-Americans, is remembering that Cuba exists, which the U.S. has been embargoing for the last 60 years or so, and whom we attempted to regime change multiple times as well as conducted what was essentially a campaign of terrorist attacks against it...among other unsavory activities*. U.S. leadership was willing to go to nuclear war in order to prevent Cuba from hosting Soviet missiles - only by secretly reducing their own stock of missiles in Europe did the Soviet Union relent and allow us to still be sitting here today. So you might be able to see why NATO expanding literally to the border of Russia might concern them, especially given that there are five U.S. nuclear bases already in Europe in other NATO countries - Russia may be a pretty pathetic rump state of the much grander Soviet Union, but they're still a strong regional nuclear power seeing all of their interests slip away to the Western bloc...a Western bloc that also largely acts like it owns the world and that everything it does makes it the "good guys" and everyone else the "bad guys".

The difference I have with Numbers, though, is that I'm really not exactly sure...you know, like, what should have been done instead - how should these things have worked out that would've been better? He mentions expanding NATO as being the critical provoking issue, but if you do not have the concrete backing of a nuclear power, then IMO it is only a matter of time until you are in someone's target sights sooner or later...exactly as we are currently seeing with Ukraine, which did not have any iron-clad guarantees from anyone about anything, which is exactly why Russia felt pretty secure in invading it. Though things may have looked peaceful back in the 2000s, that is no reason to believe it will be true in the future - a lot can change in just ten years, and this alliance has held and guaranteed the sovereignty of many of its members for much longer than that, so it makes perfect sense that vulnerable countries would join NATO while they could...particularly given that there is no future where the U.S. looks to actually permanently "occupy" or annex any European countries, which is not necessarily the case when you have a directly neighboring regional power like Russia who already seems to kind of look at you like they own you. And if you're a regional power and literally just about all of your neighbors are flocking to different "foreign interests" instead of you, well...what're you doing wrong that your rivals aren't? Invading one of those neighbors certainly isn't going to encourage anyone else to cozy up to you when they could pick a less expansionist alternative instead, .

However, while it may make sense for the countries that wish to join, Numbers' specific argument was against the U.S. allowing (and/or encouraging) them to join in the first place. That I am less sure about. Did NATO see Russia as its primary "threat" before 2014? Was Ukraine joining NATO even a realistic possibility? I guess it doesn't really matter to Russia - they were clearly slipping away after a suspicious change of regime and there was a distinct possibility that they could apply and get in suddenly before Russia could do anything about it, which was too strong of a risk to bear when they could put a pre-emptive end to it, consequences be damned. NATO's continued existence after the end(?) of the Cold War is a matter of discussion in of itself - personally, I have been pretty but not absolutely pro-NATO because I think it encourages peace and cooperation among its members, and if you are at peace with your neighbors, you are also likely to be at peace abroad by and large...and a powerful bloc of similarly aligned countries also has a sort of strong-arming effect on nearby non-aligned nations that might otherwise be more aggressive than they're being. It doesn't always work out like this, though, especially with consideration to the U.S., which, while it has generally been a good stabilizer in Europe (the issue of Kosovo notwithstanding, particularly given how completely screwed that entire situation was on all sides), has essentially been an ultra-aggressive wishy-washy/rogue military hyperpower with a legion of known and secret interests/goals throughout most of the rest of the world. Really, the idea that the U.S. somehow has cleaner hands than Russia is a joke - the only way you could ever possibly see it that way is if you have a completely Anglo/European-centric view where the rest of the world doesn't matter. Anyways, we tend to think of the future as somehow inherently being more peaceful than the present and certainly the past, but I don't think that's true at all...so something like NATO or the EU that tries to tie a bloc of directly neighboring nations together as natural allies with shared interests for the foreseeable future is always going to be a good idea to me - whether it's in Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Americas, peace is good to me.

*I really wish the U.S. had gotten over the whole "Communist" thing at some point in the 50s-60s and earnestly tried to have amiable relations with nations we didn't need to be fighting - specifically with Cuba and Vietnam. Unfortunately, I don't think it was until the 80s that we finally consciously realized that peaceful co-existences and even alliances with such countries were actually possible, by which time it was way too late.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[Elerond]

Things have changed from 60s, in way that both USA and Russia have strategic nuclear weapons that can be shot from anywhere in world to anywhere in world. So close proximity of military bases and nuclear weapons has quite little impact to MAD

[Bartimaeus]

32 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Things have changed from 60s, in way that both USA and Russia have strategic nuclear weapons that can be shot from anywhere in world to anywhere in world. So close proximity of military bases and nuclear weapons has quite little impact to MAD

Sure...but even in the 60s, don't think Cuba would've changed much, either - after all, how would Cuba having nuclear strike capability on the U.S. materially change the U.S. having nuclear strike capability on the Soviet Union from Turkey or Italy? They're totally separate locations with no bearing on the other...it was really just an equalling out of MAD. Nevertheless, the world nearly ended from this precise issue.

[Mamoulian War]

10 hours ago, Malcador said:

Another Russian General killed, apparently.

 

This information is according to the intel by our investigative journalist, which I've posted here two days ago. Russia do not have secure communication in place at Ukraine. His dead followed his interception, when he talked to command in Russia through cell phone, because their encrypted communication does not work at the moment, because it requires 3g/4g to work. And Russians destroyed almost all 3g/4g receivers while besieging Kharkiv... Another blatant show of incompetence of corrupted army officers... He was even talking about general Gerassimov in that report. The next part of the story was planned to go deeply about him... I am now even more curious about part 2...

On 3/6/2022 at 5:52 PM, Mamoulian War said:

A google translation of Slovak text published today by one of the anti-mafia, anti-nazi investigative journalist from Slovakia (Radovan Bránik), which speaks little bit more about current situation, and why some of the Russian Troops, especially in the north and east seem halted. And the causes behind it. Part two should be published soon. He speaks about Russia making one of the craziest mistakes in modern warfare. Military communication, which is being intercepted by radio amateurs...

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by Mamoulian War

[Mamoulian War]

In other news, Japan has decided, that if Russia wants "reunite" old USSR territories, they want back Kuril Islands, which they lost to USSR... In before Mongolia asks for 3/4 of Russia lol...

 

 

[Lexx]

Hmm, I just had an idea regarding old german territories ...

[Mamoulian War]

Also if you are lost in what information might be true or not about wins and defeats, here is the list of all confirmed technical losses on both sides. The real number is probably much higher, but from the numbers, the number of technic, which Ukraine captured from Russia is much higher, than what Russia was able to destroy... So in other words, Russia donated to Ukraine more weapons, than the whole NATO combined

8.3.22 10:00

Russia - 902, of which: destroyed: 358, damaged: 10, abandoned: 150, captured: 382

Ukraine - 272, of which: destroyed: 94, damaged: 4, abandoned: 44, captured: 127

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

[Mamoulian War]

2 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Hmm, I just had an idea regarding old german territories ...

Well. The least what could Germany demand at the moment would be Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg IMHO you Germans should start a rally and demand that your government releases official note, that they would like it back

[Zoraptor]

The Japanese have claimed the lower Kurils since the end of WW2. So there's no change there.

They would have conceded the bigger two of them in 1956 in return for the two smaller ones, but the US said it would annex Okinawa if they did. So they didn't, and the claim has stood since then. iirc officially the US doesn't actually recognise anyone's authority over the lower two Kurils.

[Mamoulian War]

13 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Quite apart from the proximity to two of the most strategically important Russian cities in Smolensk and Rostov that was especially true after the US reneged on INF. Ukraine would make a great base for some nuclear capable cruise missiles.

(Yes reflexive knee jerkers, I know the US doesn't have any nuke cruise missiles and the warheads that were sitting in storage a decade+ after the INF was signed may have actually been disposed of at some point. I'm sure they're as unprepared for arming tomahawks with nukes as they were for having land based tomahawks after not having the missiles or software- per Aegis Ashore not violating INF in the first place, which it most definitely did- for... a whole week after leaving the agreement?)

The proximity of Russian territory to the possible delivery of Nuclear weapons to Ukraine is very weak argument, as Russia has nuclear weapons already in the "middle" of NATO... At Kaliningrad... Should we now start bombarding it as well and demand that Russia removes them and then in the peace deal require the territory be given back to Germany?

[213374U]

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

The difference I have with Numbers, though, is that I'm really not exactly sure...you know, like, what should have been done instead - how should these things have worked out that would've been better? He mentions expanding NATO as being the critical provoking issue, but if you do not have the concrete backing of a nuclear power, then IMO it is only a matter of time until you are in someone's target sights sooner or later...exactly as we are currently seeing with Ukraine, which did not have any concrete guarantees from anyone about anything, which is exactly why Russia felt pretty secure in invading it. Though things may have looked peaceful back in the 2000s, that is no reason to believe it will be true in the future - a lot can change in just ten years, and this alliance has held and guaranteed the sovereignty of many of its members for much longer than that, so it makes perfect sense that vulnerable countries would join NATO while they could...particularly given that there is no future where the U.S. looks to actually permanently "occupy" or annex any European countries, which is not necessarily the case when you have a directly neighboring regional power like Russia who already seems to kind of look at you like they own you. And if you're a regional power and literally just about all of your neighbors are flocking to different "foreign interests" instead of you, well...what're you doing wrong that your rivals aren't? And invading one of those neighbors certainly isn't going to encourage anyone else to cozy up to you when they could pick a less expansionist alternative instead, .

Diplomacy has no "win" condition. It is both a process and a state of affairs. So long as you are avoiding war between parties with conflicting interests, you are winning. I'm not a fan of the idea that, without the threat of massive force, one cannot have normal relations with one's neighbors. France and Germany have had a history of hostilities and preying on each other's weaknesses at different times. After WWII, a different approach was attempted. It is an open question whether without the Soviet threat, cooperation between them would have borne fruit as it has. What's certain is that if they had continued to regard each other as rivals waiting to stick a dagger in each other's back, the peace we now take for granted would be a pipe dream.

We keep refusing to even consider the Russian perspective -- Ukrainians (and Baltics peoples, and Poles, and...) may be right to be wary about potential Russian aggression. And yet, this isn't mutually exclusive with Russian fears of Western aggression, especially in light of NATO's role after the Soviet collapse. Media and political leaders insist on painting Putin as an insane megalomaniac, when signs point to him rather being a calculating, pragmatic bureaucrat with a mild nostalgia for the past. It pays to remember that Russia has been under siege by the West, economic or military, for more than a century now. Whether this is the Russians' fault is immaterial -- the siege mentality is there, for both the people and the leaders. Dogged ignorance of this is a huge obstacle in the path to building normal relations. Arrogance in diplomacy isn't conducive to good deals. This much is obvious when we look at Putin's demands. And yet, this principle doesn't seem to apply to the West.

The issue about nuclear powers perpetually looking as bullies to their neighbors isn't trivial either. Non-proliferation efforts are a joke, and a cynic could think they are more intended to gatekeep nations from graduating to "equal" status than preventing nuclear war. This of course has the opposite effect of pushing countries that feel threatened to seek nuclear weapons as an existential safeguard. If we really want a world where diplomacy and the international rule of law decide matters, we must push for nuclear disarmament. Otherwise, an exclusive club of countries will always exist that reserve the right to do as they please.

As for why countries seem to flock to the US... funny story. We've had a history of political opposition to hosting NATO here. And yet, every single political leader who has held a position contrary to NATO since the early 80's, magically flips after being elected to office. Acceptance of the cold realities of politics, or utter corruption? Perhaps they are one and the same in this day and age?

[Zoraptor]

5 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

The proximity of Russian territory to the possible delivery of Nuclear weapons to Ukraine is very weak argument, as Russia has nuclear weapons already in the "middle" of NATO... At Kaliningrad... Should we now start bombarding it as well and demand that Russia removes them and then in the peace deal require the territory be given back to Germany?

Kaliningrad is a very long way away from the most prominent NATO member though, and the one with by far the most nukes. It's also only in the middle of NATO because of... NATO expansion. Do we really need another example of "___ aggressively placed their country near western military bases"? If you are going to go for a strategic nuclear strike you want to hit everything with as little warning as possible and nothing trumps being close for that.

Realistic scenario? You'd hope not. But then the US has quit pretty much every treaty designed to prevent that scenario. ABM. INF. Open Skies. They're doing a very good job of looking suspicious.

 

[Mamoulian War]

9 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Kaliningrad is a very long way away from the most prominent NATO member though, and the one with by far the most nukes. It's also only in the middle of NATO because of... NATO expansion. Do we really need another example of "___ aggressively placed their country near western military bases"? If you are going to go for a strategic nuclear strike you want to hit everything with as little warning as possible and nothing trumps being close for that.

Realistic scenario? You'd hope not. But then the US has quit pretty much every treaty designed to prevent that scenario. ABM. INF. Open Skies. They're doing a very good job of looking suspicious.

 

Well, Kaliningrad is next to Poland and ****ing close to my own country. I was always opponent of NATO going east, I always preferred independent EU army, but now I am glad, we are members... The reason why some ex Eastern Bloc countries wanted to join NATO, was close proximity of Kaliningrad, and the shared experience with Soviet aggression... For Baltic states, as you can see now, it was a decision of life or death. They would be now obliterated in one day, if they stayed "neutral"...

Edited March 8, 2022 by Mamoulian War

[Gorth]

40 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Well. The least what could Germany demand at the moment would be Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg IMHO you Germans should start a rally and demand that your government releases official note, that they would like it back

He might have been thinking about The Holy Roman Empire wanting Slovakia back...

 

[Mamoulian War]

1 minute ago, Gorth said:

He might have been thinking about The Holy Roman Empire wanting Slovakia back...

 

Well if my history lessons were correct, Slovakia was never part of Holy Roman Empire. In that case, @Chilloutman should be worried more  

[Gorth]

Just now, Mamoulian War said:

Well if my history lessons were correct, Slovakia was never part of Holy Roman Empire. In that case, @Chilloutman should be worried more  

You're right, that was your neighbour to the west... but I suppose the Habsburgs still count as "German"?

 

[Mamoulian War]

Just now, Gorth said:

You're right, that was your neighbour to the west... but I suppose the Habsburgs still count as "German"?

 

They might, the thing is, as much as I do not like it, we were part of big Hungary, which were technically not ruled by Habsburgs, so I should still be safe from HRE revival campaign, in case that Lexx would engage in it

On the other hand, I am happy, we do not have many active Italian members on the boards, then I would be really worried

[Mamoulian War]

Newest list of hostile COUNTRIES to Russia.

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Newest list of hostile COUNTRIES to Russia.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/02/united-nations-russia-ukraine-vote

141 countries  out of  193  UN nations voted with the US and Ukraine in condemning this unprovoked invasion by Russia

Only 5 countries voted against and those include the worst dictatorships in the world and I mean real dictatorships like NK, Belarus and Syria 

So I would say Russia needs to expand that list to include most of the world because condemning the Russian invasion should be considered an "unfriendly action " 

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

The difference I have with Numbers, though, is that I'm really not exactly sure...you know, like, what should have been done instead - how should these things have worked out that would've been better?

What could have been done depends on what stage in the sequence of events we're talking about. The west could have objected to the Ukrainian invasion and occupation of Crimea. To this day, most western media (most likely out of complete ignorance) talks about Crimea as if was once part of Ukraine, the nation. Hint, it never was. The same Soviet legislative authority that assigned it from the Russian S.S.R to the Ukrainian S.S.R. also removed it again before the collapse of the Soviet Union. If you accept the Soviet Union had the authority to hand it to Ukraine, you also have to accept that it had to authority to remove it again. If you don't accept it had the authority to remove it from Ukraine, you're by the same token also rejecting it had the authority to move it to the Ukrainian S.S.R in the first place. Whichever one, Crimea was never part of Ukraine post 1991. Only because it got invaded and direct Ukrainian military control imposed.

You could argue as a nation, with it's old internal Soviet administration borders suddenly resulting in a significant land grab containing a really significant amount of Russians, which ended up on the receiving end of a lot of stick and persecution from a new nationalist government in Kiev in 2014. It's not coincidence **** started hitting the fan that year. It was never going to be a stable country and secessionist movements were written on the wall already 1991 because of some really nonsensical border drawing.

So, what does the west do? Instead of putting pressure on Ukraine to respect the rights of ethnic minorities and cease the occupation of Crimea, they encourage them by dangling a EU membership under the noses of western Ukraine (where the population is predominantly Ukrainian), regardless of Ukraine not meeting any criteria whatsoever of EU membership. Especially corruption is rampant and no election so far has been without it's problems. Oh yeah, and the treatment of ethnic minorities. No other country would have gotten into the EU in the shape Ukraine was through the 2010's

The war in the Donetsk region is recent history. The Minsk accord was agreed upon as the future, but when NATO suddenly hinted at Ukrainian membership, Zelenskyy suddenly felt brave and publicly declared, that Ukraine no longer had any intention of honouring it's commitment to the accord. With visible results. The people in eastern Ukraine declared themselves independent (the people in Crimea were already independent and held a valid referendum asking to be accepted as part of the Russian Federation).

So many places this could have been nipped in the bud, but western countries with typical arrogance simply decided what is best for all other countries, regardless of realities on the ground.

 

So, stage one, the west should never have accepted Ukraine's original claims to it's new national borders, regardless of ethnic composition. We saw that in the 1920's too int he middle east (the Kurds sends their "regards"). Stage two, The west should have put sanctions in place against Ukraine over the invasion of Crimea, demanding the removal of Ukrainian troops. Stage three, If more effort had been put into seeing Ukraine and former parts of Russia in as neutral territory rather than advanced military outposts to encroach on Russia in it's own backyard, a lot of paranoia and suspicion could have been avoided. Last but not least (my pet peeve), done more to integrate Russia too into the western " cultural hemisphere" and let cultural change seep in gradually, rather than being handed to them, ultimatum by ultimatum.

Proud people don't respond well to threats and holier than thou attitudes.

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

The issue about nuclear powers perpetually looking as bullies to their neighbors isn't trivial either. Non-proliferation efforts are a joke, and a cynic could think they are more intended to gatekeep nations from graduating to "equal" status than preventing nuclear war. This of course has the opposite effect of pushing countries that feel threatened to seek nuclear weapons as an existential safeguard. If we really want a world where diplomacy and the international rule of law decide matters, we must push for nuclear disarmament. Otherwise, an exclusive club of countries will always exist that reserve the right to do as they please.

Agreed on every count here. The nuclear issue is also, it seems to me, what is causing other countries to align themselves with the "bigs" in the first place - if every country had nukes, there would probably be exactly one war between two developing nations who irrationally let their hatred of each other reach an apocalyptic level before the the rest of the world realized that there won't ever be anything but civil wars ever again. With no nukes, you have to become a "protectorate" of someone to some degree or risk being eventually caught in someone else's crosshair. It's a system that pretty much results in the entrenched powers that be staying exactly as they are to their own benefit.

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

Diplomacy has no "win" condition. It is both a process and a state of affairs. So long as you are avoiding war between parties with conflicting interests, you are winning. I'm not a fan of the idea that, without the threat of massive force, one cannot have normal relations with one's neighbors. France and Germany have had a history of hostilities and preying on each other's weaknesses at different times. After WWII, a different approach was attempted. It is an open question whether without the Soviet threat, cooperation between them would have borne fruit as it has. What's certain is that if they had continued to regard each other as rivals waiting to stick a dagger in each other's back, the peace we now take for granted would be a pipe dream.

I'm by no means a fan of the idea, but this is the way it has always been - the players, the sides they take, and the weapons they use have all changed over time, but it's always been the same fundamental process, and I don't see any reason to believe it'll ever change, not even if we conquered the stars. I don't want it, not at all, especially given the greater issues the world at large faces*...but it seems to be human nature. And the point about Germany and France is an important one...and yet I can't help but think of the very issue you raised - it only happened because of a greater perceived threat. The pessimist in me tells me it's the same as it ever was...the same as it will ever be.

*Seriously, before we even start talking about nukes, it seems all but certain that the climate crisis is ruining or going to put to ruin the majority of developing nations before it ever even meaningfully impacts most of the "developed" world, and the most anyone can do is make vague goals two to three decades off from current year. As if the developing world didn't have enough disadvantages compared to the developed world...a future problem for future leaders, huh?

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

We keep refusing to even consider the Russian perspective -- Ukrainians (and Baltics peoples, and Poles, and...) may be right to be wary about potential Russian aggression. And yet, this isn't mutually exclusive with Russian fears of Western aggression, especially in light of NATO's role after the Soviet collapse. Media and political leaders insist on painting Putin as an insane megalomaniac, when signs point to him rather being a calculating, pragmatic bureaucrat with a mild nostalgia for the past. It pays to remember that Russia has been under siege by the West, economic or military, for more than a century now. Whether this is the Russians' fault is immaterial -- the siege mentality is there, for both the people and the leaders. Dogged ignorance of this is a huge obstacle in the path to building normal relations. Arrogance in diplomacy isn't conducive to good deals. This much is obvious when we look at Putin's demands. And yet, this principle doesn't seem to apply to the West.

I think it's difficult for a lot of us, including myself, because we try to weigh a country's right to self-determination vs. perceived threats vs. national interests - or at least I do. So while I get it from Russia's perspective, I really feel it even more pressingly from everyone around them - if I were a citizen of one of those former Soviet bloc countries, who do not have nukes or a guaranteed nuclear ally...OF COURSE I would want to be in NATO - how could I not want that? Yeah, in the 2000s, it didn't look like Russia or anyone else in the neighborhood was going to be threatening anyone else anytime soon, but the future is a very uncertain place, and being in NATO gives you self-determination that you wouldn't otherwise be guaranteed, particularly when you sit right next to a former superpower that's now simply a weakened regional power. And now that Russia has actually attacked Ukraine, and specifically made threats to Finland and Sweden for even thinking of joining NATO and exercising self-determination...well, I'd feeling pretty justified in being a country like Lithuania for having already taken the opportunity when it presented itself, that's for sure.

But you're not wrong about Russia's perspective: the U.S. wouldn't allow a similar situation to transpire - we literally did not in the case of Cuba, we were ready to effectively end the world over it. I don't know how to feel or what to do about it. It's an unresolvable quagmire for me, because my answer will completely depend on whose perspective I'm considering it from at that particular moment. Someone else besides me, probably someone much more unempathetic and jingoistic, will somehow have to work out these issues against similarly entrenched minds on the opposite side in some fashion - I would be much too weak for figuring these things out.

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

As for why countries seem to flock to the US... funny story. We've had a history of political opposition to hosting NATO here. And yet, every single political leader who has held a position contrary to NATO since the early 80's, magically flips after being elected to office. Acceptance of the cold realities of politics, or utter corruption? Perhaps they are one and the same in this day and age?

Heh, we have a number of political issues that get the same kind of treatment from politicians here in the U.S., and people wonder the same exact two thoughts about them when they happen over and over - corruption...or inexplicable political infeasibility? The end result is the same.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

27 minutes ago, Gorth said:

What could have been done depends on what stage in the sequence of events we're talking about. The west could have objected to the Ukrainian invasion and occupation of Crimea. To this day, most western media (most likely out of complete ignorance) talks about Crimea as if was once part of Ukraine, the nation. Hint, it never was. The same Soviet legislative authority that assigned it from the Russian S.S.R to the Ukrainian S.S.R. also removed it again before the collapse of the Soviet Union. If you accept the Soviet Union had the authority to hand it to Ukraine, you also have to accept that it had to authority to remove it again. If you don't accept it had the authority to remove it from Ukraine, you're by the same token also rejecting it had the authority to move it to the Ukrainian S.S.R in the first place. Whichever one, Crimea was never part of Ukraine post 1991. Only because it got invaded and direct Ukrainian military control imposed.

You could argue as a nation, with it's old internal Soviet administration borders suddenly resulting in a significant land grab containing a really significant amount of Russians, which ended up on the receiving end of a lot of stick and persecution from a new nationalist government in Kiev in 2014. It's not coincidence **** started hitting the fan that year. It was never going to be a stable country and secessionist movements were written on the wall already 1991 because of some really nonsensical border drawing.

So, what does the west do? Instead of putting pressure on Ukraine to respect the rights of ethnic minorities and cease the occupation of Crimea, they encourage them by dangling a EU membership under the noses of western Ukraine (where the population is predominantly Ukrainian), regardless of Ukraine not meeting any criteria whatsoever of EU membership. Especially corruption is rampant and no election so far has been without it's problems. Oh yeah, and the treatment of ethnic minorities. No other country would have gotten into the EU in the shape Ukraine was through the 2010's

The war in the Donetsk region is recent history. The Minsk accord was agreed upon as the future, but when NATO suddenly hinted at Ukrainian membership, Zelenskyy suddenly felt brave and publicly declared, that Ukraine no longer had any intention of honouring it's commitment to the accord. With visible results. The people in eastern Ukraine declared themselves independent (the people in Crimea were already independent and held a valid referendum asking to be accepted as part of the Russian Federation).

So many places this could have been nipped in the bud, but western countries with typical arrogance simply decided what is best for all other countries, regardless of realities on the ground.

 

So, stage one, the west should never have accepted Ukraine's original claims to it's new national borders, regardless of ethnic composition. We saw that in the 1920's too int he middle east (the Kurds sends their "regards"). Stage two, The west should have put sanctions in place against Ukraine over the invasion of Crimea, demanding the removal of Ukrainian troops. Stage three, If more effort had been put into seeing Ukraine and former parts of Russia in as neutral territory rather than advanced military outposts to encroach on Russia in it's own backyard, a lot of paranoia and suspicion could have been avoided. Last but not least (my pet peeve), done more to integrate Russia too into the western " cultural hemisphere" and let cultural change seep in gradually, rather than being handed to them, ultimatum by ultimatum.

Proud people don't respond well to threats and holier than thou attitudes.

I have one simple question to ask you Gorthfuscious

Do you not believe a sovereign country has the right to join the EU or NATO if it wants? Or do you believe another country gets to decide?

And if you believe Russia gets to decide would  you support and justify a Russian invasion of lets says Finland if it joins NATO because then the West can also move Nukes close to Russia?

 

[Lexx]

I do agree that the west is also very much to blame for this conflict, but as said before... if living under russian rule wouldn't be such a crap deal, more people might consider it. If russia would be able to fix itself and be more trustworthy, the bordering countries might not try so hard to get away from them...

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Lexx said:

I do agree that the west is also very much to blame for this conflict, but as said before... if living under russian rule wouldn't be such a crap deal, more people might consider it. If russia would be able to fix itself and be more trustworthy, the bordering countries might not try so hard to get away from them...

Yes and this is one of the fundamental points  that is conveniently ignored by Russian apologists. Most East European countries  dont want to part of Putins " recreation of the Soviet empire " 

And the fact that this is their Democratic right doesnt seem to matter

South Africa is part of BRICS, the Commonwealth, SADC and the AU and all these decisions to join these unions  were made because we are a sovereign country and no one dictates to us who we can join and who we cannot join 

 

[Chilloutman]

2 hours ago, Lexx said:

Hmm, I just had an idea regarding old german territories ...

Hey hey hey, slow down Germans, relax ok?