Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

You miss the key point, that this kind of "intervention" became necessary to stop Islamist barbarians from taking over and committing a genocide on the Syrian-Iraqi Alevites, Christians, Shia muslims, Kurds, Yazidis, atheists etc., etc. They went on killing and torturing as they liked, with the support of the Gulf states, Turkey, Israel and of course the USA.
That was the situation these states were in, before the Russians intervened and had to use brutal force to bring things back to something more acceptable. Probably it won't have been enough, because guess what, if the Russians lose it now completely, the war in Syria will escalate once more too and bring the Sunni Islamists back into offensive. We already see signs of that.

So what you are suggesting is that the Russians caused this mess: No they don't, it was the USA and its allies which caused that catastrophy, the Russians just played the firefighters when things went completely out of control.

They didn't trample "on people" because they loved it, they had to use force to fight these genocidal and most brutal Islamists back. That's a very basic and fundamental difference. This is not order as a an end in itself, its the better alternative, given the options on the ground.

Did you care to watch what the IS did to prisoners? You think that was better or more humane? More free or whatever? That was the alternative in Syria and the Russians prevented it from spreading, while the US and its allies directly and indirectly supplied and assisted them, up to the point of the general public paying attention to what guys they were.

This is even more absurd if considering that the USA invaded Iraq, a staunch enemy of this Islamists, with the excuse of fighting Islamist terror! They spread it themselves in Syria, while they have lied about Iraq! In comparison, Russia did much better and everything right, considering the given circumstances. The USA gave up on regime change themselves, now they support terrorists and "revolutions" from outside, with the effects we know from Syria, Libya, Georgia and now Ukraine. Great job.
Talking about Chechnya: They were even left alone, they could do what they wanted, but they began to infiltrate other Caucasian republics and used terrorism in main Russia itself. The main support and ideological infiltration came from Saudi Arabia, with indirect US support. Chechnya was an ugly war too, but that was the time Russia was really pushed to it, and began to realise, that even if they want, they can't just watch. Because things get worse, they don't even stop at their republic's border.

We got all those surveillance in the West, with the poor excuse of "fighting Islamist terror" initially, and in reality the US is supporting Islamists whenever it suits them and cooperates with the main state sponsor for these movements, Saudi Arabia.

The USA have the least right to point fingers on Russia, the least!

You miss my point entirely about the "order" and the "authoritarian order".

In the view of authoritarian leaders ordinary people are only pieces on a chess board.

Internal an external repression, cherished as "order".

And even then before the US, the SU left Afghanistan, and may be in their own sphere of influence they repress Islamist, but the only effect is that they radicalize more and more once and a while they blow themselves up in the metros stations in Moskva/ Petrograd too.....
 
Last edited:
You miss my point entirely about the "order" and the "authoritarian order".

In the view of authoritarian leaders ordinary people are only pieces on a chess board.

And the liberal democratic US government cares for every citizen? Also for the people abroad? We saw in many instances how much they care. Again, you maken one big mistake: You apply double standards. Yes, generally speaking, the US "cares" more for its citizens in particular, also because this is part of the image they want to communicate. But in many instances, and especially if they draw on their reserves, get cornered themselves, they have proven time and time again, that they can be as brutal and ruthless as most "authoritarian" states, which are no homogeneous, unified category anyway.

And even then before the US, the SU left Afghanistan, and may be in their own sphere of influence they repress Islamist, but the only effect is that they radicalize more and more once and a while they blow themselves up in the metros stations in Moskva/ Petrograd too.....

They even allow Islamism, in Chechnya, as long as its not too extreme and subversive. And the main problem was for the Russians always that they couldn't cut the Islamists off and were rather careful about them, generally speaking. They got constantly supplied by the US secret services and especially the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia in particular. The kind of Salafist Islamism which spread in Chechnya was unknown and foreign to the region, before Arab ideologists came to the country, just as they came to Bosnia in the 1990's. And of course, the US and its Gulf allies are bombing Iraq, Syria, Yemen and corner Iran, because of them "supporting terrorism". What a joke. Even in TV shows like Homeland the bad guys are Iranians, as ruthless Islamists. Its all rigged and manipulated, the US public being so often misled, it can't be counted any more, and the same theme goes through other topics of political importance.

No double standards please. Even the liberal, otherwise clearly pro-Ukrainian commentator here on ORF TV asks why the Ukrainians don't agree on the pre-war status of Ukraine being fixed:
- Ukraine staying neutral
- Krim goes to Russia
- Autonomy for the Donbas republics

What's so bad about it? Its because Selenski pushed the nationalist agenda of a greater Ukraine and NATO membership in the current borders. He doesn't care for the suffering of the Ukrainians and just says "whatever it costs", to bring down the Russians. Yes, the US and the Ukrainian oligarchs got the right guy for doing that job, he just doesn't care about the escalation level and want to proceed to the bitter end. And that's the regime the West is supposed to support to the bitter end, unconditionally, in its war efforts. Horrible. For what, for bringing people under his regimes and the oligarchs control which don't want to, which were ready to fight for their freedom and becoming part of Russia? That's not any better and for sure no glorious goal for democrats which care for the people and the right to self-determination. They demand for themselves way more than they are ready to give. That's to my liking. Like people which always complained under much better conditions about Austro-Hungary, and when the time came and they got their states, they trampled on the German minorities and even shot into peaceful demonstrations.

I wonder how the great Selenski and his oligarchs with their private armies would treat the pro-Russian Donbas and Crimean people? I guess they can just flee if they don't want to get mistreated or even killed, if looking at how the mob acts in the Ukrainian cities and treats prisoners of war.

Same rights for both: The Western Ukranians want their right to self-determination, the pro-Russian Donbas and Crimea wants the same. That's all Russia is demanding. If the Selenski regime doesn't want to agree and prefers to destroy the country, one can hardly blame Russia alone for the outcome. The Russians waited 8 years and constantly tried to come to basic terms with the Ukrainians, but they just prepared for war and wanted to bring NATO in as soon as possible, just for getting their control over people back which don't want to be part of their state.

All that mess could have easily being prevented with no US intervention and a less confrontational Ukraine. The more facts I know about that conflict, the less sympathy I have for the Ukrainian regime and as wrong as it is, to start any such war without having absolutely no other choice, which was not the case for Russia, they still had other options, I understand it better and better. This Ukrainian regime could create only hate and hostility with Russia. How this Selenski talks alone, his absolute neglect for respect and accountability is enough. "As much as it costs", to get people subdued which don't want to be part of his state. And that's the great democratic cause. Russia made its offer, its fair enough.

Who sees people just as pawns on a chess board? Where is the difference between Selenski and his regime and that of Putins? Definitely no significant one.
 
And the liberal democratic US government cares for every citizen? Also for the people abroad? We saw in many instances how much they care. Again, you maken one big mistake: You apply double standards. Yes, generally speaking, the US "cares" more for its citizens in particular, also because this is part of the image they want to communicate. But in many instances, and especially if they draw on their reserves, get cornered themselves, they have proven time and time again, that they can be as brutal and ruthless as most "authoritarian" states, which are no homogeneous, unified category anyway.

There is no ideal system Riverman. Nevertheless I dare to say that the liberal democracy is despite failures etc etc is in this respect to prefer. The capabilities of people to chose and made their own lives is in the west pretty big. And no nock on the door at night. Life, liberty and the pursue of happiness is still important. Is this holy: no. Is there hypocrisy around this: yes. All true and still this stays important.


Who sees people just as pawns on a chess board? Where is the difference between Selenski and his regime and that of Putins? Definitely no significant one.

Autocratic leaders are in the position to handle people if they are pawns on a chess board. Why? Absolute power, no checks and balances. This leads to complete arbitrariness. If you don't want to or can't see this, you are completely blind in my eyes.
 
There is no ideal system Riverman. Nevertheless I dare to say that the liberal democracy is despite failures etc etc is in this respect to prefer. The capabilities of people to chose and made their own lives is in the west pretty big. And no nock on the door at night. Life, liberty and the pursue of happiness is still important. Is this holy: no. Is there hypocrisy around this: yes. All true and still this stays important.

Autocratic leaders are in the position to handle people if they are pawns on a chess board. Why? Absolute power, no checks and balances. This leads to complete arbitrariness. If you don't want to or can't see this, you are completely blind in my eyes.

I won't argue with that and just repeat my main point: No double standards. Concrete actions are what they are, regardless of the political system a state or people have.
A kill is a kill and torture is torture, corruption and so on.
I totally agree that the main advantages of a democracy are the limitation of power, balance and checks etc., quite similar to what you said.
 
I won't argue with that and just repeat my main point: No double standards. Concrete actions are what they are, regardless of the political system a state or people have.
A kill is a kill and torture is torture, corruption and so on.
I totally agree that the main advantages of a democracy are the limitation of power, balance and checks etc., quite similar to what you said.

Then take consequences out of it. Putin's regime has no limits of power check and balances. You can’t even accuse his regime of a double standard. Because it has no liberal democratic standard! That’s the essential difference.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum
 
Last edited:
Then take consequences out of it. Putin”s regime has no limits of power check and balances. You can’t even accuse his regime of a double standard. Because it has no liberal democratic standard! That’s the essential difference.

In this concrete case, Putin just protects the Russian most basic interests and the Russian minority in Ukraine, while Selenski wants to escalate the conflict to a point at which Russia will collapse at all costs and regardless of how many people die or whether the territories the Ukraine wants to reconquer from Russia want to be part of his state. He just abuses that the USA would support currently any enemy of Russia to bring the Russians down, want to expand their sphere or influence and he also abuses the Ukrainian nationalism for his purposes. He is just an actor which was hired and supported by the Ukrainian oligarchs for doing that job. The whole media landscape in Ukraine was totally manipulated and being, even before the escalation of the war, heavily censored by his regime. All non-supportive and pro-Russian media groups being persecuted.
Selenski is in no way better than Putin.
 
I think we all ultimately want peace here, I know Riverman is getting lots of hate but he's also arguing what he thinks will save lives, the average people are the ones that get screwed in war, lord knows our own Democratic run countries have committed atrocities. I myself would rather be in a country where I could at least be free to criticize without fear of death or imprisonment that is what all societies should strive for..
 
In this concrete case, Putin just protects the Russian most basic interests and the Russian minority in Ukraine, while Selenski wants to escalate the conflict to a point at which Russia will collapse at all costs and regardless of how many people die or whether the territories the Ukraine wants to reconquer from Russia want to be part of his state. He just abuses that the USA would support currently any enemy of Russia to bring the Russians down, want to expand their sphere or influence and he also abuses the Ukrainian nationalism for his purposes. He is just an actor which was hired and supported by the Ukrainian oligarchs for doing that job. The whole media landscape in Ukraine was totally manipulated and being, even before the escalation of the war, heavily censored by his regime. All non-supportive and pro-Russian media groups being persecuted.
Selenski is in no way better than Putin.

imagine if Russia was a peacefull free democratic country, would they still care that much about Ukraine joining NATO?
 
I would much rather decisions on statehoods or territorial disputes to go before a United Nations for a vote, I know there is lots of bribery and corruption there but is war a better alternative to this? That was supposed to be the whole point of the United Nations...
 
^^Well, that will be a problem. A directive went to all of its agencies and departments that the words "war" and "invasion" can't be used in reference to what's going on in Ukraine.

Can't fix it if you don't even have the guts to name it.

In addition to that, their peace keeping forces couldn't even direct traffic at elementary schools, and to cap it all off, Russia sits on the Security Council, so whatever is voted on would be immediately vetoed by Russia, as happened when all this began.

Plus, once I learned how many pedophiles work for its various relief agencies and what they're doing when they're supposed to be helping children with all that UNICEF money, I lost whatever respect for them I had left.

I mean, the hypocrisy is beyond belief. At one point during the rotation Syria was head of the Human Rights Commission. It's just unbelievable.

Btw, if Russia didn't have designs on Ukraine and the other Eastern European countries it wouldn't care if they joined NATO. Its leaders can't be so stupid as to think the west wants to invade them. For crying out loud, who would want to have to revamp the infrastructure for this huge, third world country full of all these people who have absolutely no understanding or real acceptance of democracy and are content to follow whichever autocrat tells them what a great empire Russia was and will be again. I'm sorry to say it, but their Communist leaders left them decades behind the west and by acquiescing to rule by Putin they've put themselves in a position where I can't see how they'll ever catch up.

As for Riverman, I've read as many of his posts as I care to read. There's only so much apologia I can stomach for a brutal autocrat committing atrocities against what he claims are his own people because they don't want to live under his control.
 
imagine if Russia was a peacefull free democratic country, would they still care that much about Ukraine joining NATO?

Yes, as long as the NATO would be decisively anti-Russian in its orientation and block them from joining themselves. Remind you, Russia was once a more liberal country, much more open to the West, but they got blocked time and time again even then, and realised that while the USA were talking nice, they just took away all their positions and tried to encircle them. Imagine any country being in that situation. And democracy, especially Liberal democracy, and peaceful, these are two very different things. There are lot of non-democratic peaceful states and there is the Liberal Democratic hegemon which is probably the most belicious country in the world, being in the last decades 2 of 3 years in war, constantly! And that's without counting all the special operations, killings, regional interferences and manipulations, which led to other states and people fighting wars. So being democratic (same goes for Great Britain and France, which, by the way, almost went to war with each other even when being democratic) and being peaceful are two different things, arguing otherwise means double standards. One could say democratic wars are less ethnic, more imperial, but that's also because they being usually led for economic and personal interests of the elite, rather than the common people and main ethnicities.

The problem is not Russia being such a warmonger, the problem is that the USA and its instrument NATO being so decisively anti-Russian, as is the current Ukrainian government and the people behind it. The Russians made all attempts for peace talks, they made offers and suggestions, fairly reasonable ones from my point of view. Selenski was just uncompromising and confrontational all the time. He kind of provoked Russians doing the first step to the next big escalation level, but his regime did everything, really everything, to push Russia that far. You see it in Donbas and how they let themselves weaponised by the USA, which current administration is particularly anti-Russian, because of the Trump story and the woke/cancel culture which hated that Russia supported their opponents domestically.
This was an anti-Russian campaign, and they went into the trap, knowingly, because they saw no other choice to end that escalating conflict with Ukraine. And there was no peaceful way out of it, Selenski made that clear on every occasion. He wanted to kick the Russians, all pro-Russians, out by force.

Just look at this guy, which CNN celebrates as "a hero" and what not, he is saying the similar things Hitler could have said in the bunker in his worst times, close to the end: Burn everything down, let everybody fight, it doesn't matter how big the costs, how much ruined, crippled and dead, we will fight this war to the bitter end... let the NATO jets come, let us risk a nuclear war... no inch for the Russians, drive them out, bring Russia down...

These things he was saying before already, he made absolutely clear he is 100 percent confrontational and uncompromising towards the Russians. Every state and administration would have troubles with such a neighbour, unless they are cuckoo. I don't know how much the average Ukrainians know about all this, they probably just thought, "he must play hard with the Russians, they got us once, they shouldn't get us twice", but whatever, he's fooling them and abusing their national pride and resistance or inspiring their more ugly nationalism which will cause them to take territories back which don't want to be part of the Ukrainian state and drive the people there out.

They already harm and torture people on the streets, hunt "suspects" and crap like that. Its really ugly what's going on already. Imagine Russia loses and the radical battalions would occupy Donbas and Crimea. The horror, the expulsion, the dead and torture, the refugees. This would be like the end of World War II for the Eastern and ethnic Germans. Millions of pro-Russian refugees. If Putin wouldn't be gone by that time, he wouldn't survive that catastrophy and humiliation politically. He can't accept that. No good leader of a people, democratic or not, can accept that.

That's why I think that the nuclear option is a real one: This is such a decisive war for Russia, it became so big and important, even if many common Russians might not realise it yet. That's not just about Putin, it never was, this is about the Russian future. And if they get cornered really badly, for what I may ask, for territories which don't even want to be part of Ukraine (!), which measures might they take? And are they even to blame for considering it, if looking at the given circumstances.

This Kievan warmonger is just playing with fire big time, its the worst crises since decades and I stick to it, its not just Russia's fault, definitely not. Look at what the Selenski regime and the USA did, they did everything to push Russia to the limits. Nothing to de-escalate or something constructive. They said "Russia, swallow it, go on your knees, we are stronger anyway..." That was the US-Ukrainian policy and this is the outcome.

Such a war, on that scale, with that risk, is still wrong, but I totally get why Putin did it. The Ukraine was just growing stronger, the US interference more dangerous. He was running out of options and it became a race against time to still do something decisive. They made a trap for the Russians, because the USA has not much to lose, unless they get into a nuclear war. Russians and Ukrainians on the other hand are already losing big time, because of these US interferences. But like so often, like in Libya and Syria, the USA can play with fire and then lean back, looking at how things spiral into an ever deadlier war from the distance or by abusing it for their own agenda at home (censorship, control etc.) and abroad (dependence of Europe, sell crap fracking gas etc.) to their advantage.
The only thing they had to do was to back the candidate of the local oligarchs and promise his regime help. Now both Ukraine and Russia are trapped in such a deadly conflict and they can blame it on Russia alone with the mass medias support. Well done, from a purely strategic perspective, this was an excellent job if it doesn't go nuclear. The USA get once more all fruits and Europe is bleeding.
 
We are in real trouble as a civilized species if Nuclear war is an option, it is sad that our United Nations is such a joke but it doesn't surprise me with the people we democratically elect into decision making roles.

Well Riverman I think you made your point on how Russia feels toward the west I don't think you are going to win over many more people :LOL:

There's a lot with the current culture of the West I disagree with, I hope we can sort it out without demonizing the other side and wanting to snuff them out, we have to appeal to our better angels. The English demonized the Irish and my Scotch ancestors answered their call to snuff them out, only to clear the Irish estates for the wealthy aristocrats... when are we going to learn people!?
 
^^Well, that will be a problem. A directive went to all of its agencies and departments that the words "war" and "invasion" can't be used in reference to what's going on in Ukraine.

Can't fix it if you don't even have the guts to name it.

These people live in a virtual reality they created for their own sake.
Their main purpose is to perptuate the prestige and existence of their own institution and its members.
They have become an obstruction instead of bringing progress and solutions.
 
In this concrete case, Putin just protects the Russian most basic interests and the Russian minority in Ukraine, while Selenski wants to escalate the conflict to a point at which Russia will collapse at all costs and regardless of how many people die or whether the territories the Ukraine wants to reconquer from Russia want to be part of his state. He just abuses that the USA would support currently any enemy of Russia to bring the Russians down, want to expand their sphere or influence and he also abuses the Ukrainian nationalism for his purposes. He is just an actor which was hired and supported by the Ukrainian oligarchs for doing that job. The whole media landscape in Ukraine was totally manipulated and being, even before the escalation of the war, heavily censored by his regime. All non-supportive and pro-Russian media groups being persecuted.
Selenski is in no way better than Putin.

Putin doesn't equal the Russians (people). There is more in the world than sphere of influence c.q land hunger.

De facto the (ordinary) people in Ukraine (as in Russia) are crushed.

That Zelenski is not Buddha is also clear.

But in fact there is no need or reason to defense Putin like you do. Whatever the reason or background is but his agenda is full of hatred, ressentiment, dedain for human dignity nothing good comes out of it....
 
^^Well, that will be a problem. A directive went to all of its agencies and departments that the words "war" and "invasion" can't be used in reference to what's going on in Ukraine.

Can't fix it if you don't even have the guts to name it.

In addition to that, their peace keeping forces couldn't even direct traffic at elementary schools, and to cap it all off, Russia sits on the Security Council, so whatever is voted on would be immediately vetoed by Russia, as happened when all this began.

This sums up the reality pretty well.
 
Putin doesn't equal the Russians (people). There is more in the world than sphere of influence c.q land hunger.

You do realise how ironic that statement is, considering that he actually started that war for defending Russian people in Donbas which are definitely majority wise on his and Russias side? Practically all Russians with a little bit of patriotism and national pride agreed with him on that. They might have disagreed on his means, they might hate his regimes, but which normal thinking Russian would say: "I don't care that they fight for our people and nation, that they want to belong to our state and its also in our interest for bring them in, let's just slaughter the Ukrainian forces which hate us our brothers there..."
Seriously, that was the situation. You might say he just abused their case for propaganda and strategical reason, that he is not honestly caring that much about those people, but even if, it won't matter, the Russian people do, the majority does. The overwhelming majority might be against this war, might not have agreed with the means at all, but it is indeed in any good Russians interest to care for this area and people. If the Ukrainians, even many Russian Ukrainians, under massive media propaganda influence, began to hate Russians and taking an anti-Russian stance, that's one thing, but abandoning people which are loyal to Russia, in the midst of such conflict, that's a completely different matter.

De facto the (ordinary) people in Ukraine (as in Russia) are crushed.

Indeed. But if Russia wouldn't have done something against Selenski, especially the Donbas Russian people would have been crushed by the armed forces of the Selenski regime and even after that, this regime would have never agreed on giving up on Crimea peacefully, which is really at the centre of the problem. They would have used their NATO membership only to exert even more pressure on Donbas, which they probably would have conquered by then and the Russians having being either expulsed or fleeing on their own. And then they would have constantly smear and attack Russia for Crimea, while spreading anti-Putin/regime propaganda from Ukraine into Russia. It wouldn't stop at any reasonable point! Just like with the Chechens: Even when they were left alone, they still attacked Russians and Russian interests. That they had won didn't make them stop and live in peace with the Russians. This Selenski regime is quite the same, its full of anti-Russian hate and propaganda, they won't stop.

That Zelenski is not Buddha is also clear.

That's the main problem.

But in fact there is no need or reason to defense Putin like you do. Whatever the reason or background is but his agenda is full of hatred, ressentiment, dedain for human dignity nothing good comes out of it....

He just cares for Russian interests, that's all. He is not worse than most US presidents were, he's just in a way more difficult position than them. His options were just going all out and all-in, like he did with this horrible war, or watching Russian enemies taking everything they want by force and any later correction being even way more difficult. The West should have helped to find a compromise about Crimea and Donbas, he even offered Minsk II, which was a very fair deal and starting point for peace in Donbas. The Ukrainians didn't even react, they just build up forces to do it the brutal way and knew if Russia would come to help, exactly the same rain of hate and sanctions, even more support for Ukraine would come, so they trusted their strength, like they still do and don't care for human suffering.
Don't blame Putin alone on this, the Ukrainians gave the Russian nothing for a fair compromise, zero, nada. You can't expect them to just swallow that and say thanks to the USA and Selenski regime. They, regardless of who would be president of Russia, must have been masochistic and undignified if doing so.
Many observers said please stop this, it will lead to a horrible conflict, it could spiral out of control. But the USA and the Selenski regime just pushed it further and further, and now they use all their means and the Western propaganda machine to justify their position and demonise Putins Russia. They knew "the law" would be, nominally, on their side.

But that's like a very nasty neighbour which constantly does things which are against the law and ruins your day, he provokes you and provokes you, and then he films all your reactions, to see whether you transgress "the law", so he can show this "evidence" to his friends at court and in the police, which just want to hurt you as well for whatever reasons, probably because they want your property or have some grudge against you from the past. And that game goes on for years and after his 100th transgression, massive provocation, covered up by his friends at court and in the police, you just don't know how to help yourself but to punch this ********* in the face. And as soon as you do it, his wife filmed the scene, he runs to court and cries "he punched me, he punched me..."
That's the Selenski regime and how it was going with Russia. I can't just stress how saying that "Selenski is no angel" is such a big understatement.
 
@Riverman, you are riddling, it's always the same reasoning poor Putin had to defend himself because of.....fill in.

You share a deep sympathy for Putin's 'pride' and 'national interest' and you put him on the same level as the US and other countries in Europe.

As Timothy Snyder sums it up: 'Ilyin's Christian totalitarianism, Gumilyov's Eurasianism, and Dugin's Eurasian Nazism are the foundations of Putin's ideology. '

So it's not only about events you sum up, it's deeper....

I detest the neutrality and at times outright sympathy you have for this.
 
It's like I hear Riverman:

"Many of the liberal groups in the European Parliament have a hatred of the type of traditional conservatism they see in Russia," said Gunnar Beck, an MEP for the German right populist party, Alternative fur Deutschland.


Speaking of his party and their partners within the European Parliament, Beck told CNN that "many of us are opposed to the fashionable social trends of our time, some of which are promoted through with public money. We look at Russia and see a European country where these issues have not gone too far, as we see it."
While Beck said that Putin's invasion is a "clear breach of international law," he and others like him still feel that the West's anger at Russia's behavior is at times "deeply hypocritical," and view Putin as an example of a leader defending his country's "heritage and values."


In this sense, the kind words that flow from Europe's populists to Moscow and vice versa feed a particular political narrative that is convenient for all sides.

Source: CNN
 
@Riverman, you are riddling, it's always the same reasoning poor Putin had to defend himself because of

That's not special for Russia, the argument would be valid for any country or regime in the same situation. Ukraines position before the war can be seen at best, really, really at best, as equal, but rather them being the cause of the problem. The Selenski regime and the USA just did everything to provoke Russia, there is absolutely no justification for what they did, absolutely not. They made no reasonable peace offer, only threatening and escalating to the next level. They didn't even implement and apply to the most basic agreements from Mink II, because they expected to crush the Donbas and drive the pro-Russian people out from there.
How can you defend that position? How can you say that is something Russia should hae just swallowed, regardless of Putin or any other president which cares for Russian interests and people? Because these were the official borders the Ukraine had and they have, according to international law, the right to defend "their borders"? In this geostrategic position, with these minorities in the regions, they could have done it, but it wouldn't be just or right. Absolutely not. That is just abusing law and turning it against minorities which have other interests. For what? For some regions in Eastern Ukraine which don't want to belong to this state anyway. To cleanse them and then incorporate them again afterwards? They offered them nothing for the future and went on going with Ukraine in a direction which is clearly anti-Russian. In Minsk II they got the chance to incorporate Donbas peacefully, as autonomous regions. They didn't even negotiate, they didn't care, because they just expected to crush the Donbas pro-Russians with brute force, with NATO support.

I see nothing, absolutely nothing, more just about the cause of Selenski. Not at all. That's the main point, not that Putin is that great, but that Selenski was driving the Russians mad, and I understand how he did it and why. He didn't care for peace & reconciliation, even if that was the main issue in is rigged election campaign, in which he got all the support from the oligarchs mass media. Selenski was uncompromising and confrontational, all the time. I can never ever agree with his regime being any sort of innocent victim and Putin being the only bad guy in this geostrategic gamble. For me that perspective is biased and one sided, and can only be taken if ignoring the Russian perspective on the conflict completely.

The Russians not just tried to negotiate for years, they also complained about the constant attacks and how the Ukrainians build up forces to drive the Russians out of Donbas. Nobody reacted, the USA demanded even more support for this Ukrainian war effort, also from its allies, like Germany. Germany refused, because they just saw that escalation coming, if weaponising Ukraine against not just Putins Russia, but the Russian people. Because its Russian people in Donbas which would have become the first victim of this aggression.
The Ukrainians just waited for more weapons and the NATO back up to do it. Russia should have just sitting back and watching?

I mean seriously, these are Russian people in Donbas which fought and suffered for Russian interests. They should have left them alone, abandoning them? The Ukrainians offered absolutely no peaceful solution, no compromise which would have been remotely fair for the Russians. They only played on time for being able to solve this militarily themselves, which would have meant even more Russian refugees, and Russia abandoning its people and allies in the region.

Source: CNN


CNN is just a propagnada outlet. You saw how they made Trump look when he made a joke?
You see them making this Selenski "a hero", regardless of how much trouble he is cousing, how cruel and relentless he is, doesn't matter. CNN is one of the TV stations which is full of hatred against Russians all the time, they manipulate and distort everything. Did they care about the Russian victims in Donbas? About the hundreds of thousands of Russian refugees? About how corrupted the Ukrainian government is, how the election was dominated by the influence of the oligarchs? Or how they cracked all dissenting voices in Ukraine down, even before the war, to just phase the mass media for the upcoming conflict, which the Selenski regime knew it was coming, because they provoked it?

Nothing, or if at all, some small lines. But everything which can be weaponised against Russia, they blew up and every voice of reason, they distort and defame. Some facts can be gathered from CNN, but otherwise, its just good as a source for seeing where radical Liberal US agenda is heading towards. Where they want to have their next war or crackdown or cancelling.
 

This thread has been viewed 300671 times.

Back
Top