Though indirectly, this current claim of "bone-crushing sanctions" supports your point about Ukrainian government mismanagement. If I was a soldier in the field I'd be "WTF! You don't have bone-crushing sanctions by now? What the fuck-all have you been doing?"
What makes me nuts is the pro-Ukrainian YouTubers repeat it like it's a thing--"bone crushing sanctions." If France, Poland, Germany and the UK have something else behind the scenes those experts should tell us. It's bad enough the media treats readers like idiots.
"Dear Ukrainians, you won't die for lack of bone-crushing sanctions." I asked on the FB group. What am I missing? Do they have Putin in a tight spot or not? What's going on?
Europe's dependency on energy was a factor in the slow build up in the intensity and range of sanctions. Discovering deficiencies and holes in the sanctions and then patching the holes with secondary sanctions and other efforts is another factor in the long roll out of sanctions.
That doesn't explain why it took months and years to reach this point and why enforcement isn't at a higher level right now.
How effective the current sanctions are is extremely difficult to determine. They have been slow due to the European problems with energy dependence, a naive hope that they would work quickly, a lack of understanding how one should do it, as well as lack of political will to really hurt Russia. It is a very strange belief that it is possible to separate Russia from Putin and that if one hurt Russia they would get rid of Putin. But not by too much otherwise Russia collapses and who knows where all those nukes go no. Further it is difficult to foresee all Russian countermeasures and part of what we need to do now is to stop the countermeasures. But the countermeasures also shows that the sanctions hurt. Are they bone crushing hurting? Well even if they are it might take time. So let’s speed up the process. Even if have not done enough today we should not let that stop us for improving. And neither should we stop the Ukrainian front soldier for cursing us. We could and should have done a better job.
First Putin threatened Europe with an invasion of Ukraine to lift the 2014 sanctions and pay Russia more for its gas. Next Putin invaded Ukraine believing he could topple it, and if not, Europe would be too afraid to stop him. Right he was, Europe hasn't. Ukraine stopped him and put Europe in a bind because face it, many still find the whole situation a nuisance. So here we are. The Europeans won't stand by while Russia has its way but they won't push Russia out of Ukraine either. Their whole plan is to wear Russia down economically. They don't want to fight.
The U.S. is no different.
I doubt you disagree. The Europeans aren't controlling the narrative. They're letting a vacuum form that will lead to expanded war in ways we cannot foresee but will be worse than if they had stood up to Putin in the beginning. At least that's my opinion.
Yes... Churchill 's quote rings in my mind (not exactly the same situation but it bears a strong resemblance) "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war"
Ви проводите себе як інфантильний дурень. Вас ця фікція з Мінською капітуляцією Порошенко-Путіна ще не навчила? Після 2022 ніби повинно було дійти до вашого розуму, що урко-чекістам кремля потрібна вся Україна. В казки про мир вірять тільки клінічні ідіоти. Навіть якщо і відбудеться якась заморозка, то лише на короткий період часу, щоб відновити ресурси та активізувати активні бойові дії. Україна могла б не втратити стільки території, стільки демографічного потенціалу, якщо б мародери у владі готувалися до гіршого. Завдяки їм ми втратили ще й військовий потенціал.
Але починаючи з 2014 року українцям розповідали казки про "мир" та перемир'я, коли насправді загрожували смертельні небезпеки. В 2022 році система мародерів "обрадувала" країну заявивши, що в нас немає та не вистачає зброї. Результат сотні тисяч трупів, втарата території, втрати економіки, демографічні втрати. На окупованих територіях українців беруть в армію кремля і це провина існуючої системи мародерів, які не забезпечили безпеку держави.
В описанні про себе, ви видаєте себе за діяча культури, але матюкаєтеся в коментарях ніби останнє бидло. Мені аж страшно уявити, яку культуру ви несли в маси. Жах просто. Жах і сором.
Враховуючи ваш релігійний світогляд, я не дивуюся вашій інфантильності, вашому хибному та викривленому сприйняттю реальності. Ви займаєтеся самообманом та втішаєш себе пустими надіями на краще, хоча реальність складається зовсім інакше.
Ви тут висловили думку в своєму коментарі, що кремль змусять щось виконувати, що кремлю викрутять руки. В мене до вас зустріне питання: чому ніхто цього раніше не зробив якщо міг? Чому їх відразу ніхто не змусив відповідати за злочини проти людяності та всі військові злочини? Чому ідіоти з Вашингтона співпрацювали по Сирії з кремлем, обмінювалися розвідданими та протистояли Турції, яка є членом НАТО? Чому Західні лідери не боряться за декларовані ними ж цінності? Які цінності взагалі залишилися на Заході? На які загрози та військові провокації з боку кремля за останні роки відповіло НАТО? Можливо правильніше сказати, що всі Західні лідери просто боягузливі ідіоти, які не хочуть нести ні за що відповідальності, які нічим не ризикують, які не можуть прийняти жодного правильного конструктивного та продуктивного рішення, які втратили відчуття загрози та відчуття реальності?
Ви не в тому положенні щоб давати мені характеристику чи зауваження синку, я ставлюся до людей за їхніми діями, і якщо я пишу бункерна залупа, я так і буду прямим текстом писати.
I love to see it all. Further exhortations and expressions of total love by 52 nations expressly aimed at destroying Russia regardless of cost to the citizens of those nations, even to the citizens of Kiev Ukraine. And all to obtain what? The conquest of separatist Ukrainians who sought and claimed separation because of ethnic vilification.
500,000 dead Kiev Ukrainians never mentioned.
The impossibility of the remaining Kiev Ukrainians ever getting any personal benefit from this never mentioned.
The fantastic profits of the arms manufacturers never mentioned.
The mammoth corruption in Kiev never mentioned.
The massive debts of the country never mentioned.
The selling off of Ukraine piece by piece never mentioned.
The sacrifice.
The total lack of any reward for the people.
And the total, total, absolute disregard, obliteration of any mention of the 10 million Donbas Ukrainians.
Yet they still claim to 'love Ukraine' and 'love Ukrainians' and call for 'support'.
Lying in their teeth as they say it. Quite clearly. Flagrantly. Massively obvious.
You gotta hand it to them: they've (currently) got the world conned, tricked, deluded into believing their narrative.
When it comes to propaganda and Orwellian double speak they are the undisputed masters.
Arthur, your comment raises strong opinions and reflects deep frustration with the current geopolitical narrative. It's essential to approach such topics with clarity, evidence, and balance. While skepticism toward governments, media, and international interests is understandable—especially when it comes to war—it's also important to distinguish between legitimate concerns and broad generalizations.
The suffering of civilians on all sides, including in Kyiv, Donbas, and across Ukraine, is tragic and undeniable. But interpreting international support solely as a plot to destroy Russia oversimplifies a very complex conflict. Many nations support Ukraine's sovereignty not because they hate Russians, but because they oppose violations of international borders and the suffering that follows.
Corruption, profit motives, and manipulation are indeed real issues—on every side of a war. They deserve scrutiny. But so do the rights of people who wish to live in peace without being bombed, occupied, or forcibly separated.
It’s fair to question narratives. But to call all support “a lie” and erase the voice of Ukrainians who don’t support separatism or who’ve suffered under Russian attacks ignores a large part of reality.
This isn’t frustration with a narrative but assertion of a narrative. Moreover, it’s false that there is no horror at Ukrainian suffering, which leads to horror at the Russians for inflicting it. The possibility of gain for the Ukrainians is the possibility that they will remain citizens of a free country
They are not being invaded and murdered. They are invading and murdering. Take a look at the land they are standing on and have stood on for 10 years. Is it theirs? No. It belongs to the Donbas people.
And why are they on it then? Because they want to 'ethnic cleanse' the Donbas people. The people whom they systematically persistently shelled the civilian population of for eight years before russia came to help - and then, of course, they still continued it...
But you are right about they were freer than now. They were never free but yes they were freer than now. They didn't used to have to fear being kidnapped off the street and send to die. They used to be free to have political parties, to have tv. stations, to be able to speak their mind more or less, free to read russian books, free to speak russian - free to follow the constitution of Ukraine. They don't have those freedoms now.
Ukraine was defending its recognised sovereign territory, Russia invaded what was at the time the recognised sovereign territory of Ukraine. The Russian attack has caused massive casualties, which I call murder. I am using all words here in their normal meanings
Support for 'Ukraine' that is support for the destruction of 10 million Ukrainians in the first place is a clear lie.
Support for a civil war is never support for a nation as people: it is support for a phantasm, a judicial entity, usually represented by a bunch of profiteers as it is here.
I don't interpret international support as a plot to destroy Russia - I point to clear declarations of intent to destroy Russia. I point to Kiev's own lunatic demands for nuclear strikes on Russia.
Yes, it is important to distinguish between truth an waffle.
By international design nato drew inexorably closer to Russia to a point the main instigator itself would never tolerate. The uk today hopes to plunder the Ukraine. Putin offered peace to Ukraine that left the Donbas with Ukraine. All refused.
Nato itself had no reason to exist after 1991 and continues to exist only as an inexorable enemy of Russia. It denied Russia membership: enough said, point proven.
Ukraine the 'sovereign entity' exists with certain condition and rules within its constitution which guarantee civic rights to ethnicities: it tramples on its own constitution.
From the very beginning, from maidan, from the Trades Hall, the intent was to destroy Donbas Ukrainians. Today they never get a mention. Not by anyone on any side. But the intent remains: they are simply acting as though it has been accomplished and now the speak entirely in terms of destroying Russians.
Even as they make the mealy mouthed twisted proclamations about peace deals and cease fires today did you ever hear any one of them call for peace for pity's sake for the people of Donbas, their brothers, one quarter of their population, in their eyes, said to be suffering under Russian invasion, domination? Ever? Anywhere?
No. You didn't. For it is not a concern they have. It is not a concern they would have even if it were true but today they know full well it is not true and that the erstwhile Ukrainians of Donbas today are happier, safer and live better with a better government that the Kiev Ukrainians.
When it comes to ignoring reality, 'Mike', I think you take the cake.
This is complete nonsense and distortion of facts. Supporting Ukraine means supporting its people, not war or some political "phantom." Accusing Ukraine of "destroying" its own people is absurd. NATO is a defensive alliance that does not threaten Russia; its expansion is a response to real threats. Claims about Kiev demanding nuclear strikes are fabricated propaganda. Donbas is part of Ukraine, and its residents have the right to peace and security, not to be victims of war and aggression. Ignoring people's suffering and twisting facts is unfair and cynical.
It goes to KIev. Part for plunder to the corrupt, part to the black market and then what's left goes into the military with the sole object of destroying Donbas Ukrainains.
Now listen, Mike, why do I have to write that down?
How is that you don't see that and claim the very opposite?
Where do you think a billion dollars of 'support for Ukraine' went?
That's right: Donbas residents have a right to peace and security, not to be shelled for eight years constantly. Where are you living? Where do you get your ideas your facts from?
Let me tell a very simple thing about your nato defensive alliance. where nato goes america goes because it is in fact an american puppet. where america goes american bases go. where there are american bases there are american missiles. so when nato is on the border of russia you have missiles on the border of Russia, right?
Have you got that?
Now do you know about Kennedy and Cuba? No?
Well Gorbachev ( do you know who that is? look it up. for god's sake look some things up) planned to put missile in cuba, started building the sites and perhaps more. America was ready to start a nuclear war over this.
No joke, no exaggeration. The usa promised a nuclear war if they were not removed
Now do you get it? The very thing america was willing to blow up the world about is what kiev and usa planned for russia's borders. And still do.
Arthur, are you living in some alternate universe where Khrushchev is Gorbachev, NATO is Satan, and aid to Ukraine is a secret mission to bomb Donbas? Alright, let’s walk you through the basics — slowly.
The Cuban Missile Crisis?
Newsflash: that was Khrushchev in 1962, not Gorbachev. The U.S. and USSR had a standoff and resolved it diplomatically. But sure, keep ranting like a rejected Cold War comic book villain.
Russian aggression didn’t start in 2022.
— In 2002, Putin wanted Tuzla Island — already salivating over Ukrainian land.
— In 2008, he invaded Georgia.
— In 2014, he took Crimea and started a war in Donbas using unmarked soldiers and lies.
NATO didn’t provoke — it tolerated. That’s not aggression, that’s restraint.
“Aid goes to destroy Donbas?”
Sure, and Santa Claus funds NATO. Aid goes to keep Ukraine alive while it’s being bombed daily by your so-called “liberators.” Some goes to defense, some to rebuilding. Unlike Russian “aid” — which comes with tanks, conscripts, and stolen washing machines.
NATO as a puppet?
If NATO is such a puppet of the U.S., then why are countries lining up to join? Maybe because being Russia’s neighbor is like living next to a drunk guy with a flamethrower yelling about “historical borders.”
So Arthur, maybe stop quoting your fridge magnets and open a history book. Oh — and for your next hot take, try not to confuse Khrushchev with Gorbachev. It’s kind of a giveaway that you're not exactly up to speed.
That was a mistake about Gorbachov. I asked gpt and somehow got the wrong answer or read it wrong or something. Sorry about that. However the names of the actors makes no difference to the salient facts. Which are that what happened there would not be tolerated by the usa but nato, usa and kiev want it to happen to russia.
and insist upon it happening despite russia constantly warning.
now if you are warned not to put your hand on a hot stove and you ignore repeated warnings as you get closer and closer don't come trying to me if you get burned.
which is what you are doing.
And that' s the only reason for quoting that history: because of its direct relevant to today.
Whereas you then go back in history in order to try to manufacture significances. Putting your own interpretation and twist on things you dig up. I know nothing of Tuzla and Georgia so I'll leave them aside. But Crimea was not 'taken' any more than Donbas is 'taken' today. Crimea effectively seceded and with good reason, just the same as Donbas did. Everyone knows that.
Especially the people of Crimea. Did they not know that Russia would be trying to handle a situation of an unpopular army of occupation which is most certainly is not. And I remember Putin years ago pointing out that Russia has no need nor interest in putting itself in such a situation.
Nato, therefore, tolerated nothing. In fact nothing was any of nato's business. Nato in those circumstances is irrelevant.
Next the money going to destroy Donbas. The 'money' in question is all aid to Kiev and the greatest portion of it is begged and borrowed quite specifically for arms. There is no doubt about that at all. The arms they beg for including nuclear arms we might note.
The 'money' quite often - in fact most of the time as is usual with foreign aid everywhere - quite simply is converted into materiel from the donor country. i.e. it is never issued as money itself but is 'purchasing power' from the donor nation which immediately benefits the donor nation in sales and workforce and includes profits, too, they don't sell at wholesale prices.
Even were that not true it is clear to anyone that you pay all my expenses then I have more money of my own to buy weapons so it is a moot point.
Nato is more than simply a puppet of the usa it is wholly owned by the usa. Without the usa money it would collapse.
NATO, while a collective defense alliance, is heavily reliant on the United States for both financial contributions and military capabilities. The US is the largest contributor to NATO's budget, and its military forces deployed in Europe are a significant portion of the alliance's overall strength. This dependence extends to key capabilities like air refueling, intelligence, and logistics, where the US plays a pivotal role.
Financial Contributions:
The US contributes a substantial portion of NATO's common funds, representing a significant share of the alliance's overall defense spending.
For example, the US contributed 15.8% to the $3.5 billion NATO yearly expenditure.
While other members are expected to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, the US contributes a much larger percentage.
Military Capabilities:
The US deploys a significant number of troops in Europe, contributing to NATO's military presence on the continent.
The US provides key capabilities such as air refueling, intelligence, and logistical support, which are crucial for NATO operations.
The US also has the capacity to deter and defend against existential threats to the alliance, a capability that no other member possesses.
European Perspective:
Some European leaders have expressed a desire for greater European defense independence and to reduce the dependence on US military support.
Increased defense spending by European nations and initiatives to "buy European" are seen as steps towards greater self-reliance.
However, the US's role in NATO is considered indispensable, and a withdrawal would leave a significant gap in the European security architecture
------------------------------
Next countries wanting to join nato. Just how far away can you get from the issue at hand? You want me to answer all and any queries you come up with?
I will not. You are going to have to research and think for yourself.
It is clear they mainly want to join nato because it is simply a fashion for their lunatic governments, each with their own particular reasons for wanting to join the fashion with more or less enthusiasm.
Doubtless the enthusiasm will wane if Trump takes usa away or insists they all pay their dues.
What the hell has ireland got any need for nato for? Ireland imagines Russia is going to attack it in line with nato's fixation on Russia? That's supposed to be a defensive alliance. Defensive against the ussr which is defunct and so should that alliance be. But it is not because it is not defensive, it is offensive by design. Ireland, et al, basically want to join in order to expand political bullcrap, waste their citizens money and swan around the global political stage appearing to be important.
So overall your rant was incorrect and/or irrelevant in every detail.
And began and finished with gratuitous offensive ad hominem.
I will not converse with bad mannered, bad mouthed children beyond telling them they've been recognised as such.
I'll just throw this in as a final note, actually of great, central, importance: throughout this you use the words 'Ukrainian' to mean Kiev Ukrainians only. 10 million Donbas Ukrainians are ignored by you. Your 'support for Ukraine' is support for Kiev Ukrainians killing Donbas Ukrainians.
Your 'support for Ukraine' is therefore actually 'support for killing Ukraine, for destroying a large part of it.' You have no interest in what is best for the people of Ukraine at all. What is clearly in their interest is that they stop getting killed but no one on your side gives a damn about that. Happy to see them dead 'to he last man'.
No just illogical, heartless, stupid but downright disgusting.
You're comment is the Russian IO narrative, really the notion of "destroying Russia" with the state of the European long range strike weapons, DIB, armed forces units and their TOE, etc before 2014 and even before Feb 2022.
You are ignoring evidence based facts about Russian IO/influence opns in Ukraine plus the cultivation by the FSB/GRU of pro Russian factions and individuals which are in the Ukrainian government, armed forces and communities before 2014 and after.
Just more Russian BS plus you are a supporter/vatnik for Russian genocidal actions/war against Ukraine and Ukrainians.
An interesting comment really. the kind I usually ignore because
1. they're clearly antagonistic
2. they offer no useful information
3. they're often ad hominem which on principle I ignore, will not communicate with
4. often bad grammar to the point of incomprehension.
so that eventually:
5. I just don't get what they're on about or what possible use they are.
For a change I will try to address one. Yours. This one.
Ok. It starts with bad grammar. So that's one straight off.
It should be 'your comment'. not 'you're comment.' note I don't attack you for this. you could very well be a multilinguist dealing with a language very foreign to you and the more credit to you for it. I simply observe it to indicate a truth: grammatical errors make comprehension difficult often. In this case, here, no. It is clear you mean 'your'.
Then the next thing:
'You are....' is what you mean and that's an ad hominem which immediately ceases our conversation for I will not talk with such people beyond an initial comment like this one here where I say I've recognised them and will have nothing to do with them.
Take note of that. You've been told.
The next thing is the content of the ad hominem. I did not understand it and had to ask for help from gpt.
gpt tells me you meant this:
"Your comment is repeating Russian propaganda, particularly the idea that the West was aiming to destroy Russia. That idea doesn’t hold up when you look at the state of European military capabilities (e.g., strike weapons, industrial base, and force structure) before 2014 or even before 2022—they were clearly not geared toward such an aggressive objective."
Well that is a straw man. It assumes, predicates, that 'aiming to destroy Russia' depends entirely on an armed invasion being the only way and being practicable at this moment - or that moment in '14 or '22 or whenever you're talking about.
That's clearly unreal. In fact the West has been working to destroy Russia since 1945 and without invasion ever contemplated. Did you not know?
But you put it up as the 'only way', the proof or disproof, and then say it couldn't be therefore the idea disproven. As I say, that's the 'straw man' debating (bad) technique.
Put simply the idea is disproven by you but it was your idea only in the first place.
Then next we have another long sentence I had trouble with.
It apparently means this:
"You are ignoring evidence-based facts about Russian IO/influence operations in Ukraine..."
He’s accusing you of overlooking or dismissing documented Russian efforts to influence Ukraine through information warfare, propaganda, or covert manipulation.
"...plus the cultivation by the FSB/GRU of pro-Russian factions and individuals..."
This refers to Russian intelligence agencies (FSB and GRU) allegedly fostering sympathies or loyalty among Ukrainians, especially within key institutions.
"...which are in the Ukrainian government, armed forces, and communities before 2014 and after."
He’s emphasizing that this influence was not only present before Crimea’s annexation in 2014 but persisted afterward.
I am not 'ignoring' things when I am not talking about them. I am not 'ignoring' tulip growing in Amsterdam it just is not what I am talking about, it is irrelevant.
Really I do not know which post of mine you are responding to but we seem to be talking wholly here about the question of whether the west has a program of destroying Russia or not. What Russia is or isn't doing while that's going on is not the issue, is not relevant. Whatever Russia is or isn't doing: the West has that program.
So that comment is a non sequitur. You've changed the subject. Made a new accusation, a postulation and accusation.
Now turning to that for a moment how about this:
"When a country has millions of people across the border who speak its language, share its culture, or even identify with its national story, then influence operations aren’t just tools of domination—they're also forms of continuity, protection, and obligation. To treat every message of support, every media outlet, or every sympathetic local as evidence of ‘subversion’ ignores the reality of divided populations and layered identities. It’s as if kinship, language, and cultural proximity have no weight in international relations. But they do—immensely."
Finally you come up with your last classic. Gratuitous abusive ad hominem as usual.
However it raises the question of genocide. There is absolutely no evidence of any genocidal intent on the part of Russia at all. None. Quite the opposite.
From Minsk II in 2015 the proposal was on the table that Kiev retain the Donbas albeit with some autonomy and some guarantees. All intended to protect the people against the genocidal intent of Kiev as expressrf in the maidan and the Trades Hall.
Where in that is any indication whatever of a desire to 'genocide' Ukrainians?
Nonsense.
As I say, I am done with you. I said I'd look into this 'knot' ( posts like yours are like dense 'knots' to me and not worth unravelling) just for interest's sake.
It has done little or nothing for me.
I hope it helps you a little.
I will leave you with this:
In the years before the war, a Ukrainian from Mariupol might spend a week visiting cousins in Belgorod or St. Petersburg, trading jabs over whose city had better salaries, better public services, better beer. Heated arguments over politics might break out over the kitchen table — just like they do in every family.
The Mariupolitan might insist life in Ukraine was freer, funnier, more hopeful, despite the hardships. His cousin might scoff and say, "You’re just trying to convince yourself."
But neither would think this meant they were enemies. They were kin. They were of the same stock, the same Soviet inheritance, with divergent but not mutually exclusive futures.
He would return to Mariupol and tell tales of the fun he had on his visit with his russian relatives and friends, all part of his own Russian identity.
Yet still firmly Ukrainian and happy to live in Mariupol.
This is how real people live. With complexity, with contradiction, with pride and regret in equal measure. They don't draw hard lines between their loves. They don't renounce half their identity to validate the other. It takes ideologues and politicians to teach them that such coexistence is wrong — to insist that every layer of belonging must be peeled off until only one approved identity remains.
What was done to the Donbas Ukrainian people what was attempted to be done by force was not just political reorientation — it was the coercion of singularity, the demand that one choose between being "Ukrainian" or "Russian" when, in reality, millions had long learned to be both.
This kind of reasoning also exposes a double standard. Western powers frequently justify their own soft power or political interference in terms of universal values, diaspora engagement, or protecting democratic allies. But when Russia reaches out to sympathetic or culturally aligned populations, it’s reflexively labeled as destabilizing influence.
In truth, there’s a spectrum between cultural affinity, legitimate diplomacy, and manipulative interference—and that spectrum exists for everyone, not just for "them."
Still reflection of your inability to understand the facts, still you are unable to comprehend that in major power competition, you have to have a coercive arm/capability to present a theater or the ability to project.
NATO/Europeans having the intent to destroy Russia when they downgraded their armed forces, DIB, reserve forces, after 1992 onwards means until Feb 2022 means you are just parroting the Russian IO/propaganda messaging BS.
You are still full of double standard of understanding, conveniently forgetting the Russian silivokis/V Putin and his cliques years long action on control and influence on the former Soviet Union geographical areas or countries that formed the Union then.
Very nice mindset of yours still and your reply/comment is still full of lies, just parroting again the Russian IO/propaganda line why the RF need to invade the sovereign territory of another country which was recognized in 1992 by the UN Charter as a country withnm distinct cultural, historical identity and different from Russians/the Russian Federation.
You are just offended by the evident truth and deflection messaging again with your long winded and full of Russian talking points reply to me.
Blame the west is the IO/propaganda message/taking points of the silivokis/V Putin and his clique, plus still you cannot use your superior analytic thinking of what the VSRF/VKS long range weapons are targeting and impacting in Ukraine, plus the murder of Ukrainian POWs, etc which you disimiss as NOT GENOCIDAL? Really.
Ukraine made a corporate decision to resist your invading horde, of course with different degrees of personal commitment. We have been supporting that decision. We are not the agent, we do not send
Start with deciding, in a democratic way, what is the public in democratic countries ready to sacrifice.
A. are you ready for a total war that will most probably end in nuclear war. For Russia this war is existential, and is not bluffing, will use nukes if pressured.
B. are you ready to send your own soldiers and see them come home dead.
If not you are sacrificing Ukrainians
You are sending other people‘s kids to die in a war you are not willing to fight yourself.
Thank you for answering my request. I cannot agree on two counts.
Firstly, in what way existential? Who's going to invade Russia? NATO? The NATO that is showing itself so pathetic and bare of supplies throughout this war? I don't think so. If countries around Russia want to run themselves a certain way, that's up to them. Russia has to deal with it, I'm sorry. Within the framework of the UN Charter, countries don't have the right to seize a sphere of influence so that they can keep their autocratic regimes stable.
Secondly, sending money and weapons to Ukraine, and not people to fight, is a perfectly rational and appropriate response. Governments have a mandate to protect their citizens and there is a high bar to sending them in harm's way. At the moment, I don't think the situation in Ukraine warrants sending foreign troops, but that might change if things get bad.
Nukes? Do it. Let's see what happens. No, I don't think nukes would be used by Russia, but if they are used, I don't think there would be a nuclear response. I do think the response - the economic onslaught from all corners, and possibly conventional warfare- would spell the end of the Putin regime.
Sorry, but this was intended to be a clean and easy operation and you're well aware of that. Putin was in too deep to back out before he realized what he'd done. This is and always was about staying in power for him. Unfortunately for us all, including you, this means war in some sort until he dies.
Thank you for giving a clear answer. This discussion is going on for already more than three years, and I would like to clearly identify what are the real differences in opinion.
First, existential is what is perceived, judged as existential by the party in question. Russians, Russian leadership is the one who makes the final assessment, decision, if Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat.
In Cuban missile crisis Americans judged Russian missiles on Cuba as an existential threat, Whatever Hrushev said, was irrelevant. Missiles that can strike US land in a several minutes were judged as existential threat.
What US perceives as threat is the foundation for US decisions. Same with Russia.
Russia has enough of land, oil, gas, minerals... Russia does not need Ukraine, Russia accepted Ukrainian borders, Donbas in Ukraine, even Crimea in Ukraine,
Russia was ready to accept Ukraine in EU.
but sees Ukraine in NATO as an existential threat. And US knows it. It has been communicated clearly.
Russia has been invaded numerous times by Mongols, Turkish tribes, Turks, Swedes, Poles, by French, British, Germans, AustroHungarians, Germans under Hitler.
Russia exists because it has been able to defend itself, and this foundation of Russian state on defense of an enormous country with enormous borders, is what produces strong central government and strong army.
In my opinion US knew that Russia sees Ukraine in NATO as an existential threat, but in a kind of unipolar arrogance, hubris, considered US to be so strong as to be able to show it down Russian throat.
This is the basis of demonstrating rather hypocritical position when repeating sentences like: countries do not have right to see a sphere of influence. Says who? A country that follows Monroe doctrine, is discussing invasion of Greenland, seizing Canada, or Panama. Invaded numerous countries all over the world, performed dozens and dozens of regime change operations,
US leadership knew Ukraine NATO membership was strongly opposed, it might cause war, and decided to proceed.
If it was a bluff, it has been called.
So you are right, either US accepts and gives up on Ukraine in NATO or the war cannot be stopped,
So far there are some signs of Trump accepting this logic, but also other signs showing that Trump is being led to believe into the fiction of Putin regime.
Calling democratically ruled country "regime" is a worrying sign of being ready for continuing aggression. Putin enjoys wide support, has won several elections, he may lose the next one, for example if he surrenders in Ukraine.
Projecting war far into the future, to the times of Putins death, is also deeply worrying. Putin is not the cause, and if he died tomorrow, or even yesterday or last year as some British sources predicted, nothing would have changed.
Russia is a major power, and all the leading elites understand that Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat.
Provoking Russian aggression, a typical preventive war, was wrong. And I am not speaking from a moral point of view. It was unprofessional, a mistake, a wrong call. Not enough thinking before the decision was made.
Western powers now have a very bad choice, continue the war, destroy Ukraine even more, seize Russian assets to finance the war,
If this strategy promised victory, it would have been followed. It does not. Alternative , the best West has been able to produce is frozen conflict, and restarting after Putin is gone.
It would really be stupid if Russians made this possible. To be continued...
Thought I better get around to replying as promised. You can treat this as a response to most of your posts of the last few days, since your viewpoint is quite consistent and detailed. Overall, of course, I disagree with it.
Let's start with what I agree with:
-existential is what is perceived - yes. I have had conversations with friends about the Cuban missile crisis and my take is that America responded understandably and the USSR behaved responsibly and rationally to de-escalate. If Russia were to economically isolate Ukraine in response to NATO overtures, I would consider this reasonable. Russia's NATO concerns are real, and it was a diplomatic blunder for the USA to be so bullish about maintaining Ukraine's right to join - this wording was not helpful, although giving in to Russia's demands would have been equally unwise - they should have said "well then how ARE we going to secure Ukraine's sovereignty?". Having said all of that, NATO concerns need to be put into context, which I will get to.
In regard to spheres of influence, my view is not hypocritical - I disagree with much of the USA's actions that you mentioned (although have sympathy re Panama due to broken promises). I am saying that the USA and Russia should act responsibly (that is, respect other countries' sovereignty according to the UN Charter).
Now the major point, which I think is the flaw in your argument and viewpoint, and it's the same for my friend who I have had many heated conversations with: It's not just about NATO. The entire Western liberal-capitalist system (be it good, bad or otherwise) is an existential threat to Russia. We are talking about quite different civilizational structures here. Putin essentially said in the 2007 Munich security conference that he needs a sphere of influence. He had realised over the last decade that in order to keep his government stable (and perhaps Russia in one piece), it's not sufficient to control various things at home. He believes that Russia also needs to have control over how surrounding countries operate - I suppose not so completely as with the USSR, but enough to create a kind of ideological buffer zone. How much? I think we have a pretty clear indication. Things such as the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement are not desirable. This is because such agreements pull Ukraine into the EU's orbit and away from Russia's orbit. Going towards one orbit is necessarily going away from the other.
The concept of Ukraine being a bridge between Russia and the West has limitations because of the incompatibility between the way they operate - the long-term trend was always going to be a polarisation toward one system.
The EU simply presented a system which the people of Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine prefer. Having a liberal, EU-oriented Ukraine next door is undesirable and a threat to Russia's stability. I am not claiming that this system is better - being part of it I see many flaws, including deep ones - but nonetheless it is a simple fact that it's what the peoples of those countries preferred, organically. I reject outside influence as the primary factor in this. While it's certainly there, it's not anywhere near the main factor, and I will not discuss this point further. Now comes NATO again. National security and the ability to forge one's own future (i.e. sovereignty), of course, go hand-in-hand. For example - just look at how rapidly the various Pacific Island nations are signing up to agreements with China about naval bases and so on. Yes, for the money, but I'm sure also because they understand the hard power balance in the region and don't want to make themselves targets of China. So we have two causes of gravitation towards NATO - the former Soviet bloc nations simply out of raw desire to not be, in their eyes, enslaved again - Russia has only itself to blame for that. The second cause being that countries want to be liberal, they want to be in the EU or more like the EU, and they need secure borders to help achieve that. This is the reason these countries want(ed) to join NATO all by themselves without needing outside influence or pressure. Testimonies from members of NATO both before and after 1991 all line up - caution and reluctance on behalf of NATO to let others in, and pressure from those nations on NATO to let them in. This is another point I will not budge on nor discuss further. Although, it's true some serious diplomatic blunders were made in 2021 and this didn't help. Nonetheless, I don't believe being wise about that would have prevented war - war was by then inevitable, and the cause was Ukraine's desire to pivot west. Permanently barring Ukraine from NATO (without a decent security alternative) would have been a green light to invade it. We must, must must MUST keep in mind that this was intended to be a lightning operation and it was expected that Ukrainians would welcome their liberators with open arms - it was not intended to be the isolating, debilitating, painful drawn-out mess that it has become for Russia (and Ukraine).
I don't just type this stuff to make a point, and air my opinion. I hope that some day you will see it as I do and take actions towards stopping Russia's aggression - while I acknowledge that Russia's security concerns need to be properly addressed, it also needs to stop the carnage and pursue these issues in a state of ceasefire/peace.
However, there is a string of logical, strategic and ethical flaws in your comment that require answer.
As almost millions lives have been lost, in search of a solution, of a problem, that you are trying to describe, incorrectly, your viewpoint deserves an answer, a rebuttal.
You are wrong, unfortunately.
Trump abolished US AID. What was US AID actually doing?
US AID was promoting liberal democracy? US AID was a part of regime change operations, together with CIA.
Ukrainian public was overwhelmingly against NATO membership.
Maydan in 2014 necessitated violence to turn it from popular protest against unpopular government, into a regime change operation.
Who provided violence?
Who has organized, planned, recruited snipers who have killed 100 men ?
Half policemen, half protesters. CIA.
War was inevitable, only because US /NATO/west was unable/unwilling to stop their regime change operations.
Russia/Putin made a mistake, believing that US/NATO/West can be convinced into changing their basic strategy. Only force can make US/NATO/West change their strategy.
Putin, didn't initially understand what refusal to accept Russia into NATO really means.
If Russia has been accepted into NATO, there would have been no cause for fear, concern, of Russian aggression.
Putin was young, inexperienced as a leader, still believing in Western liberal-capitalist system, and he made a mistake. An honest mistake, Putin was growing up, maturing as a leader, just as Russia was growing up as a society. If you are not at the table, you are on the menu. Russia was on the menu, Russia was the final target of regime change operations.
War in Ukraine is an existential fight for Russia.
Tragedy of Russo Ukrainian war is that only reason for the war is US/UK/NATO obsession of putting US missiles on Russian border. All the rest, status of Crimea, Donbas, Russian speakers, EU orientation could have been resolved through negotiations.
It is a compliment to CIA and MI6 who have in relatively short time, prepared Ukrainians to be ready to die for the right to put US missiles on Russian border. Many of them gang pressed, but western mainstream media are silent.
The fact that West has chosen to support Zelensky means that war will have to be decided on the battlefield.
After the capitulation of Ukrainian armed forces there will come the time to properly address western security concerns.
I am certain that Russia will be ready to act responsibly.
I seriously regret all human lives lost in this war, but I think it is important for everyone who attempts to stop the war and create a lasting peace to understand the real cause of the conflict.
The cause of the war is US and British ambition to place NATO bases, missiles, in Ukraine, on Russian border.
The moment US & Britain let Ukraine free from the obligation to place NATO bases in Ukraine, war will end.
sending money and weapons is rational and appropriate if it secures a better outcome for Ukraine, than Ukraine would have assured by negotiating with Russia.
There is a line of agreements, from Minsk 1, Minsk2, Istanbul that have been sabotaged, refused, by Ukrainian leadership under the strong influence of US and Britain.
And each new one is worse for Ukraine,
And many people have died, many have become invalids, many have left the country.
My position is that if one is trying to help Ukraine, one should seek peace, and start negotiations
Sending money and weapons in order to keep Ukraine fighting a war is actually bad for Ukraine, if one observes real situation.
Second point was about what countries should do if they decide that its in Ukraine's best interests to fight. You and I disagree about that, but let's say countries have decided its the case. Then I think the best response is what they are doing (but much more). In a way I do agree with you actually. If one is going to help Ukraine fight, one must do it seriously. Doing it half-heartedly is cruel. But again, countries make such half-hearted decisions based on what they think is best for their own populations - wrongly i believe.
As to whether its best for Ukraine to fight - will reply to your other post above.
Helping Ukraine half heartedly is cruel. But if one is A. unwilling to escalate to nuclear war, (actually quite sensible position) and B. unwilling to see one's own soldiers die (also quite reasonable position) and C. unwilling to use financially nuclear options like seizing Russian money in Western banks (also reasonable, because if you can steal from Russia, a nuclear superpower, how safe are all other countries' assets) one cannot help but half heartedly, cannot behave but cruelly, testing just how much Ukraine can endure, hoping that somehow Russia will collapse before Ukraine runs out of men.
The West is putting Ukraine in a psychological double bind situation, making Ukrainian leadership responsible for all the deaths, destruction and suffering. We are only doing it because you asked for it.
There is a lot of realism in Western position, and it is fundamentally true. Each country elites, are ultimately responsible for their own decisions. Ukraine is willing to fight against aggression and is receiving help.
But what is missing is that the West knowingly used Ukraine as a proxy in a war against Russia.
And that current Ukrainian strategy is a result that could not have been obtained without a regime change in 2014, a violent change of an elected government, that ironically was 100% to lose their next election.
Why was the violence needed if Yanukovich was going to lose, if someone like Poroshenko or Zelensky was going to win the next election, anyway ?
Most important reason, A- it was highly unlikely that strategy of war with Russia would have been democratically supported by majority. Majority always expressed will to negotiate, to find a way forward without war.
B. EU and US was not willing to bargain over future of Ukraine with Russia. Russian basic financial position was, whatever EU and US give you and promise you, we can give you, and more. Democratically elected Ukrainian government after Yanukovitch would have been in a very strong negotiating position, between EU/US and Russia. Overthrowing legally elected government was a cheaper option. Sad but true.
Use your head. Think. There are four wars atop one another, here.
A. US against Russia, stupid strategy but easy for foreign affairs experts, everything is well rehearsed, prepared, it‘s just a continuation of the aggressive containment that brought down Soviet Union. Does it make sense now? Not exactly, and it looks like Trump understands this. Without aggressive pushing of NATO towards Russian border, and that means aggressive pushing of regime change operations in countries neighbouring Russia, former Soviet states, there would have been no war. Once US accepts there will be never be Western military in Ukraine there is no more reason for war. But the war has its own logic, million men have died and it is not easy to let Ukrainians down.
B. war for liberation of Ukraine.... it is really a typical younger brother, older brother conflict. Think about Ireland getting free from British Empire in 1918, Britain required Irish state be neutral, and kept control over Northern Ireland where Protestant, more British were majority. Ukraine was fooled, misled into entering the war, being promised neverending support. The amount of Russia hatred in Ukraine, understandable in war, unfortunately determines that territory under Russian control will never be returned. A friend would have advised Ukraine to be a bridge between West and Russia, not a bulwark against Russia, more difficult now, but not impossible. Peaceful reintegration is theoretically possible, but even in theory demands high level of respect for the rights of Russian speakers, regarding language, religion, and definitely political autonomy. At least part of Russia hatred, and encroachment on rights of Russian speakers is irreversible. Think about Cyprus, Turkiye invaded more than 50 years ago, is till a member of NATO and possibly a candidate for EU.
C. Former empires created by „White man“ and their descendants, i.e. Britain, France, Germany, have to decide what is their relation to Russia. Last time Russia existed they were enemies, British and French allying with Turks to take over Crimea, so much for the White man theory. Germany transporting Lenin as a terror virus across Europe, to infect already weakened Russian society and destroy the opponent in WW One. France and Germany are really followers. Key is Britain. Russia has a leader, and leadership that is definitely more patriotic and intelligent and less naive strategically than the late Romanovs, and is an independent force in world.
D. War inside Ukraine, between central government in Kiev and eastern and southern provinces, and Russian speakers. It shouldn’t have happened. And it happened only because West expected victory and needed casus belli. And supported overthrow of legally elected president, that would definitely have lost the next election.
This looks difficult, but can be done. Kissinger, who is morally ambiguous, and yet very smart, is gone. But even lesser figures can do it. It is not rocket science, it is a job, a task.
A. There has never been such thing "aggressive pushing of NATO towards Russian border". NATO was reluctant to accept the Central European countries, it was these countries that pushed and begged to be part of NATO, as they were afraid of Russian colonial policies. And they were right as the Russian invasion of Ukraine shows.
B. War for Ukraine is a neocolonial conflict, with a colonial Russia trying to reassert its power over a former colony. Part of the effort is inventing of narratives justifying Russian imperialism. Fun fact: "respect for the rights of Russian speakers, regarding language, religion, and definitely political autonomy" has been already used by tsarist Russia 300 years ago to justify its colonial drive.
C. Russia is a former colonial empire created by white man. Siberia is a cementery of local languages and cultures destroyed during Ruussian colonisation.
D. There was no war inside Ukraine between central government in Kiev and eastern and southern provinces. The war between Ukraine and Russia started in 2014, with Russia sending its army to invade and conquer Donbas.
Thank you for your answer, I believe you wrote what you believe.
There are however some facts.
NATO general secretary publicly acknowledged that NATO enlargement to Ukraine is the cause of the war.
Russia doesn‘t need and doesn’t want Ukraine, Russia has all the land, oil, gas, minerals and some more. Russia accepted independent Ukraine, even Ukraine in EU, but cannot accept Ukrains in Nato.
There doesn't appear to be any public statement from the NATO Secretary General explicitly acknowledging that NATO enlargement to Ukraine is the cause of the war. The official statements from NATO emphasize their support for Ukraine in the face of Russia's aggression and their commitment to a just and lasting peace.
Russia insists that Ukraine must surrender control over the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk, which Russia annexed in September 2022 and demands control over Crimea which Russia has annexed in 2014.
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
Stoltenberg claims that Russia, not wanting NATO near its borders, demanded the dismantlement of eastern NATO as the price of not invading Ukraine, and on not having that demand met, proceeded to invade Ukraine - with the result that Sweden and Finland joined. This isn’t an admission of NATO responsibilty but an accusation against Russia
Russia is not an Empire, no more than Great Britain. Soviet Union dissolved into national states and Russian Federation is the national state, of Russians and all the local peoples.
People have been burned alive in Odessa, killed all over Donbas, who protested against nondemocratic CiA led regime change operation in Kyev.
As written before, Russia is a former colonial empire trying to reassert its power over a former colony. Interesting fact: Russian tsars did use the title "Emperor". The shift happened officially in 1721.
The Revolution of Dignity in 2014 started by peaceful protests when President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union. Ukrainians were frustrated with widespread corruption and the government's increasing authoritarianism. The government responded with force, beating and killing its own citizens. The Ukraininans fstood firm and Viktor Yanukovych fled Ukraine on February 22, 2014. The Ukrainian parliament swiftly removed him from office for neglecting his constitutional duties. Oleksandr Turchynov eas appointed as acting president and an early presidential election was scheduled for May 25, 2014.
Tl; dr: free people demanded their rights, wannabe autocrat fled, the people chose their new president. No "CIA led regime change"in sight.
"when President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union."
Refused to sign? You make it sound like he didn't have a choice in the matter... This agreement was not some perfect fantastic deal every single Ukrainian desperately wanted, rather it was somewhat more complicated than that and was hotly debated by all sides. It's called democracy, fyi. Sometimes one side wins, sometimes it's the other. But I guess Ukrainians don't have a choice when the EU or the US makes them an offer...
Ukraine has been beating and killing its own citizens since 2014, btw. They've been doing a very good job of killing the eastern half of the country for some years now. In fact, since the ousting of Yanukovych Ukraine went from virtually never killing its own citizens to doing almost nothing but that. Actually, it seems like things in Ukraine only got really bad since Yanukovych left. Maybe they should get him back, lol.
The deal was a hope for Ukrainians. They were hoping that this will force their government to curtail the corruption and growing authoritarianism - which was a result of Yanukovych's choices. He was free in his decisions and he decided on embarking the course that led him to conflict with his society, and, in the end, to killing the people he was supposed to protect.
Killing Ukrainians was started by Yanukovych on Maydan square. Instead of letting peaceful protest go, he sent his goons to first beat, then murder people.
After Yanukovych fled, it was Russian soldiers turn to start killing Ukrainians, which they do since 2014. Russians have invaded the eastern part of the country, leading to the poverty and depopulation. Ukrainians ran away from Donbas and Luhansk districts, some to Ukraine, some to Russia. The economy has become a playground of Russian clans profiteering from coal mining.
it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that killing in Maydan has been orchestrated, organised, killers recruited, weapons provided by CIA, a part of US government.
It was a routine CIA operation, CIA has done hundreds similar operations in different parts of the world.
I regret every life lost in Ukraine, but the main responsibility for Ukrainian. tragedy lies with western elites, who decided to used Ukraine as proxy in a war against Russia, and Ukrainian elites who let Ukrainians be used as proxy.
Yanukovith was an unpopular president, corrupt, as Ukrainian president can be, but he has been democratically elected, and more important he was going to lose the next election.
Why was a violent regime change necessary?
To install "our guys" in secret services, says CIA. CIA purged Ukrainian security services and turned Ukraine into a state manipulated by secret services.
Ukraine lost a chance to democratically decide on its future, and Ukrainian government lost a chance to negotiate with EU.
Reality is made of different views, and knowing more about what opponents are thinking is more important to me than yelling the same sentences, positions even when I think they are true.
Truth is what stands after matter has been thoroughly discussed.
Regarding Majdan 2014, it is over. It has happened, and cannot be undone. Whatever we conclude today about Majdan 2014 will not change the sequence of events that have defined history of Ukraine, Russia, Europe. Consequences are irreversible. But the war can and should stop.
Still, understanding that Maydan was both a popular unrest against elected but unpopular leader, and a successful regime change operation, done by CIA is important. CIA won. US won, West won.
But what about Ukraine?
The war is fought for a right to control the narrative ; did Ukraine win in 2014?
The country is definitely smaller, with significantly less people, with half a million fallen in war, several hundred thousand severely injured and permanently disabled, several millions who left the country and emigrated into EU and most will not come back, and severely damaged, and all national treasures in minerals, land, rights sold under duress.
In your own words : Ukrainians who remained in Ukraine are frustrated with widespread corruption and the government's increasing authoritarianism. The government responds to any critique with force, beating and killing its own citizens.
All of this to become a member of a military alliance that considers Russia an enemy, and to be able to put US military bases on Russian border.
Whatever the result of the negotiations, and I do hope it will succeed and bring a durable peace, it will be hard to present as a victory for Ukraine.
Reality is made of different views, but some facts need to be repeated, otherwise we land in a mire of unsubstantiated claims of "CIA led regime change" or "half a million fallen in war".
Or we are being presented a wall of text describing disasters that have befallen Ukraine, without a single word mentining that they are result of Russian invasions of 2014 and 2022. Ukrainians have been killed by Russian weapons, wielded by Russian soliders that were sent across Ukrainian border by Russian politicians, agianst international law and treaties between Russia and Ukraine.
Or the author misuses the words describing the corrupt pro-Russian Janukovych government to describe today's governement of Ukraine.
Or we are being led to believe that revolution of dignity was about NATO - which it wasn't. It was about joining EU and implementing rule of law. Only after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its military intervention in eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian public support for NATO membership surged, leading to the abandonment of neutrality in December 2014
It is a strange way to implement rule of law, to kill hundreds and overthrow legal government.
The problem with Ukrainian elites, government, even supporters is that they are unwilling to admit that Maydan was both, a popular revolt against unpopular president, but also a CIA regime change operation.
There is nothing to be ashamed of. When in fight one accepts help, doesn't matter from whom, even from CIA. But Ukrainians should have remained in charge in Ukraine, and, and this is my opinion, Ukrainians should have refused the temptation, the offer, the push, to become a proxy in a war against Russia.
Current generation of Ukrainian leaders were just a bit too ready to become proxies of the West.
Disasters have befallen Ukraine, but anyone sane, wise, intelligent could have told Ukrainians what not to do. How not to get in trouble.
Ukraine had dream borders, Ukraine had Crimea, Donbas,
I still do not understand why Ukrainian leadership refused neutrality and pushed for NATO membership.
From Russian perspective Ukraine in NATO means NATO military bases on Russian border, US missiles on Russian border. It is unacceptable. And it is not Putin, it is Russia speaking.
Whatever Ukrainian leadership decided to do, it was of utmost importance to keep open connection with Russian leadership, to meet, to talk, to discuss Russian as well as Ukrainian grievances, to find a way to understand, and assess the risk.
It would have helped if Ukraine were ready to offer some kind af assurance that it will never join an alliance that is enemy of Russia.
Yes you're right, this is different conflicts layered on top of each other. But I'm not in complete agreement about what those conflicts are and their details
The Aster 30 missile production is a tangled logistics mess, because as a multinational project every country wanted to secure a piece of the cake. Hence you have the missiles traveling across the Italian border more than twice in order to get subsystems incorporated...
It's not a rational system for a wartime production chain.
Though indirectly, this current claim of "bone-crushing sanctions" supports your point about Ukrainian government mismanagement. If I was a soldier in the field I'd be "WTF! You don't have bone-crushing sanctions by now? What the fuck-all have you been doing?"
What makes me nuts is the pro-Ukrainian YouTubers repeat it like it's a thing--"bone crushing sanctions." If France, Poland, Germany and the UK have something else behind the scenes those experts should tell us. It's bad enough the media treats readers like idiots.
"Dear Ukrainians, you won't die for lack of bone-crushing sanctions." I asked on the FB group. What am I missing? Do they have Putin in a tight spot or not? What's going on?
> Though indirectly, this current claim of "bone-crushing sanctions" supports your point about Ukrainian government mismanagement.
Unfortunately, it’s not something Ukraine has control over.
Yes, you're right of course. Liability of being rant-y.
Not control, but influence, yes. Have they done a good job at that? I would say its certainly hasn't been bad 🙂
Europe's dependency on energy was a factor in the slow build up in the intensity and range of sanctions. Discovering deficiencies and holes in the sanctions and then patching the holes with secondary sanctions and other efforts is another factor in the long roll out of sanctions.
That doesn't explain why it took months and years to reach this point and why enforcement isn't at a higher level right now.
Exactly! It's all about enforcement and no major media calls them on it.
Stop reading "major" media. It will only give you stomach burning.
Us masochists can't totally live without ;)
How effective the current sanctions are is extremely difficult to determine. They have been slow due to the European problems with energy dependence, a naive hope that they would work quickly, a lack of understanding how one should do it, as well as lack of political will to really hurt Russia. It is a very strange belief that it is possible to separate Russia from Putin and that if one hurt Russia they would get rid of Putin. But not by too much otherwise Russia collapses and who knows where all those nukes go no. Further it is difficult to foresee all Russian countermeasures and part of what we need to do now is to stop the countermeasures. But the countermeasures also shows that the sanctions hurt. Are they bone crushing hurting? Well even if they are it might take time. So let’s speed up the process. Even if have not done enough today we should not let that stop us for improving. And neither should we stop the Ukrainian front soldier for cursing us. We could and should have done a better job.
First Putin threatened Europe with an invasion of Ukraine to lift the 2014 sanctions and pay Russia more for its gas. Next Putin invaded Ukraine believing he could topple it, and if not, Europe would be too afraid to stop him. Right he was, Europe hasn't. Ukraine stopped him and put Europe in a bind because face it, many still find the whole situation a nuisance. So here we are. The Europeans won't stand by while Russia has its way but they won't push Russia out of Ukraine either. Their whole plan is to wear Russia down economically. They don't want to fight.
The U.S. is no different.
I doubt you disagree. The Europeans aren't controlling the narrative. They're letting a vacuum form that will lead to expanded war in ways we cannot foresee but will be worse than if they had stood up to Putin in the beginning. At least that's my opinion.
And mine too
Yes... Churchill 's quote rings in my mind (not exactly the same situation but it bears a strong resemblance) "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war"
Good one!
Дякую вам, сподіваюся що це кровопролиття якнайшвидше скінчиться, подивимось що політики будуть робити?
А то поки як щука, рак і лебідь - всі тягнуть у свою сторону (
Ви проводите себе як інфантильний дурень. Вас ця фікція з Мінською капітуляцією Порошенко-Путіна ще не навчила? Після 2022 ніби повинно було дійти до вашого розуму, що урко-чекістам кремля потрібна вся Україна. В казки про мир вірять тільки клінічні ідіоти. Навіть якщо і відбудеться якась заморозка, то лише на короткий період часу, щоб відновити ресурси та активізувати активні бойові дії. Україна могла б не втратити стільки території, стільки демографічного потенціалу, якщо б мародери у владі готувалися до гіршого. Завдяки їм ми втратили ще й військовий потенціал.
Але починаючи з 2014 року українцям розповідали казки про "мир" та перемир'я, коли насправді загрожували смертельні небезпеки. В 2022 році система мародерів "обрадувала" країну заявивши, що в нас немає та не вистачає зброї. Результат сотні тисяч трупів, втарата території, втрати економіки, демографічні втрати. На окупованих територіях українців беруть в армію кремля і це провина існуючої системи мародерів, які не забезпечили безпеку держави.
В ваших словах є доля правди, але як бачимо реальність диктує зовсім інші умови.
Не дивлячись що і хто хоче, бункерну залупу можуть поставити в таку позицію, викрутивши руки, що надовго відпаде бажання нападати.
Далі я не буду продовжувати хто винен і хто скільки вкрав, я особисто перед Богом відповідатиму.
В описанні про себе, ви видаєте себе за діяча культури, але матюкаєтеся в коментарях ніби останнє бидло. Мені аж страшно уявити, яку культуру ви несли в маси. Жах просто. Жах і сором.
Враховуючи ваш релігійний світогляд, я не дивуюся вашій інфантильності, вашому хибному та викривленому сприйняттю реальності. Ви займаєтеся самообманом та втішаєш себе пустими надіями на краще, хоча реальність складається зовсім інакше.
Ви тут висловили думку в своєму коментарі, що кремль змусять щось виконувати, що кремлю викрутять руки. В мене до вас зустріне питання: чому ніхто цього раніше не зробив якщо міг? Чому їх відразу ніхто не змусив відповідати за злочини проти людяності та всі військові злочини? Чому ідіоти з Вашингтона співпрацювали по Сирії з кремлем, обмінювалися розвідданими та протистояли Турції, яка є членом НАТО? Чому Західні лідери не боряться за декларовані ними ж цінності? Які цінності взагалі залишилися на Заході? На які загрози та військові провокації з боку кремля за останні роки відповіло НАТО? Можливо правильніше сказати, що всі Західні лідери просто боягузливі ідіоти, які не хочуть нести ні за що відповідальності, які нічим не ризикують, які не можуть прийняти жодного правильного конструктивного та продуктивного рішення, які втратили відчуття загрози та відчуття реальності?
Ви не в тому положенні щоб давати мені характеристику чи зауваження синку, я ставлюся до людей за їхніми діями, і якщо я пишу бункерна залупа, я так і буду прямим текстом писати.
Are these NASAMS a potential substitute for Patriots?
Nope. NASAMS are much shorter-ranged, and can't engage ballistic missiles.
I love to see it all. Further exhortations and expressions of total love by 52 nations expressly aimed at destroying Russia regardless of cost to the citizens of those nations, even to the citizens of Kiev Ukraine. And all to obtain what? The conquest of separatist Ukrainians who sought and claimed separation because of ethnic vilification.
500,000 dead Kiev Ukrainians never mentioned.
The impossibility of the remaining Kiev Ukrainians ever getting any personal benefit from this never mentioned.
The fantastic profits of the arms manufacturers never mentioned.
The mammoth corruption in Kiev never mentioned.
The massive debts of the country never mentioned.
The selling off of Ukraine piece by piece never mentioned.
The sacrifice.
The total lack of any reward for the people.
And the total, total, absolute disregard, obliteration of any mention of the 10 million Donbas Ukrainians.
Yet they still claim to 'love Ukraine' and 'love Ukrainians' and call for 'support'.
Lying in their teeth as they say it. Quite clearly. Flagrantly. Massively obvious.
You gotta hand it to them: they've (currently) got the world conned, tricked, deluded into believing their narrative.
When it comes to propaganda and Orwellian double speak they are the undisputed masters.
Arthur, your comment raises strong opinions and reflects deep frustration with the current geopolitical narrative. It's essential to approach such topics with clarity, evidence, and balance. While skepticism toward governments, media, and international interests is understandable—especially when it comes to war—it's also important to distinguish between legitimate concerns and broad generalizations.
The suffering of civilians on all sides, including in Kyiv, Donbas, and across Ukraine, is tragic and undeniable. But interpreting international support solely as a plot to destroy Russia oversimplifies a very complex conflict. Many nations support Ukraine's sovereignty not because they hate Russians, but because they oppose violations of international borders and the suffering that follows.
Corruption, profit motives, and manipulation are indeed real issues—on every side of a war. They deserve scrutiny. But so do the rights of people who wish to live in peace without being bombed, occupied, or forcibly separated.
It’s fair to question narratives. But to call all support “a lie” and erase the voice of Ukrainians who don’t support separatism or who’ve suffered under Russian attacks ignores a large part of reality.
This isn’t frustration with a narrative but assertion of a narrative. Moreover, it’s false that there is no horror at Ukrainian suffering, which leads to horror at the Russians for inflicting it. The possibility of gain for the Ukrainians is the possibility that they will remain citizens of a free country
they cannot remain citizens of a free country if they are not in one in the first place.
They were freer than now, when they are being invaded and murdered
They are not being invaded and murdered. They are invading and murdering. Take a look at the land they are standing on and have stood on for 10 years. Is it theirs? No. It belongs to the Donbas people.
And why are they on it then? Because they want to 'ethnic cleanse' the Donbas people. The people whom they systematically persistently shelled the civilian population of for eight years before russia came to help - and then, of course, they still continued it...
But you are right about they were freer than now. They were never free but yes they were freer than now. They didn't used to have to fear being kidnapped off the street and send to die. They used to be free to have political parties, to have tv. stations, to be able to speak their mind more or less, free to read russian books, free to speak russian - free to follow the constitution of Ukraine. They don't have those freedoms now.
Ukraine was defending its recognised sovereign territory, Russia invaded what was at the time the recognised sovereign territory of Ukraine. The Russian attack has caused massive casualties, which I call murder. I am using all words here in their normal meanings
Support for 'Ukraine' that is support for the destruction of 10 million Ukrainians in the first place is a clear lie.
Support for a civil war is never support for a nation as people: it is support for a phantasm, a judicial entity, usually represented by a bunch of profiteers as it is here.
I don't interpret international support as a plot to destroy Russia - I point to clear declarations of intent to destroy Russia. I point to Kiev's own lunatic demands for nuclear strikes on Russia.
Yes, it is important to distinguish between truth an waffle.
By international design nato drew inexorably closer to Russia to a point the main instigator itself would never tolerate. The uk today hopes to plunder the Ukraine. Putin offered peace to Ukraine that left the Donbas with Ukraine. All refused.
Nato itself had no reason to exist after 1991 and continues to exist only as an inexorable enemy of Russia. It denied Russia membership: enough said, point proven.
Ukraine the 'sovereign entity' exists with certain condition and rules within its constitution which guarantee civic rights to ethnicities: it tramples on its own constitution.
From the very beginning, from maidan, from the Trades Hall, the intent was to destroy Donbas Ukrainians. Today they never get a mention. Not by anyone on any side. But the intent remains: they are simply acting as though it has been accomplished and now the speak entirely in terms of destroying Russians.
Even as they make the mealy mouthed twisted proclamations about peace deals and cease fires today did you ever hear any one of them call for peace for pity's sake for the people of Donbas, their brothers, one quarter of their population, in their eyes, said to be suffering under Russian invasion, domination? Ever? Anywhere?
No. You didn't. For it is not a concern they have. It is not a concern they would have even if it were true but today they know full well it is not true and that the erstwhile Ukrainians of Donbas today are happier, safer and live better with a better government that the Kiev Ukrainians.
When it comes to ignoring reality, 'Mike', I think you take the cake.
Oh Arthur
Why do we have to put up with this stuff?
This is complete nonsense and distortion of facts. Supporting Ukraine means supporting its people, not war or some political "phantom." Accusing Ukraine of "destroying" its own people is absurd. NATO is a defensive alliance that does not threaten Russia; its expansion is a response to real threats. Claims about Kiev demanding nuclear strikes are fabricated propaganda. Donbas is part of Ukraine, and its residents have the right to peace and security, not to be victims of war and aggression. Ignoring people's suffering and twisting facts is unfair and cynical.
You need to rethink, Mike.
Where does a dollar of 'support for Ukraine' go?
It goes to KIev. Part for plunder to the corrupt, part to the black market and then what's left goes into the military with the sole object of destroying Donbas Ukrainains.
Now listen, Mike, why do I have to write that down?
How is that you don't see that and claim the very opposite?
Where do you think a billion dollars of 'support for Ukraine' went?
That's right: Donbas residents have a right to peace and security, not to be shelled for eight years constantly. Where are you living? Where do you get your ideas your facts from?
Let me tell a very simple thing about your nato defensive alliance. where nato goes america goes because it is in fact an american puppet. where america goes american bases go. where there are american bases there are american missiles. so when nato is on the border of russia you have missiles on the border of Russia, right?
Have you got that?
Now do you know about Kennedy and Cuba? No?
Well Gorbachev ( do you know who that is? look it up. for god's sake look some things up) planned to put missile in cuba, started building the sites and perhaps more. America was ready to start a nuclear war over this.
No joke, no exaggeration. The usa promised a nuclear war if they were not removed
Now do you get it? The very thing america was willing to blow up the world about is what kiev and usa planned for russia's borders. And still do.
Arthur, are you living in some alternate universe where Khrushchev is Gorbachev, NATO is Satan, and aid to Ukraine is a secret mission to bomb Donbas? Alright, let’s walk you through the basics — slowly.
The Cuban Missile Crisis?
Newsflash: that was Khrushchev in 1962, not Gorbachev. The U.S. and USSR had a standoff and resolved it diplomatically. But sure, keep ranting like a rejected Cold War comic book villain.
Russian aggression didn’t start in 2022.
— In 2002, Putin wanted Tuzla Island — already salivating over Ukrainian land.
— In 2008, he invaded Georgia.
— In 2014, he took Crimea and started a war in Donbas using unmarked soldiers and lies.
NATO didn’t provoke — it tolerated. That’s not aggression, that’s restraint.
“Aid goes to destroy Donbas?”
Sure, and Santa Claus funds NATO. Aid goes to keep Ukraine alive while it’s being bombed daily by your so-called “liberators.” Some goes to defense, some to rebuilding. Unlike Russian “aid” — which comes with tanks, conscripts, and stolen washing machines.
NATO as a puppet?
If NATO is such a puppet of the U.S., then why are countries lining up to join? Maybe because being Russia’s neighbor is like living next to a drunk guy with a flamethrower yelling about “historical borders.”
So Arthur, maybe stop quoting your fridge magnets and open a history book. Oh — and for your next hot take, try not to confuse Khrushchev with Gorbachev. It’s kind of a giveaway that you're not exactly up to speed.
That was a mistake about Gorbachov. I asked gpt and somehow got the wrong answer or read it wrong or something. Sorry about that. However the names of the actors makes no difference to the salient facts. Which are that what happened there would not be tolerated by the usa but nato, usa and kiev want it to happen to russia.
and insist upon it happening despite russia constantly warning.
now if you are warned not to put your hand on a hot stove and you ignore repeated warnings as you get closer and closer don't come trying to me if you get burned.
which is what you are doing.
And that' s the only reason for quoting that history: because of its direct relevant to today.
Whereas you then go back in history in order to try to manufacture significances. Putting your own interpretation and twist on things you dig up. I know nothing of Tuzla and Georgia so I'll leave them aside. But Crimea was not 'taken' any more than Donbas is 'taken' today. Crimea effectively seceded and with good reason, just the same as Donbas did. Everyone knows that.
Especially the people of Crimea. Did they not know that Russia would be trying to handle a situation of an unpopular army of occupation which is most certainly is not. And I remember Putin years ago pointing out that Russia has no need nor interest in putting itself in such a situation.
Nato, therefore, tolerated nothing. In fact nothing was any of nato's business. Nato in those circumstances is irrelevant.
Next the money going to destroy Donbas. The 'money' in question is all aid to Kiev and the greatest portion of it is begged and borrowed quite specifically for arms. There is no doubt about that at all. The arms they beg for including nuclear arms we might note.
The 'money' quite often - in fact most of the time as is usual with foreign aid everywhere - quite simply is converted into materiel from the donor country. i.e. it is never issued as money itself but is 'purchasing power' from the donor nation which immediately benefits the donor nation in sales and workforce and includes profits, too, they don't sell at wholesale prices.
Even were that not true it is clear to anyone that you pay all my expenses then I have more money of my own to buy weapons so it is a moot point.
Nato is more than simply a puppet of the usa it is wholly owned by the usa. Without the usa money it would collapse.
Here is the result of a simple google fyi:
--------------------------------------------------
NATO, while a collective defense alliance, is heavily reliant on the United States for both financial contributions and military capabilities. The US is the largest contributor to NATO's budget, and its military forces deployed in Europe are a significant portion of the alliance's overall strength. This dependence extends to key capabilities like air refueling, intelligence, and logistics, where the US plays a pivotal role.
Financial Contributions:
The US contributes a substantial portion of NATO's common funds, representing a significant share of the alliance's overall defense spending.
For example, the US contributed 15.8% to the $3.5 billion NATO yearly expenditure.
While other members are expected to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, the US contributes a much larger percentage.
Military Capabilities:
The US deploys a significant number of troops in Europe, contributing to NATO's military presence on the continent.
The US provides key capabilities such as air refueling, intelligence, and logistical support, which are crucial for NATO operations.
The US also has the capacity to deter and defend against existential threats to the alliance, a capability that no other member possesses.
European Perspective:
Some European leaders have expressed a desire for greater European defense independence and to reduce the dependence on US military support.
Increased defense spending by European nations and initiatives to "buy European" are seen as steps towards greater self-reliance.
However, the US's role in NATO is considered indispensable, and a withdrawal would leave a significant gap in the European security architecture
------------------------------
Next countries wanting to join nato. Just how far away can you get from the issue at hand? You want me to answer all and any queries you come up with?
I will not. You are going to have to research and think for yourself.
It is clear they mainly want to join nato because it is simply a fashion for their lunatic governments, each with their own particular reasons for wanting to join the fashion with more or less enthusiasm.
Doubtless the enthusiasm will wane if Trump takes usa away or insists they all pay their dues.
What the hell has ireland got any need for nato for? Ireland imagines Russia is going to attack it in line with nato's fixation on Russia? That's supposed to be a defensive alliance. Defensive against the ussr which is defunct and so should that alliance be. But it is not because it is not defensive, it is offensive by design. Ireland, et al, basically want to join in order to expand political bullcrap, waste their citizens money and swan around the global political stage appearing to be important.
So overall your rant was incorrect and/or irrelevant in every detail.
And began and finished with gratuitous offensive ad hominem.
I will not converse with bad mannered, bad mouthed children beyond telling them they've been recognised as such.
I'll just throw this in as a final note, actually of great, central, importance: throughout this you use the words 'Ukrainian' to mean Kiev Ukrainians only. 10 million Donbas Ukrainians are ignored by you. Your 'support for Ukraine' is support for Kiev Ukrainians killing Donbas Ukrainians.
Your 'support for Ukraine' is therefore actually 'support for killing Ukraine, for destroying a large part of it.' You have no interest in what is best for the people of Ukraine at all. What is clearly in their interest is that they stop getting killed but no one on your side gives a damn about that. Happy to see them dead 'to he last man'.
No just illogical, heartless, stupid but downright disgusting.
So we are done. Go back to your hatreds.
You're comment is the Russian IO narrative, really the notion of "destroying Russia" with the state of the European long range strike weapons, DIB, armed forces units and their TOE, etc before 2014 and even before Feb 2022.
You are ignoring evidence based facts about Russian IO/influence opns in Ukraine plus the cultivation by the FSB/GRU of pro Russian factions and individuals which are in the Ukrainian government, armed forces and communities before 2014 and after.
Just more Russian BS plus you are a supporter/vatnik for Russian genocidal actions/war against Ukraine and Ukrainians.
An interesting comment really. the kind I usually ignore because
1. they're clearly antagonistic
2. they offer no useful information
3. they're often ad hominem which on principle I ignore, will not communicate with
4. often bad grammar to the point of incomprehension.
so that eventually:
5. I just don't get what they're on about or what possible use they are.
For a change I will try to address one. Yours. This one.
Ok. It starts with bad grammar. So that's one straight off.
It should be 'your comment'. not 'you're comment.' note I don't attack you for this. you could very well be a multilinguist dealing with a language very foreign to you and the more credit to you for it. I simply observe it to indicate a truth: grammatical errors make comprehension difficult often. In this case, here, no. It is clear you mean 'your'.
Then the next thing:
'You are....' is what you mean and that's an ad hominem which immediately ceases our conversation for I will not talk with such people beyond an initial comment like this one here where I say I've recognised them and will have nothing to do with them.
Take note of that. You've been told.
The next thing is the content of the ad hominem. I did not understand it and had to ask for help from gpt.
gpt tells me you meant this:
"Your comment is repeating Russian propaganda, particularly the idea that the West was aiming to destroy Russia. That idea doesn’t hold up when you look at the state of European military capabilities (e.g., strike weapons, industrial base, and force structure) before 2014 or even before 2022—they were clearly not geared toward such an aggressive objective."
Well that is a straw man. It assumes, predicates, that 'aiming to destroy Russia' depends entirely on an armed invasion being the only way and being practicable at this moment - or that moment in '14 or '22 or whenever you're talking about.
That's clearly unreal. In fact the West has been working to destroy Russia since 1945 and without invasion ever contemplated. Did you not know?
But you put it up as the 'only way', the proof or disproof, and then say it couldn't be therefore the idea disproven. As I say, that's the 'straw man' debating (bad) technique.
Put simply the idea is disproven by you but it was your idea only in the first place.
Then next we have another long sentence I had trouble with.
It apparently means this:
"You are ignoring evidence-based facts about Russian IO/influence operations in Ukraine..."
He’s accusing you of overlooking or dismissing documented Russian efforts to influence Ukraine through information warfare, propaganda, or covert manipulation.
"...plus the cultivation by the FSB/GRU of pro-Russian factions and individuals..."
This refers to Russian intelligence agencies (FSB and GRU) allegedly fostering sympathies or loyalty among Ukrainians, especially within key institutions.
"...which are in the Ukrainian government, armed forces, and communities before 2014 and after."
He’s emphasizing that this influence was not only present before Crimea’s annexation in 2014 but persisted afterward.
I am not 'ignoring' things when I am not talking about them. I am not 'ignoring' tulip growing in Amsterdam it just is not what I am talking about, it is irrelevant.
Really I do not know which post of mine you are responding to but we seem to be talking wholly here about the question of whether the west has a program of destroying Russia or not. What Russia is or isn't doing while that's going on is not the issue, is not relevant. Whatever Russia is or isn't doing: the West has that program.
So that comment is a non sequitur. You've changed the subject. Made a new accusation, a postulation and accusation.
Now turning to that for a moment how about this:
"When a country has millions of people across the border who speak its language, share its culture, or even identify with its national story, then influence operations aren’t just tools of domination—they're also forms of continuity, protection, and obligation. To treat every message of support, every media outlet, or every sympathetic local as evidence of ‘subversion’ ignores the reality of divided populations and layered identities. It’s as if kinship, language, and cultural proximity have no weight in international relations. But they do—immensely."
Finally you come up with your last classic. Gratuitous abusive ad hominem as usual.
However it raises the question of genocide. There is absolutely no evidence of any genocidal intent on the part of Russia at all. None. Quite the opposite.
From Minsk II in 2015 the proposal was on the table that Kiev retain the Donbas albeit with some autonomy and some guarantees. All intended to protect the people against the genocidal intent of Kiev as expressrf in the maidan and the Trades Hall.
Where in that is any indication whatever of a desire to 'genocide' Ukrainians?
Nonsense.
As I say, I am done with you. I said I'd look into this 'knot' ( posts like yours are like dense 'knots' to me and not worth unravelling) just for interest's sake.
It has done little or nothing for me.
I hope it helps you a little.
I will leave you with this:
In the years before the war, a Ukrainian from Mariupol might spend a week visiting cousins in Belgorod or St. Petersburg, trading jabs over whose city had better salaries, better public services, better beer. Heated arguments over politics might break out over the kitchen table — just like they do in every family.
The Mariupolitan might insist life in Ukraine was freer, funnier, more hopeful, despite the hardships. His cousin might scoff and say, "You’re just trying to convince yourself."
But neither would think this meant they were enemies. They were kin. They were of the same stock, the same Soviet inheritance, with divergent but not mutually exclusive futures.
He would return to Mariupol and tell tales of the fun he had on his visit with his russian relatives and friends, all part of his own Russian identity.
Yet still firmly Ukrainian and happy to live in Mariupol.
This is how real people live. With complexity, with contradiction, with pride and regret in equal measure. They don't draw hard lines between their loves. They don't renounce half their identity to validate the other. It takes ideologues and politicians to teach them that such coexistence is wrong — to insist that every layer of belonging must be peeled off until only one approved identity remains.
What was done to the Donbas Ukrainian people what was attempted to be done by force was not just political reorientation — it was the coercion of singularity, the demand that one choose between being "Ukrainian" or "Russian" when, in reality, millions had long learned to be both.
This kind of reasoning also exposes a double standard. Western powers frequently justify their own soft power or political interference in terms of universal values, diaspora engagement, or protecting democratic allies. But when Russia reaches out to sympathetic or culturally aligned populations, it’s reflexively labeled as destabilizing influence.
In truth, there’s a spectrum between cultural affinity, legitimate diplomacy, and manipulative interference—and that spectrum exists for everyone, not just for "them."
Still reflection of your inability to understand the facts, still you are unable to comprehend that in major power competition, you have to have a coercive arm/capability to present a theater or the ability to project.
NATO/Europeans having the intent to destroy Russia when they downgraded their armed forces, DIB, reserve forces, after 1992 onwards means until Feb 2022 means you are just parroting the Russian IO/propaganda messaging BS.
You are still full of double standard of understanding, conveniently forgetting the Russian silivokis/V Putin and his cliques years long action on control and influence on the former Soviet Union geographical areas or countries that formed the Union then.
Very nice mindset of yours still and your reply/comment is still full of lies, just parroting again the Russian IO/propaganda line why the RF need to invade the sovereign territory of another country which was recognized in 1992 by the UN Charter as a country withnm distinct cultural, historical identity and different from Russians/the Russian Federation.
You are just offended by the evident truth and deflection messaging again with your long winded and full of Russian talking points reply to me.
Blame the west is the IO/propaganda message/taking points of the silivokis/V Putin and his clique, plus still you cannot use your superior analytic thinking of what the VSRF/VKS long range weapons are targeting and impacting in Ukraine, plus the murder of Ukrainian POWs, etc which you disimiss as NOT GENOCIDAL? Really.
Excellent reporting as always, very much appreciated 👍
Dishonest D.
dishonest as in sending other people's kids to die in a war you're not willing to fight yourself.
It’s not dishonest to support those who have decided to fight if you think their cause is just. That isn’t ‘sending’ anyone anywhere
Forceful conscription is not a decision.
Without forceful conscription, war would have ended long ago.
Ukraine made a corporate decision to resist your invading horde, of course with different degrees of personal commitment. We have been supporting that decision. We are not the agent, we do not send
And what do you think we (citizens of democratic countries) should do in relation to this war? Answer!
Start with deciding, in a democratic way, what is the public in democratic countries ready to sacrifice.
A. are you ready for a total war that will most probably end in nuclear war. For Russia this war is existential, and is not bluffing, will use nukes if pressured.
B. are you ready to send your own soldiers and see them come home dead.
If not you are sacrificing Ukrainians
You are sending other people‘s kids to die in a war you are not willing to fight yourself.
Thank you for answering my request. I cannot agree on two counts.
Firstly, in what way existential? Who's going to invade Russia? NATO? The NATO that is showing itself so pathetic and bare of supplies throughout this war? I don't think so. If countries around Russia want to run themselves a certain way, that's up to them. Russia has to deal with it, I'm sorry. Within the framework of the UN Charter, countries don't have the right to seize a sphere of influence so that they can keep their autocratic regimes stable.
Secondly, sending money and weapons to Ukraine, and not people to fight, is a perfectly rational and appropriate response. Governments have a mandate to protect their citizens and there is a high bar to sending them in harm's way. At the moment, I don't think the situation in Ukraine warrants sending foreign troops, but that might change if things get bad.
Nukes? Do it. Let's see what happens. No, I don't think nukes would be used by Russia, but if they are used, I don't think there would be a nuclear response. I do think the response - the economic onslaught from all corners, and possibly conventional warfare- would spell the end of the Putin regime.
Sorry, but this was intended to be a clean and easy operation and you're well aware of that. Putin was in too deep to back out before he realized what he'd done. This is and always was about staying in power for him. Unfortunately for us all, including you, this means war in some sort until he dies.
Thank you for giving a clear answer. This discussion is going on for already more than three years, and I would like to clearly identify what are the real differences in opinion.
First, existential is what is perceived, judged as existential by the party in question. Russians, Russian leadership is the one who makes the final assessment, decision, if Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat.
In Cuban missile crisis Americans judged Russian missiles on Cuba as an existential threat, Whatever Hrushev said, was irrelevant. Missiles that can strike US land in a several minutes were judged as existential threat.
What US perceives as threat is the foundation for US decisions. Same with Russia.
Russia has enough of land, oil, gas, minerals... Russia does not need Ukraine, Russia accepted Ukrainian borders, Donbas in Ukraine, even Crimea in Ukraine,
Russia was ready to accept Ukraine in EU.
but sees Ukraine in NATO as an existential threat. And US knows it. It has been communicated clearly.
Russia has been invaded numerous times by Mongols, Turkish tribes, Turks, Swedes, Poles, by French, British, Germans, AustroHungarians, Germans under Hitler.
Russia exists because it has been able to defend itself, and this foundation of Russian state on defense of an enormous country with enormous borders, is what produces strong central government and strong army.
In my opinion US knew that Russia sees Ukraine in NATO as an existential threat, but in a kind of unipolar arrogance, hubris, considered US to be so strong as to be able to show it down Russian throat.
This is the basis of demonstrating rather hypocritical position when repeating sentences like: countries do not have right to see a sphere of influence. Says who? A country that follows Monroe doctrine, is discussing invasion of Greenland, seizing Canada, or Panama. Invaded numerous countries all over the world, performed dozens and dozens of regime change operations,
US leadership knew Ukraine NATO membership was strongly opposed, it might cause war, and decided to proceed.
If it was a bluff, it has been called.
So you are right, either US accepts and gives up on Ukraine in NATO or the war cannot be stopped,
So far there are some signs of Trump accepting this logic, but also other signs showing that Trump is being led to believe into the fiction of Putin regime.
Calling democratically ruled country "regime" is a worrying sign of being ready for continuing aggression. Putin enjoys wide support, has won several elections, he may lose the next one, for example if he surrenders in Ukraine.
Projecting war far into the future, to the times of Putins death, is also deeply worrying. Putin is not the cause, and if he died tomorrow, or even yesterday or last year as some British sources predicted, nothing would have changed.
Russia is a major power, and all the leading elites understand that Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat.
Provoking Russian aggression, a typical preventive war, was wrong. And I am not speaking from a moral point of view. It was unprofessional, a mistake, a wrong call. Not enough thinking before the decision was made.
Western powers now have a very bad choice, continue the war, destroy Ukraine even more, seize Russian assets to finance the war,
If this strategy promised victory, it would have been followed. It does not. Alternative , the best West has been able to produce is frozen conflict, and restarting after Putin is gone.
It would really be stupid if Russians made this possible. To be continued...
Thought I better get around to replying as promised. You can treat this as a response to most of your posts of the last few days, since your viewpoint is quite consistent and detailed. Overall, of course, I disagree with it.
Let's start with what I agree with:
-existential is what is perceived - yes. I have had conversations with friends about the Cuban missile crisis and my take is that America responded understandably and the USSR behaved responsibly and rationally to de-escalate. If Russia were to economically isolate Ukraine in response to NATO overtures, I would consider this reasonable. Russia's NATO concerns are real, and it was a diplomatic blunder for the USA to be so bullish about maintaining Ukraine's right to join - this wording was not helpful, although giving in to Russia's demands would have been equally unwise - they should have said "well then how ARE we going to secure Ukraine's sovereignty?". Having said all of that, NATO concerns need to be put into context, which I will get to.
In regard to spheres of influence, my view is not hypocritical - I disagree with much of the USA's actions that you mentioned (although have sympathy re Panama due to broken promises). I am saying that the USA and Russia should act responsibly (that is, respect other countries' sovereignty according to the UN Charter).
Now the major point, which I think is the flaw in your argument and viewpoint, and it's the same for my friend who I have had many heated conversations with: It's not just about NATO. The entire Western liberal-capitalist system (be it good, bad or otherwise) is an existential threat to Russia. We are talking about quite different civilizational structures here. Putin essentially said in the 2007 Munich security conference that he needs a sphere of influence. He had realised over the last decade that in order to keep his government stable (and perhaps Russia in one piece), it's not sufficient to control various things at home. He believes that Russia also needs to have control over how surrounding countries operate - I suppose not so completely as with the USSR, but enough to create a kind of ideological buffer zone. How much? I think we have a pretty clear indication. Things such as the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement are not desirable. This is because such agreements pull Ukraine into the EU's orbit and away from Russia's orbit. Going towards one orbit is necessarily going away from the other.
The concept of Ukraine being a bridge between Russia and the West has limitations because of the incompatibility between the way they operate - the long-term trend was always going to be a polarisation toward one system.
The EU simply presented a system which the people of Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine prefer. Having a liberal, EU-oriented Ukraine next door is undesirable and a threat to Russia's stability. I am not claiming that this system is better - being part of it I see many flaws, including deep ones - but nonetheless it is a simple fact that it's what the peoples of those countries preferred, organically. I reject outside influence as the primary factor in this. While it's certainly there, it's not anywhere near the main factor, and I will not discuss this point further. Now comes NATO again. National security and the ability to forge one's own future (i.e. sovereignty), of course, go hand-in-hand. For example - just look at how rapidly the various Pacific Island nations are signing up to agreements with China about naval bases and so on. Yes, for the money, but I'm sure also because they understand the hard power balance in the region and don't want to make themselves targets of China. So we have two causes of gravitation towards NATO - the former Soviet bloc nations simply out of raw desire to not be, in their eyes, enslaved again - Russia has only itself to blame for that. The second cause being that countries want to be liberal, they want to be in the EU or more like the EU, and they need secure borders to help achieve that. This is the reason these countries want(ed) to join NATO all by themselves without needing outside influence or pressure. Testimonies from members of NATO both before and after 1991 all line up - caution and reluctance on behalf of NATO to let others in, and pressure from those nations on NATO to let them in. This is another point I will not budge on nor discuss further. Although, it's true some serious diplomatic blunders were made in 2021 and this didn't help. Nonetheless, I don't believe being wise about that would have prevented war - war was by then inevitable, and the cause was Ukraine's desire to pivot west. Permanently barring Ukraine from NATO (without a decent security alternative) would have been a green light to invade it. We must, must must MUST keep in mind that this was intended to be a lightning operation and it was expected that Ukrainians would welcome their liberators with open arms - it was not intended to be the isolating, debilitating, painful drawn-out mess that it has become for Russia (and Ukraine).
I don't just type this stuff to make a point, and air my opinion. I hope that some day you will see it as I do and take actions towards stopping Russia's aggression - while I acknowledge that Russia's security concerns need to be properly addressed, it also needs to stop the carnage and pursue these issues in a state of ceasefire/peace.
I sincerely respect and appreciate your effort.
However, there is a string of logical, strategic and ethical flaws in your comment that require answer.
As almost millions lives have been lost, in search of a solution, of a problem, that you are trying to describe, incorrectly, your viewpoint deserves an answer, a rebuttal.
You are wrong, unfortunately.
Trump abolished US AID. What was US AID actually doing?
US AID was promoting liberal democracy? US AID was a part of regime change operations, together with CIA.
Ukrainian public was overwhelmingly against NATO membership.
Maydan in 2014 necessitated violence to turn it from popular protest against unpopular government, into a regime change operation.
Who provided violence?
Who has organized, planned, recruited snipers who have killed 100 men ?
Half policemen, half protesters. CIA.
War was inevitable, only because US /NATO/west was unable/unwilling to stop their regime change operations.
Russia/Putin made a mistake, believing that US/NATO/West can be convinced into changing their basic strategy. Only force can make US/NATO/West change their strategy.
Putin, didn't initially understand what refusal to accept Russia into NATO really means.
If Russia has been accepted into NATO, there would have been no cause for fear, concern, of Russian aggression.
Putin was young, inexperienced as a leader, still believing in Western liberal-capitalist system, and he made a mistake. An honest mistake, Putin was growing up, maturing as a leader, just as Russia was growing up as a society. If you are not at the table, you are on the menu. Russia was on the menu, Russia was the final target of regime change operations.
War in Ukraine is an existential fight for Russia.
Tragedy of Russo Ukrainian war is that only reason for the war is US/UK/NATO obsession of putting US missiles on Russian border. All the rest, status of Crimea, Donbas, Russian speakers, EU orientation could have been resolved through negotiations.
It is a compliment to CIA and MI6 who have in relatively short time, prepared Ukrainians to be ready to die for the right to put US missiles on Russian border. Many of them gang pressed, but western mainstream media are silent.
The fact that West has chosen to support Zelensky means that war will have to be decided on the battlefield.
After the capitulation of Ukrainian armed forces there will come the time to properly address western security concerns.
I am certain that Russia will be ready to act responsibly.
I seriously regret all human lives lost in this war, but I think it is important for everyone who attempts to stop the war and create a lasting peace to understand the real cause of the conflict.
The cause of the war is US and British ambition to place NATO bases, missiles, in Ukraine, on Russian border.
The moment US & Britain let Ukraine free from the obligation to place NATO bases in Ukraine, war will end.
Second point of disagreement
sending money and weapons is rational and appropriate if it secures a better outcome for Ukraine, than Ukraine would have assured by negotiating with Russia.
There is a line of agreements, from Minsk 1, Minsk2, Istanbul that have been sabotaged, refused, by Ukrainian leadership under the strong influence of US and Britain.
And each new one is worse for Ukraine,
And many people have died, many have become invalids, many have left the country.
My position is that if one is trying to help Ukraine, one should seek peace, and start negotiations
Sending money and weapons in order to keep Ukraine fighting a war is actually bad for Ukraine, if one observes real situation.
Second point was about what countries should do if they decide that its in Ukraine's best interests to fight. You and I disagree about that, but let's say countries have decided its the case. Then I think the best response is what they are doing (but much more). In a way I do agree with you actually. If one is going to help Ukraine fight, one must do it seriously. Doing it half-heartedly is cruel. But again, countries make such half-hearted decisions based on what they think is best for their own populations - wrongly i believe.
As to whether its best for Ukraine to fight - will reply to your other post above.
The problem is, you do agree with me.
Helping Ukraine half heartedly is cruel. But if one is A. unwilling to escalate to nuclear war, (actually quite sensible position) and B. unwilling to see one's own soldiers die (also quite reasonable position) and C. unwilling to use financially nuclear options like seizing Russian money in Western banks (also reasonable, because if you can steal from Russia, a nuclear superpower, how safe are all other countries' assets) one cannot help but half heartedly, cannot behave but cruelly, testing just how much Ukraine can endure, hoping that somehow Russia will collapse before Ukraine runs out of men.
The West is putting Ukraine in a psychological double bind situation, making Ukrainian leadership responsible for all the deaths, destruction and suffering. We are only doing it because you asked for it.
There is a lot of realism in Western position, and it is fundamentally true. Each country elites, are ultimately responsible for their own decisions. Ukraine is willing to fight against aggression and is receiving help.
But what is missing is that the West knowingly used Ukraine as a proxy in a war against Russia.
And that current Ukrainian strategy is a result that could not have been obtained without a regime change in 2014, a violent change of an elected government, that ironically was 100% to lose their next election.
Why was the violence needed if Yanukovich was going to lose, if someone like Poroshenko or Zelensky was going to win the next election, anyway ?
Most important reason, A- it was highly unlikely that strategy of war with Russia would have been democratically supported by majority. Majority always expressed will to negotiate, to find a way forward without war.
B. EU and US was not willing to bargain over future of Ukraine with Russia. Russian basic financial position was, whatever EU and US give you and promise you, we can give you, and more. Democratically elected Ukrainian government after Yanukovitch would have been in a very strong negotiating position, between EU/US and Russia. Overthrowing legally elected government was a cheaper option. Sad but true.
Thank you so much. Putler will not go to Istanbul. He sends his handmen.
And therefore so should Z. He should go if Putin goes. If Putin sends his subordinates, so should he.
Don't underestimate the PR value of Zelensky showing up in Istanbul and Putin not present in the room.
The image and the message would be very strong "See? Russia isn't interested in peace"
true
Use your head. Think. There are four wars atop one another, here.
A. US against Russia, stupid strategy but easy for foreign affairs experts, everything is well rehearsed, prepared, it‘s just a continuation of the aggressive containment that brought down Soviet Union. Does it make sense now? Not exactly, and it looks like Trump understands this. Without aggressive pushing of NATO towards Russian border, and that means aggressive pushing of regime change operations in countries neighbouring Russia, former Soviet states, there would have been no war. Once US accepts there will be never be Western military in Ukraine there is no more reason for war. But the war has its own logic, million men have died and it is not easy to let Ukrainians down.
B. war for liberation of Ukraine.... it is really a typical younger brother, older brother conflict. Think about Ireland getting free from British Empire in 1918, Britain required Irish state be neutral, and kept control over Northern Ireland where Protestant, more British were majority. Ukraine was fooled, misled into entering the war, being promised neverending support. The amount of Russia hatred in Ukraine, understandable in war, unfortunately determines that territory under Russian control will never be returned. A friend would have advised Ukraine to be a bridge between West and Russia, not a bulwark against Russia, more difficult now, but not impossible. Peaceful reintegration is theoretically possible, but even in theory demands high level of respect for the rights of Russian speakers, regarding language, religion, and definitely political autonomy. At least part of Russia hatred, and encroachment on rights of Russian speakers is irreversible. Think about Cyprus, Turkiye invaded more than 50 years ago, is till a member of NATO and possibly a candidate for EU.
C. Former empires created by „White man“ and their descendants, i.e. Britain, France, Germany, have to decide what is their relation to Russia. Last time Russia existed they were enemies, British and French allying with Turks to take over Crimea, so much for the White man theory. Germany transporting Lenin as a terror virus across Europe, to infect already weakened Russian society and destroy the opponent in WW One. France and Germany are really followers. Key is Britain. Russia has a leader, and leadership that is definitely more patriotic and intelligent and less naive strategically than the late Romanovs, and is an independent force in world.
D. War inside Ukraine, between central government in Kiev and eastern and southern provinces, and Russian speakers. It shouldn’t have happened. And it happened only because West expected victory and needed casus belli. And supported overthrow of legally elected president, that would definitely have lost the next election.
This looks difficult, but can be done. Kissinger, who is morally ambiguous, and yet very smart, is gone. But even lesser figures can do it. It is not rocket science, it is a job, a task.
A. There has never been such thing "aggressive pushing of NATO towards Russian border". NATO was reluctant to accept the Central European countries, it was these countries that pushed and begged to be part of NATO, as they were afraid of Russian colonial policies. And they were right as the Russian invasion of Ukraine shows.
B. War for Ukraine is a neocolonial conflict, with a colonial Russia trying to reassert its power over a former colony. Part of the effort is inventing of narratives justifying Russian imperialism. Fun fact: "respect for the rights of Russian speakers, regarding language, religion, and definitely political autonomy" has been already used by tsarist Russia 300 years ago to justify its colonial drive.
C. Russia is a former colonial empire created by white man. Siberia is a cementery of local languages and cultures destroyed during Ruussian colonisation.
D. There was no war inside Ukraine between central government in Kiev and eastern and southern provinces. The war between Ukraine and Russia started in 2014, with Russia sending its army to invade and conquer Donbas.
Thank you for your answer, I believe you wrote what you believe.
There are however some facts.
NATO general secretary publicly acknowledged that NATO enlargement to Ukraine is the cause of the war.
Russia doesn‘t need and doesn’t want Ukraine, Russia has all the land, oil, gas, minerals and some more. Russia accepted independent Ukraine, even Ukraine in EU, but cannot accept Ukrains in Nato.
There doesn't appear to be any public statement from the NATO Secretary General explicitly acknowledging that NATO enlargement to Ukraine is the cause of the war. The official statements from NATO emphasize their support for Ukraine in the face of Russia's aggression and their commitment to a just and lasting peace.
Russia insists that Ukraine must surrender control over the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk, which Russia annexed in September 2022 and demands control over Crimea which Russia has annexed in 2014.
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
Stoltenberg's testimony to EU parliament.
Stoltenberg claims that Russia, not wanting NATO near its borders, demanded the dismantlement of eastern NATO as the price of not invading Ukraine, and on not having that demand met, proceeded to invade Ukraine - with the result that Sweden and Finland joined. This isn’t an admission of NATO responsibilty but an accusation against Russia
It's amazing anyone could read it and other way...
Russia is not an Empire, no more than Great Britain. Soviet Union dissolved into national states and Russian Federation is the national state, of Russians and all the local peoples.
People have been burned alive in Odessa, killed all over Donbas, who protested against nondemocratic CiA led regime change operation in Kyev.
As written before, Russia is a former colonial empire trying to reassert its power over a former colony. Interesting fact: Russian tsars did use the title "Emperor". The shift happened officially in 1721.
The Revolution of Dignity in 2014 started by peaceful protests when President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union. Ukrainians were frustrated with widespread corruption and the government's increasing authoritarianism. The government responded with force, beating and killing its own citizens. The Ukraininans fstood firm and Viktor Yanukovych fled Ukraine on February 22, 2014. The Ukrainian parliament swiftly removed him from office for neglecting his constitutional duties. Oleksandr Turchynov eas appointed as acting president and an early presidential election was scheduled for May 25, 2014.
Tl; dr: free people demanded their rights, wannabe autocrat fled, the people chose their new president. No "CIA led regime change"in sight.
"when President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union."
Refused to sign? You make it sound like he didn't have a choice in the matter... This agreement was not some perfect fantastic deal every single Ukrainian desperately wanted, rather it was somewhat more complicated than that and was hotly debated by all sides. It's called democracy, fyi. Sometimes one side wins, sometimes it's the other. But I guess Ukrainians don't have a choice when the EU or the US makes them an offer...
Ukraine has been beating and killing its own citizens since 2014, btw. They've been doing a very good job of killing the eastern half of the country for some years now. In fact, since the ousting of Yanukovych Ukraine went from virtually never killing its own citizens to doing almost nothing but that. Actually, it seems like things in Ukraine only got really bad since Yanukovych left. Maybe they should get him back, lol.
The deal was a hope for Ukrainians. They were hoping that this will force their government to curtail the corruption and growing authoritarianism - which was a result of Yanukovych's choices. He was free in his decisions and he decided on embarking the course that led him to conflict with his society, and, in the end, to killing the people he was supposed to protect.
Killing Ukrainians was started by Yanukovych on Maydan square. Instead of letting peaceful protest go, he sent his goons to first beat, then murder people.
After Yanukovych fled, it was Russian soldiers turn to start killing Ukrainians, which they do since 2014. Russians have invaded the eastern part of the country, leading to the poverty and depopulation. Ukrainians ran away from Donbas and Luhansk districts, some to Ukraine, some to Russia. The economy has become a playground of Russian clans profiteering from coal mining.
Remiez
it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that killing in Maydan has been orchestrated, organised, killers recruited, weapons provided by CIA, a part of US government.
It was a routine CIA operation, CIA has done hundreds similar operations in different parts of the world.
I regret every life lost in Ukraine, but the main responsibility for Ukrainian. tragedy lies with western elites, who decided to used Ukraine as proxy in a war against Russia, and Ukrainian elites who let Ukrainians be used as proxy.
Yanukovith was an unpopular president, corrupt, as Ukrainian president can be, but he has been democratically elected, and more important he was going to lose the next election.
Why was a violent regime change necessary?
To install "our guys" in secret services, says CIA. CIA purged Ukrainian security services and turned Ukraine into a state manipulated by secret services.
Ukraine lost a chance to democratically decide on its future, and Ukrainian government lost a chance to negotiate with EU.
Reality is made of different views, and knowing more about what opponents are thinking is more important to me than yelling the same sentences, positions even when I think they are true.
Truth is what stands after matter has been thoroughly discussed.
Regarding Majdan 2014, it is over. It has happened, and cannot be undone. Whatever we conclude today about Majdan 2014 will not change the sequence of events that have defined history of Ukraine, Russia, Europe. Consequences are irreversible. But the war can and should stop.
Still, understanding that Maydan was both a popular unrest against elected but unpopular leader, and a successful regime change operation, done by CIA is important. CIA won. US won, West won.
But what about Ukraine?
The war is fought for a right to control the narrative ; did Ukraine win in 2014?
The country is definitely smaller, with significantly less people, with half a million fallen in war, several hundred thousand severely injured and permanently disabled, several millions who left the country and emigrated into EU and most will not come back, and severely damaged, and all national treasures in minerals, land, rights sold under duress.
In your own words : Ukrainians who remained in Ukraine are frustrated with widespread corruption and the government's increasing authoritarianism. The government responds to any critique with force, beating and killing its own citizens.
All of this to become a member of a military alliance that considers Russia an enemy, and to be able to put US military bases on Russian border.
Whatever the result of the negotiations, and I do hope it will succeed and bring a durable peace, it will be hard to present as a victory for Ukraine.
Reality is made of different views, but some facts need to be repeated, otherwise we land in a mire of unsubstantiated claims of "CIA led regime change" or "half a million fallen in war".
Or we are being presented a wall of text describing disasters that have befallen Ukraine, without a single word mentining that they are result of Russian invasions of 2014 and 2022. Ukrainians have been killed by Russian weapons, wielded by Russian soliders that were sent across Ukrainian border by Russian politicians, agianst international law and treaties between Russia and Ukraine.
Or the author misuses the words describing the corrupt pro-Russian Janukovych government to describe today's governement of Ukraine.
Or we are being led to believe that revolution of dignity was about NATO - which it wasn't. It was about joining EU and implementing rule of law. Only after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its military intervention in eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian public support for NATO membership surged, leading to the abandonment of neutrality in December 2014
It is a strange way to implement rule of law, to kill hundreds and overthrow legal government.
The problem with Ukrainian elites, government, even supporters is that they are unwilling to admit that Maydan was both, a popular revolt against unpopular president, but also a CIA regime change operation.
There is nothing to be ashamed of. When in fight one accepts help, doesn't matter from whom, even from CIA. But Ukrainians should have remained in charge in Ukraine, and, and this is my opinion, Ukrainians should have refused the temptation, the offer, the push, to become a proxy in a war against Russia.
Current generation of Ukrainian leaders were just a bit too ready to become proxies of the West.
Disasters have befallen Ukraine, but anyone sane, wise, intelligent could have told Ukrainians what not to do. How not to get in trouble.
Ukraine had dream borders, Ukraine had Crimea, Donbas,
I still do not understand why Ukrainian leadership refused neutrality and pushed for NATO membership.
From Russian perspective Ukraine in NATO means NATO military bases on Russian border, US missiles on Russian border. It is unacceptable. And it is not Putin, it is Russia speaking.
Whatever Ukrainian leadership decided to do, it was of utmost importance to keep open connection with Russian leadership, to meet, to talk, to discuss Russian as well as Ukrainian grievances, to find a way to understand, and assess the risk.
It would have helped if Ukraine were ready to offer some kind af assurance that it will never join an alliance that is enemy of Russia.
Thank you. Short and addressing all the important points.
Yes you're right, this is different conflicts layered on top of each other. But I'm not in complete agreement about what those conflicts are and their details
No it’s not. The issue is Russia’s unjust war on Ukraine and the hideous means used
Yeah... that was misleading of me. Such other conflicts are nowhere near the same scale. Typical civil divides and disputes common to many countries.
Good update, thanks Don and Tom. The AD munitions needs looks bleak , plus the logistics and funding also.
The replacement system for frontline Bde's and parcel reinforcement is still there.
The long range strikes are under reported for OPSEC of the ZSU means?
Looking forward to more updates.
The Aster 30 missile production is a tangled logistics mess, because as a multinational project every country wanted to secure a piece of the cake. Hence you have the missiles traveling across the Italian border more than twice in order to get subsystems incorporated...
It's not a rational system for a wartime production chain.
Thank you Donald!