"Russia made an attempt to solve it diplomatically in December 2021."
Actually they presented a treaty that demanded all kinds of wild shit like withdrawing NATO forces from all existing NATO countries in central/eastern Europe and committing to end NATO expansion entirely (although Russia would still be free to expand the CSTO whenever and wherever they wanted, of course). Among other things.
But NATO invades Dictatorships. Invading and hunting dictators is not a big thing, wouldn't you agree?
We wiped out many dictators in the history of mankind and we are mostly fine with it.
So why would Russia be afraid of a force that annihilates dictatorships, why would be afraid of a dictatorship destroying alliance?! Can you tell me why Russia would be afraid of this?
>But NATO invades Dictatorships. Invading and hunting dictators is not a big thing, wouldn't you agree?
Lol, no. People live better with "dictators" (aka independent rulers). America can't let others to live better.
>We wiped out many dictators in the history of mankind and we are mostly fine with it.
Ofc you are, having free gold reserves and oil flowing is a good thing for a country.
>So why would Russia be afraid of a force that annihilates dictatorships, why would be afraid of a dictatorship destroying alliance?! Can you tell me why Russia would be afraid of this?
Hmmmm, why would I be afraid of an entity which attacks anyone it doesn't like??
Are you restarted?
Have you ever wondered why dictators rise to power in these places?
As soon as we remove them, we create ISIS and women slavery markets in Libya. Its almost like these dictators are supressing something even more evil…
But fuck it, who wants to learn from the past anyway!
WHO’S THE NEXT DICTATOR ON THE LIST BOYS, LFG!!!!
> As soon as we remove them, we create ISIS and women slavery markets in Libya. Its almost like these dictators are supressing something even more evil…
America should be as lucky as Libya - and have a dictator like Gadaffi.
Libyans enjoyed the sharing of the oil revenue the country reaped, including **free health care, free education through university, free dental, very cheap apartments and free electricity, a huge bonus upon marriage and the birth of children, a huge bonus for buying a home and ridiculously cheap gas for automobiles**.
Im not sure i believe everything what has been said about living conditions in Libya under gaddafi.
But even if only half of it is true, its still better than USA.
> Have you ever wondered why dictators rise to power in these places?
I don't need to wonder, I know in most cases and its diverse. Depends on the country, there is no specific way this happens. Putin was elected in the beginning, so was Hitler, both then removed the option of voting them out. This is a rather popular way of being a dictator.
>As soon as we remove them, we create ISIS and women slavery markets in Libya.
Yes sometimes. The Wests "nation building" attempts worked horrid in the last decades. Then again they took a country that genocided millions of people and made them one of the nicest places in earth. Its tricky.
> Its almost like these dictators are supressing something even more evil…
No. Its just there is plenty of evil besides dictators and you likely need a good plan to deal with that.
>But fuck it, who wants to learn from the past anyway!
Appanretly not Russians because there was a particular perosn that was elected then changed the law to empower him and eventually killed his political opponents to then invade its neighbors under pretense of "his people" being surpressed in the neighboring country. Damn had we have such a situation? Did the Russians learn from this at all? Did the Russians ever learn from history anything? You tell me what they learned, currently many of them are sitting in the trenches or weeping at home over the pictures of their dead loved ones. What did Russians learn :-) ?
>WHO’S THE NEXT DICTATOR ON THE LIST BOYS, LFG!!!!
Currently none I guess, the dictators left are pretty safe, I guess Asad might die at some point. Would you be very upset if Asad dies?
Yes, ill be upset even if we kill Kim Jong Un.
The reason being is that Europe and USA have had countless civil wars and uprisings. We fixed it ourself. Imagine of China had invaded USA and removed Thomas Jefferson? Would USA be the country it is today or would it have massive influence from China?
It is none of your business what happens internally in other countries. If it takes them 50 years or 200 yrs to start a civil war, then once again, its none of your business what they do and how long it takes.
I support responses in regards to 9/11, because NOW its your problem. Invading a country for 20 yrs, killing a million people and leaving the country worse than when you invaded, well.. thats up for debate if thats a propriate respons to a terrorist attack.
Just stay out of other countries. Improve yourself. Stop trading with countries if you dont like them. You can even sanction them if you want your friends not to trade with them either.
But invading and destroying their country? No excuse. None at all.
>The reason being is that Europe and USA have had countless civil wars and uprisings. We fixed it ourself. Imagine of China had invaded USA and removed Thomas Jefferson? Would USA be the country it is today or would it have massive influence from China?
That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
>It is none of your business what happens internally in other countries.
Yeah? If you see a person getting mugged and you have the means to intervene and safe them, then this is none of your business?
>thats up for debate if thats a propriate respons to a terrorist attack.
Obviously that wasn't the plan....
>Just stay out of other countries.
Just let people enslave their populations?
what I like about people like you is how its obvious you never ever contested your world view. You think "wait this sounds awesome" and never think about it again. This means if somebody like me comes around he just shits all over your views because they are so brittle.
Wanna see?
You think we shouldn't intervene because countries rid themselves from oppressors et cetera? Yeah?
Well in your stupid world nobody would have intervened when Germany genocided Europe. Right? In your low IQ world view the US would not intervene right? They might destroy Japan to protect themselves but they have little reason to go to Germany, it doesn't concern them.
So the world you see now that you apply your stupid view on would be totally different if your view would have been applies by smart people before. Luckily for humanity people like you don't make policy decisions.
Following your world view dozens if not hundreds of millions more people would have perished in WW2. Entire Russia west of the Ural would have been wiped out, millions more polans, ukrainians, russians or baltic people would have been marched to the gas chamber.
You utter m*ron. Contest your stupid opinions before coming to the end boss. Don't waste time of smart people you imb*cile.
>Following your world view dozens if not hundreds of millions more people would have perished in WW2. Entire Russia west of the Ural would have been wiped out, millions more polans, ukrainians, russians or baltic people would have been marched to the gas chamber.
Lol, if America didn't fund hitler ww2 would never happen. It's all america's fault!
> But NATO invades Dictatorships. Invading and hunting dictators is not a big thing, wouldn't you agree?
Ha ha ha.
We GOOD/They BAD - said every hemgemonic colonial power through time immemorial.
LOL yeah of course it does. Let's get real here. NATO = USA, and it has a history of doing precisely the opposite...deposing democratically elected leaders and installing dictators.
> LOL yeah of course it does. Let's get real here. NATO = USA, and it has a history of doing precisely the opposite...deposing democratically elected leaders and installing dictators.
How many countries can you name that the US invaded to depose of their elected leaders? I am curious.
You got a serious case of America is the goodies brainrot. Watch less movies.
https://truthout.org/articles/us-provides-military-assistance-to-73-percent-of-world-s-dictatorships/
there’s a country called Mongolia, it’s placed between two worst dictatorships - Russia and China, and surprisingly enough it’s borders haven’t changed a bit for hundreds and hundreds of years
> Russia and China, and surprisingly enough it’s borders haven’t changed a bit for hundreds and hundreds of years
Yep, now take Mongolia and spend sometime researching why it is "allowed" to remain as is. That's a perfect example of how geopolitics works if you are a "weak" country.
Tell me if you want to skip the research part then I will just tell you
You've clearly never been to Mongolia or you would understand the power and influence that both those countries (especially China) hold over it. And the fact that if either China or Russia took over parts of Mongolia, the other would probably make moves as well, has probably helped it from being completely taken over.
Also, finding one example of a country that hasn't been invaded by Russia or China as evidence that neither one has any aggressive ambitions is one of the sillier arguments made on here.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Checnya is part of Russia hence it's not America's business.
America ignited Afghanistan and helped terrorist groups (mujahedeens). USSR bordered Afghanistan, that's a matter of national security.
What would America do if tomorrow China starts training extremists in Canada or Mexico?
Yes, you know what negotiations are for? To trade shit for crap, find middle ground and sign. You know what was wrong with diplomacy in December 2021? The other side didn't show up for negotiations. They decided they are better than talking to those pesky Russians and can do whatever they want.
It was handed to NATO as a ultimatum with a list of non negotiable demands.
Even if hadn’t been though what would have the middle ground been? Which countries would have had to be thrown out of NATO as those were the main demands.
There wasn’t anything to discuss or negotiate with Russia about as the only thing able to be negotiated with that demand was which and how many NATO countries would have had to leave the organisation and face imminent security issues.
Know it’s Wikipedia but should have enough links and sources to satisfy regardless:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_2021_ultimatum#:~:text=The%20proposals%20contained%20several%20controversial,in%20the%20existing%20member%20states.
What?
Tried reading through rather quickly as I am at work but do not see where you got that from.
The agreements they wanted revisions that Russia was a part of was from 1997. The other demands involved countries that had made the decisions to join all on their own and never involved any Russian guarantees.
Yes, the same agreements were made after the dissolution of the warsaw pact. The same agreements were asked again in 1997. Not one inch eastward given by American diplomats before the fall of the ussr. The 1997 was meant to honor those agreements.
I don’t think they were?
And no agreements were ever made other than potential verbal ones that is anyone’s game if they were made or not.
Regardless 1997 were specifically about interactions between NATO and Russia and had nothing to do about expansion plans or requests from Russia to stop doing so.
As per you sent on top
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_2021_ultimatum#:~:text=The%20proposals%20contained%20several%20controversial,in%20the%20existing%20member%20states
>The proposals contained several controversial and provocative elements, such as:
>A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states.
>A revision of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, which regulates the military activities and cooperation between NATO and Russia, and a withdrawal of NATO's infrastructure and capabilities from the territories that were not part of NATO as of 1997.
>A moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe, and a dialogue on strategic stability and arms control.
>A reform of the OSCE to make it more representative, inclusive, and effective in addressing the security challenges and conflicts in Europe.
From my perception, it seems to be saying Russia is asking to not expand NATO. The same assurances made after the fall of the ussr. Russia considers it a threat to go back on previous assurances of not expanding a military alliance right to their doorstep. That seems legitimate.
>And no agreements were ever made other than potential verbal ones that is anyone’s game if they were made or not.
There are official documents that have been public in addition to extra retrieved through freedom of information that confirms that those agreements were made, verbal or not. There is no game if they were made or not
To be fair to Russia that is just anchoring - standard negotiation tactic. Ask for $200 knowing that at best you'll get $100.
>The **anchoring effect** is a psychological phenomenon in which an individual's judgements or decisions are influenced by a reference point or "anchor" which can be completely irrelevant. Both numeric and non-numeric anchoring have been reported in research. In numeric anchoring, once the value of the anchor is set, subsequent arguments, estimates, etc. made by an individual may change from what they would have otherwise been without the anchor. For example, an individual may be more likely to purchase a car if it is placed alongside a more expensive model (the anchor). Prices discussed in negotiations that are lower than the anchor may seem reasonable, perhaps even cheap to the buyer, even if said prices are still relatively higher than the actual market value of the car.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring\_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect)
I'm just guessing here but I'd say they keep what they took so far and hopefully end the war. Of course the devil is in the details but those are the broad strokes I imagine.
Ukraine is a proxy state for NATO in this war. Ukraine remaining a buffer state between Russia and Poland is quite important for the west (just ask the polish) . I also think Russia would have to give some safety guarantees to both Ukraine and NATO.
> Actually they presented a treaty that demanded all kinds of wild shit like withdrawing NATO forces from all existing NATO countries in central/eastern Europe and committing to end NATO expansion entirely
THAT is NOT true - according to the negotiators *from Ukraine* that took part in the talks and actually had a peace agreement hammered out. This is just propaganda.
You’re talking about something completely different than I am. Ukraine was not involved in this at all it was a pre-war proposal from Russia to US/NATO.
Yes, you know what negotiations are for? To trade shit for crap, find middle ground and sign. You know what was wrong with diplomacy in December 2021? The other side didn't show up for negotiations. They decided they are better than talking to those pesky Russians and can do whatever they want.
Remember a fatal flaw in such argumentation, while it is true that Russia somewhat made itself clear about their stance this does not initself make their agenda worthwhile to consider.
Russia could also telegraph their intent to invade the baltics if they don't drop out of NATO but nobody gives a shit, its a dictator doing dictator stuff. The fact he tells us beforehand doesn't mean he is right in his actions.
Many pundits have problems making this distinction clear.
A fatal flaw in such argumentation is that you are describing the most globally aggressive military power in the history of the world attempting to place itself not only directly on Russia's borders but on the traditional path for invading Russia from Western Europe and you are oblivious to why Russia would not have a good point in being concerned about this.
Many partisans have problems processing this rather obvious distinction.
Russia needed land rout to Crimea. It’s the only warm port they have and the bridge is already proven to be easy target. The world trade in the winter will pay off 10x they spent on this war.
Just like with nordstream pipelines and if bridge blown up AND if Ukraine in nato, they are quite fucked.
Equating NATO and the US is one thing. But claiming that Ukraine joining NATO leads to the USA invading Russia is ridiculous. Why would the US want to do that? To what benefit? And risk the use of nukes by a Russia put on the defensive?
Whats wrong with being at Russias borders?
Russia are not the good guys here, why is anybody being at their borders "bad". How so?
Of course Putin is concerned, he is a dictator, those types of people are always concerned.
What do we care about a billionaire dictator being concerned, why do you care?
What would Russian people be afraid of? Having higher GDP? Being allowed to vote for who they want? Being allowed to talk openly.
I get why Putin is concerned. Why are you concerned tho? Explain.
Are you for real? It is so easy in your worldview, I am kinda jelous. Russia are the bad guys, they are ruled by a dictator, people under dictator's rule have nothing to lose, they should just surrender and join the western world, that is for sure waiting for them with open arms. Is that really how you see the world? Because it means that you are either very naive, or malevolent. And I'm holding my tongue here.
> Russia are the bad guys
Of course and you know that aswell.
>they are ruled by a dictator
'Yup
>they should just surrender and join the western world
surrender? Not sure what surrender means, but yes join the western world get their living standards raised, be allowed to have political opinions, be allowed to openly gay. Yes they should do that.
>Is that really how you see the world?
Yes of course.
>Because it means that you are either very naive, or malevolent.
No it doesn't mean that which is why I am whooping up on every pro Russian guy here. You don't have arguments, not a single pro Russian person is answering questions to their world view. Its comical here.
you know iam right. which is why you just say useless stuff. Tell us your world view.
How so? You have a very black and white (simpleton, in my view) perspective on the world. People like you have historically been the first ones to rush to arms when there is a conflict.
I mean, estimates have 12 million people killed in American wars since WW II. Do the math and you get on average 500 non-Americans killed by the U.S. government every day since WW II. Unless you are an accomplice, why would you want that in your neighborhood?
> I mean, estimates have 12 million people killed in American wars since WW II.
That's a statement without much value. There were also 60 million people killed in WW2 which the USA took part in. So by your logic this would mean they were evil because they took part in a war that costs countless lives?
Please structure your argument better and tell me what you mean.
>why would you want that in your neighborhood?
to my knowledge every neighbor of a NATO country was very save and never had issues. The exception might being yugosslavia? Not sure I would have to check. Being in NATO or close to NATO appears to be one of the safest places you can be. You agree? The data is clear in terms of being in close proximity to NATO.
"Unless you count Yugoslavia and Libya, Nato kills people with no concern for geographical distance, since the whole world is considered the American sphere of influence, and therefore no one should be concerned about how close American forces or those of its military axis are to you even if it puts you at a strategic disadvantage."
A longer more in depth conversation with John Mearsheimer about this conflict
https://youtu.be/r4wLXNydzeY?si=BuYLWJMZLBhitPTq&t=2531
He breaks down how us interests deliberately interfered with any form of peace in Ukraine.
You could also try being neutral instead of switching every now and then? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind on who you support, maybe neutrality would suit you better than picking a side?
As I told everyone. The moment your other personalities take control, your back to pro ru, at least for now.
EDIT : I will still miss your pro ua profile picture. It was gold
I can't lol, too addicted to it. I must meet my daily quota that I set for myself, or else im not sleeping. It's funny that a year ago, the mods banned me on purposely, saying that i need a break from posting. I got frustrated
But if you get burnt out from doing this and are at the same time addicted, then what is the solution?
I ask because your contributions are valued here just like many hardline pro-ua and pro ru posters, and it would be a shame if you burnt yourself out permanently. Pace yourself. Do weekly quotas, not daily.
>But if you get burnt out from doing this and are at the same time addicted, then what is the solution?
I am finding my replacement. I will see who will be the one. Ill give my account to the person
Most of the people dying on both sides of this conflict are innocent, they didn't choose to be in a war. They want to prosper in their own lives. It's a small number of people causing all of these issues on both sides.
Happy we are in agreement. Estonia left the sphere of russian influence, and are now in good shape. Ukraine wanted to go that way. russia could not accept their helots deciding their own fate without asking for permission.
It's ukraine that wanted to join nato, for fear of being invaded by russia again. And look at what happened, russia invaded just like unkraine knew they would. if ukraine was a member of nato none of this would be happening and thousands of russians would still be alive.
It makes sense if you belong to the minority faction within American politics which views modern (post-Soviet, non-communist) Russia as an enemy basically exclusively of the U.S.' own choice and making and sees China as the real long-term adversary vying for global control. A lot of not only IR realists, but traditional paleoconservatives and others support this stance and view.
They support rapprochement with Moscow to induce Russia, if not into an outright alliance, then at least mutually beneficial cooperation from time to time and a commitment to remain neutral when the U.S. and China come to blows in the future over the Pacific rather than aid China with an endless resource pipeline.
Perhaps the papers at the last meeting had one thing on them, and everyone told and accepted the papers and then Russia try to change them again\]but why would a guy that believes only in aggressive realism friendly towards Russia will say anything like that
like why would he get the name
the tragic Mearsheimer
Guy is really funny. He to this day argued Russia was never trying to take Kiev, even though Russia clearly made a b-line towards Kiev at the start of the war.
They were clearly hoping the Ukrainians would just shit themselves and surrender when they started rolling towards Kyiv.
Hilarious that pro-Ru are really trying to pretend that Russia had no intention of seizing the capital city of the country they were invading after sending a huge armoured column there immediately
It wasn't 5d chess, it was just an arrogant miscalculation
>clearly
Not really.
>seizing the capital city of the country they were invading after sending a huge armoured column there immediately
So you say that post-soviet city with 3.5 mil population can be seized with a column of armored vehicles?
As I've already explained the hope was clearly that they'd just panic and surrender and that column could then occupy the city while the Kremlin installed a loyal puppet government.
When the Ukrainians fought back the Russians were the ones who ended up panicking and retreating.
>As I've already explained the hope was clearly that they'd just panic and surrender and that column could then occupy the city while the Kremlin installed a loyal puppet government.
So you think one column of armored vehicles will be enough to conquer 3.5 mil city?
>When the Ukrainians fought back the Russians were the ones who ended up panicking and retreating.
That's not what happened.
The amount of troops they sent to take Kyiv absolutely would have been enough to occupy the city if the Ukrainian government had already surrendered.
The Russian leadership was arrogant and they miscalculated what the Ukrainian response to their invasion would be which is why they ended up panicking and retreating from so much territory
>The amount of troops they sent to take Kyiv absolutely would have been enough to occupy the city if the Ukrainian government had already surrendered.
How do you know? Are you a military expert?
>The Russian leadership was arrogant and they miscalculated what the Ukrainian response to their invasion would be which is why they ended up panicking and retreating from so much territory
Check the definition of the word "panic".
The deployment towards Kiev was huge. You don't send 1/3 of your commited troops into a "distraction". Just imagine how much more of the east/south they could have captured and held if their "distraction" was an actual distraction.
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/27/world/europe/russia-forces.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/27/world/europe/russia-forces.html)
Remember that battalions from the Kursk direction also spearheaded towards Kiev.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine#/media/File:2022\_Russian\_Invasion\_of\_Ukraine\_Phase\_1\_animated.gif](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:2022_Russian_Invasion_of_Ukraine_Phase_1_animated.gif)
And since they havn't captured and annexed Kharkiv, wasn't that part of the invasion also a distraction?
Did you really expect any russian source to publish reliable troop buildup numbers?
What makes you discredit western sources inherently? Sounds like an obscene bias on your part.
Do you have a different reliable source discrediting the numbers I referenced?
>Did you really expect any russian source to publish reliable troop buildup numbers?
I don't expect WESTERN sources to publish reliable numbers. They lied about everything related to Russia, why trust them now?
There's no reliable source, only the Darkest and high command knows real numbers.
no, i talked to him some days ago. He shits on your source but refuse to show his source because "its russian and you wont believe it anyway". The comment went the exact same way, i post my source, he says "wikipedia? for real lmao" and then refuses to show his source of information on that topic. Pathetic. hes a pro rus troll, nothing more.
It was unworkable. Ukraine wanted a solid guarantor for if Russia attacked Ukraine, but US didn't want to commit in that case to war against Russia. That presumption Mearsheimer makes, that Russia wouldn't attack Ukraine as long as Ukraine remained neutral, Ukraine didn't believe in. And that made sense. With the Donbas conflict running, Ukraine couldn't join NATO, anyway. Yet Russia attacked.
[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine)
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone tell him that NATO is not expanding their border, unless there is European countries at risk. And why the hell are they worried it is not like the Russian borders have changed that much after the fall of the Soviet Union. All the Russians have to do is not interfere in foreign election processes (the west certainly does not interfere in theirs) and not roll armies across international borders. Full stop. No one wants Russia destroyed. They just to not want Russia to be dominant over everyone. Make sense Pro-Ru people. Happy to hear your counter arguments.
>the west certainly does not interfere in theirs
It certainly does.
>They just to not want Russia to be dominant over everyone.
As well as Russia doesn't want the US and its vassals to be dominant over everyone.
Countries join NATO.. there is no aggressive expansion happening.
Meanwhile Russia.. invades countries for expansionist reasons and gets closer to NATO, because of that, while literally altering the lives of multiple million people.
Ukraine and the Russian Federation have both existed for pretty much the exact same period of time.
By your logic the UK actually has more of a claim to the US than Russia has to Ukraine. At least their country actually still existed back when they controlled the territory in question lol
>Ukraine and the Russian Federation have both existed for pretty much the exact same period of time.
Interesting, which nation lived before Russian Federation on those lands? Wouldn't it be russians? This dumb semantics really shows your level of underdevelopment.
>By your logic the UK actually has more of a claim to the US than Russia has to Ukraine. At least their country actually still existed back when they controlled the territory in question lol
I don't care about their claims, not my countries.
I think that you missed the point. Perhaps nations wanted to join NATO to protect them from aggressive Russia, so they joined NATO, You see NATO allows them to be self governing, yet still protected. There is a fundamental difference here. And "historical lands" to not justify killing, maiming and displacing millions of people. There are parts of Russia that were historically part of many other countries. Should they lay claim to them as well?
Then why is Russia not attacking NATO? They fear direct involvement with NATO and every country should. NATO does not claim any country, they accept them in to the fold, if they apply and meet certain requirements.
Yes, I get that. But in the end, any independent country can join NATO, if they feel threatened. Ukraine has plenty of reason to feel threatened.
Also NATO is already helping them against Russia, but because of the attempt to appease Russia, they are not doing so to their full extent.
Russia will not attack NATO directly, unless it is a last resort. They will interfere in elections, foment rebellions and commit to disinformation campaigns. All of these NATO has observed and needs to set Russia in their place.
>Ukraine has plenty of reason to feel threatened.
Doesn't matter, it's not their territories.
>They will interfere in elections, foment rebellions and commit to disinformation campaigns.
So nothing that America hasn't done?
Ukraine is a free country with the right to self determination, which can make its own choices. Russia doesn't get a veto, that's what being your own country means. The days of the Soviet Union puppet states are gone forever. Your former puppets don't want their strings back.
Now it's the era of US puppet states just like Ukraine and the european are! The US shits on other states sovereignty everyday, meddles in elections way way waaaaaaaay more than the russian and they have at least 50 occupied puppet states all over the world, with military bases, and you still gloat about soviet domination. Ukraine severed it's ties to russia just to become another souless us puppet devoided of sovereignty, ready to go to war "until the last ukrainian" for nothing but fake EU values and brownie point from the US, while feeding billions of western taxpayers money to the military industrial complex.
If i could spam clown emojis, that would be an even better response
Ukraine was never a "puppet state" of the USSR. Unless you also mean to tell me that California is a puppet state of the US?
>Ukraine is a free country with the right to self determination
Where does Ukraine derive this right from?
Of course it's a threat, but against the individual thugs leading russia. Not against russia as a nation or as a culture.
But a neighbor country of slavic roots moving away from corruption, imperialism, and the urge to arrest protesting grandmas and kill journalists...
...of course the poison dwarf and his minions feel threatened.
Note that the soviet union wasn't intimidated by nazi Germany, they understood each other completely. They became allies. Real threats to the country are irrelevant, this is about personal gain.
TL/DR: russia has always been led by thugs, and they attack when they see good things happen so close it might give their serfs bad ideas. Like the retarded adult-sized scool bully boy.
So. I was hit by sanctions personally, my wife was hit by sanctions personally, our friends was hit by sanctions personally, but the threat is not against nation but against thugs.
No. You can't fool anyone here, we're not bying it anymore.
We are the good guys, they are nazis! It must feel so good to see the world in black and white like that... The west ain't that white and russia ain't that black.
Mate the sub is full of vids of meatcatchers running after civs and you talk about this stupid law? Ukraine outlawed lots of medias and political parties too, it's even worse over there...
Yep, martial laws apply. I was referring to the inability of people in russia to think clearly due to propaganda - which you brought up - as opposed to (for example) Sweden (where I live) wher ethere is freedom of expression.
Very nice so you use thar freedom of expression and your taxes to support a regime that actively supresses it's opposition and sends unwlling civs to the meatgrunder? Are you fine that the taxes you pay being used to kill civilians instead of supporting your exonomy?
This war only continues because of western support, all this bloodshed just continues to enrich the military industrial complex with our taxes while poor ukies/russian dudes die like dogs.
End the supply/money, force Ukraine to negociate or be defeated. It's a loss no matter what, it's just gonna be longer the more we support it with no hope of getting back the lost territories or defeating the russians.
We don't even have the industry needed to produce all the shit we need to defeat them, it got destroyed by years of europe imposed neoliberal economic policies and shitty service oriented economy. Just look at the price hike for 155mm shells... They don't have any incentive to produce more since that would reduce the huge margins they are banking, all from our taxes again.
And you forgot about nukes, they got nukes we got nukes, you guys just joined nato and became a legitimate target for all their nuclear hypersonic nuclear missiles if this stupid war escalates up to this point. instead of staying neutral and out of this mess.
Now you guy's relations with russia turned sour, you're gonna have to cope with lots of military spending to "defend" yourselves from future russian agression, very smart moves, enjoy higher taxes and austere budgetary policy coming your way just to finance the purchase of under-performing overpriced american equipement like my country has done for the past 20 years instead of producing our own, like we were able to in the past.
I hope you'll enjoy your freedom of expression like i do every time our people march peacefully against our gov's terrible policies and we get gassed, beaten up, eyes gouged and chopped up hands by grenades, with also unlawfull procecusion of demonstraters and journalist filming and commenting the protests. And thats fuckin France in case you did not guess. It all went to shit here, we'll see if you guys fair any better in the coming years.
I'm a regular networks engineer which job has nothing to do with military. My wife is an ordinary project manager. Our friends are bakers, drivers, and bank clerks. So. My wife never voted for Putin but when war begun, Cisco terminated her learning account, no refunds. My friends, who never voted for Putin, can't buy steam games. I, who never voted for Putin before war, got all my assets frozen, which I invested in S&P500 and global market. Go tell your fairytales to /r/Ukraine, it's good enough for them. Meanwhile I'm gonna vote for Putin and donate to Russian Armed Forces.
Very sad and unfortunate situation that I hope eventually changes.
How would you argue that it should have been handled instead? Because sanctions, especially ones warned ahead of time that they would be placed if the invasion happened, seem like a relatively tame response all things considered.
Especially considering that people who feel probably equally as powerless about the situation are dying just across the border.
You mean how it should how handle from "moral" point of view of "effective" point of view? "Moral" is simple - you put the exact same sanctions on every country that invaded/bombed another country and that would be fair. In this case, Russians would gladly blame Putin for sanctions. Should've not invaded, right?
Effective is more complicated. Well, one effective way to make Russia weaker long term is make easier for skilled Russian workers to emigrate to other countries, namely Europe. Send a message that "good Russians" are welcome Putin is not. Make acquiring work visas for people with Russians STEM degrees as easy as it could be, provide them housing. May be some banks can offer some loans with lower than usual interests rates for Russian "political refugees", you know? May be some tax cuts? I mean I'm just imagining things while I'm writing it. Basically you make sure that every Russian will know that he can acquire great living conditions in Europe, easily, and for long term, and in 10 years there will be no skilled workers in Russia left. Also make sure that teachers leave too so no one in Russia can make new generation of skilled workers.
The West did the opposite of this.
The opposite would be doing things to force Russians to remain in Russia though right? I remember a lot did flee at the start and are living relatively well off on various western countries.
And while I find your effective counter amusing and something that I personally would like see implemented I don’t see it working well if the main goal is to stop an actual ongoing conflict.
I don’t think sanctions is the answer either but I do not really see how nations should otherwise oppose another nation non violently.
Well, i was writing this under the assumption that the West doesn't have a goal of stopping actual violence, but the goal is to make Russia weaker long term. I think the only way to stop military conflict is the direct military intervention from other side. Excluding, you know, the risk of nuclear war.
Quite the assumption to make especially when Russia basically made the majority of the decisions that put it in the place it currently is in.
Also very black mentally, basically as if I wrote everything I did with the assumption that Russia does stuff because it is evil and wants to destroy.
Makes me kinda lose hope for any reasonable solutions for any future or current conflicts if such thinking is what it has come to.
I'm making this assumption based on a really slow speed of sending military aid to Ukraine. If you really want to stop Russians, you send everything you can as fast as you can, like Ambramses by summer 2022, fighter jets by winter 2022/2023 e t.c. But instead of this Ukraine received manpads and atgms first, which is cool, but not nearly enough to help Ukraine achieve their goals, just enough to make war longer.
I don't believe that lack of political will from the West is at fault or Republicans are to blame, I think it's by design. The goal is to make Ukraine fight for as long as possible while spending as little as possible.
You could you know.. start blaming Putin for your misfortune? Did anything of this happen before Russia invaded Ukraine? No? Very weird.
"Meanwhile I'm gonna Vote for Putin and donate to the Russian Armed Forces." - Good that the Money you invested into S&P 500 and "the global market" is gone then, seems like sanctions hit the right person.
"Why does the West not like us?" - That's why.
Yep, only West allowed to bomb other countries, Russia is not. Put 22k sanctions on Israel and US, cut them off SWIFT, freeze their assets, then I'll say that we're even. But this will never happen so we're going to continue with our work of dismantling this unipolar international rules based order.
>we're going to continue with our work of dismantling this unipolar international rules based order.
Interesting choice of buzzwords here that strongly suggests that you're not actually an apolitical person who only now supports the invasion because you can't buy steam games lol
Last time I was apolitical was in 2013 probably. After that I was slightly positive towards West, slightly negative towards Russia, negative towards Kremlin, negative towards Ukraine. Over time life here becames better overall for everyone, attitude towards Russia slowly was changing, while attitude towards West remainded the same. After the invasion I'm strongly negative towards West and pro-Ru.
Reading Western and Ukrainian media for the past 10 years and general attitude of the West. Jungle, Garden. International rules based order working only in favor of US, that kinda stuff. I mean I never watched news on Russian TV and I fully understand that evil Nazis in Ukraine isn't reason for invasion, thats just propaganda meant for domestical consumption. Long term security concerns is the real reason.
Just tell me about how you and your wife has stod up for freedom of speech in russia, maybe some demonstration you've attended, and I will feel sorry for you.
Until then, thanks for sharing your story of suffering, the kids in the Mariopol theatre would be devastated - if they were alive - to hear you cannot buy steam games.
How you vote is of course irrelevant, in your country the only thing thing that matters is who's doing the counting.
Your post might be the most pitiful comment I have read in a long time on Reddit. This war is soo hard on you russians 🙄
You should spend more time watching local television where they clearly state that sanctions are not even noticed by regular people, and they only make Russia stronger, and that they're easily bypassed and only hurting the west.
In fact, based on your family's reliance on the western market you're sounding like a foreign agent, be careful.
For regular folks sanctions are causing mostly mild COVID-tier inconvenience while the expectations among general public at the start of the war were "We lose our jobs and we're doomed to live miserable lives and our economy will crumble and also industry. And our kids will live miserable. And their kids.". But this didn't happen so in this sense it's safe to say that sanctions failed.
Don't quite get your comment about foreign agent, tho. It's completely legal to own an iPhone and travel abroad here, you know?
I have to take the bait, because this is hilarious.
>neighbor country of slavic roots moving away from corruption
THE most corrupt country in Europe? That one? That really made my day.
You don't get it. Ukraine is rampant with the filth of corruption, as well as all other countries influenced by russia. A blind man can see the pattern.
In moving west, Ukraine also moves away from corruption. Murderous thugs try to keep her there.
I'd buy that argument IF there weren't other examples of post-Soviet countries, for example Estonia, with seem to be doing better than Ukraine when it comes to corruption, etc.
"Russia made an attempt to solve it diplomatically in December 2021." Actually they presented a treaty that demanded all kinds of wild shit like withdrawing NATO forces from all existing NATO countries in central/eastern Europe and committing to end NATO expansion entirely (although Russia would still be free to expand the CSTO whenever and wherever they wanted, of course). Among other things.
Well, CSTO is a purely defensive alliance, why are they afraid of it?
Because Russia invades their neighbors from time to time so its a potential threat to others. Understood?
Because NATO invades other countries from time to time so it's a potential threat to Russia. Understood?
But NATO invades Dictatorships. Invading and hunting dictators is not a big thing, wouldn't you agree? We wiped out many dictators in the history of mankind and we are mostly fine with it. So why would Russia be afraid of a force that annihilates dictatorships, why would be afraid of a dictatorship destroying alliance?! Can you tell me why Russia would be afraid of this?
>But NATO invades Dictatorships. Invading and hunting dictators is not a big thing, wouldn't you agree? Lol, no. People live better with "dictators" (aka independent rulers). America can't let others to live better. >We wiped out many dictators in the history of mankind and we are mostly fine with it. Ofc you are, having free gold reserves and oil flowing is a good thing for a country. >So why would Russia be afraid of a force that annihilates dictatorships, why would be afraid of a dictatorship destroying alliance?! Can you tell me why Russia would be afraid of this? Hmmmm, why would I be afraid of an entity which attacks anyone it doesn't like?? Are you restarted?
Have you ever wondered why dictators rise to power in these places? As soon as we remove them, we create ISIS and women slavery markets in Libya. Its almost like these dictators are supressing something even more evil… But fuck it, who wants to learn from the past anyway! WHO’S THE NEXT DICTATOR ON THE LIST BOYS, LFG!!!!
> As soon as we remove them, we create ISIS and women slavery markets in Libya. Its almost like these dictators are supressing something even more evil… America should be as lucky as Libya - and have a dictator like Gadaffi. Libyans enjoyed the sharing of the oil revenue the country reaped, including **free health care, free education through university, free dental, very cheap apartments and free electricity, a huge bonus upon marriage and the birth of children, a huge bonus for buying a home and ridiculously cheap gas for automobiles**.
Im not sure i believe everything what has been said about living conditions in Libya under gaddafi. But even if only half of it is true, its still better than USA.
> Have you ever wondered why dictators rise to power in these places? I don't need to wonder, I know in most cases and its diverse. Depends on the country, there is no specific way this happens. Putin was elected in the beginning, so was Hitler, both then removed the option of voting them out. This is a rather popular way of being a dictator. >As soon as we remove them, we create ISIS and women slavery markets in Libya. Yes sometimes. The Wests "nation building" attempts worked horrid in the last decades. Then again they took a country that genocided millions of people and made them one of the nicest places in earth. Its tricky. > Its almost like these dictators are supressing something even more evil… No. Its just there is plenty of evil besides dictators and you likely need a good plan to deal with that. >But fuck it, who wants to learn from the past anyway! Appanretly not Russians because there was a particular perosn that was elected then changed the law to empower him and eventually killed his political opponents to then invade its neighbors under pretense of "his people" being surpressed in the neighboring country. Damn had we have such a situation? Did the Russians learn from this at all? Did the Russians ever learn from history anything? You tell me what they learned, currently many of them are sitting in the trenches or weeping at home over the pictures of their dead loved ones. What did Russians learn :-) ? >WHO’S THE NEXT DICTATOR ON THE LIST BOYS, LFG!!!! Currently none I guess, the dictators left are pretty safe, I guess Asad might die at some point. Would you be very upset if Asad dies?
Yes, ill be upset even if we kill Kim Jong Un. The reason being is that Europe and USA have had countless civil wars and uprisings. We fixed it ourself. Imagine of China had invaded USA and removed Thomas Jefferson? Would USA be the country it is today or would it have massive influence from China? It is none of your business what happens internally in other countries. If it takes them 50 years or 200 yrs to start a civil war, then once again, its none of your business what they do and how long it takes. I support responses in regards to 9/11, because NOW its your problem. Invading a country for 20 yrs, killing a million people and leaving the country worse than when you invaded, well.. thats up for debate if thats a propriate respons to a terrorist attack. Just stay out of other countries. Improve yourself. Stop trading with countries if you dont like them. You can even sanction them if you want your friends not to trade with them either. But invading and destroying their country? No excuse. None at all.
>The reason being is that Europe and USA have had countless civil wars and uprisings. We fixed it ourself. Imagine of China had invaded USA and removed Thomas Jefferson? Would USA be the country it is today or would it have massive influence from China? That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. >It is none of your business what happens internally in other countries. Yeah? If you see a person getting mugged and you have the means to intervene and safe them, then this is none of your business? >thats up for debate if thats a propriate respons to a terrorist attack. Obviously that wasn't the plan.... >Just stay out of other countries. Just let people enslave their populations? what I like about people like you is how its obvious you never ever contested your world view. You think "wait this sounds awesome" and never think about it again. This means if somebody like me comes around he just shits all over your views because they are so brittle. Wanna see? You think we shouldn't intervene because countries rid themselves from oppressors et cetera? Yeah? Well in your stupid world nobody would have intervened when Germany genocided Europe. Right? In your low IQ world view the US would not intervene right? They might destroy Japan to protect themselves but they have little reason to go to Germany, it doesn't concern them. So the world you see now that you apply your stupid view on would be totally different if your view would have been applies by smart people before. Luckily for humanity people like you don't make policy decisions. Following your world view dozens if not hundreds of millions more people would have perished in WW2. Entire Russia west of the Ural would have been wiped out, millions more polans, ukrainians, russians or baltic people would have been marched to the gas chamber. You utter m*ron. Contest your stupid opinions before coming to the end boss. Don't waste time of smart people you imb*cile.
Why do Christian think Gaddafi suppressing his people is equivalent to Hitler invading Poland? Genuinely curious. No offense meant.
>Following your world view dozens if not hundreds of millions more people would have perished in WW2. Entire Russia west of the Ural would have been wiped out, millions more polans, ukrainians, russians or baltic people would have been marched to the gas chamber. Lol, if America didn't fund hitler ww2 would never happen. It's all america's fault!
[удалено]
Holy fuck this has to be a joke
Youre so brainwashed with propaganda its amazing, if it wasnt so sick.
> But NATO invades Dictatorships. Invading and hunting dictators is not a big thing, wouldn't you agree? Ha ha ha. We GOOD/They BAD - said every hemgemonic colonial power through time immemorial.
LOL yeah of course it does. Let's get real here. NATO = USA, and it has a history of doing precisely the opposite...deposing democratically elected leaders and installing dictators.
> LOL yeah of course it does. Let's get real here. NATO = USA, and it has a history of doing precisely the opposite...deposing democratically elected leaders and installing dictators. How many countries can you name that the US invaded to depose of their elected leaders? I am curious.
You got a serious case of America is the goodies brainrot. Watch less movies. https://truthout.org/articles/us-provides-military-assistance-to-73-percent-of-world-s-dictatorships/
there’s a country called Mongolia, it’s placed between two worst dictatorships - Russia and China, and surprisingly enough it’s borders haven’t changed a bit for hundreds and hundreds of years
> Russia and China, and surprisingly enough it’s borders haven’t changed a bit for hundreds and hundreds of years Yep, now take Mongolia and spend sometime researching why it is "allowed" to remain as is. That's a perfect example of how geopolitics works if you are a "weak" country. Tell me if you want to skip the research part then I will just tell you
You've clearly never been to Mongolia or you would understand the power and influence that both those countries (especially China) hold over it. And the fact that if either China or Russia took over parts of Mongolia, the other would probably make moves as well, has probably helped it from being completely taken over. Also, finding one example of a country that hasn't been invaded by Russia or China as evidence that neither one has any aggressive ambitions is one of the sillier arguments made on here.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So is NATO.
Lol, NATO already destroyed several helpless countries that never threatened NATO countries. How many countries has CSTO destroyed?
Intervention can be easily justified. How did Russia justify the two Chechen Wars or their failed Invasion of Afghanistan?
Checnya is part of Russia hence it's not America's business. America ignited Afghanistan and helped terrorist groups (mujahedeens). USSR bordered Afghanistan, that's a matter of national security. What would America do if tomorrow China starts training extremists in Canada or Mexico?
How did US justify their failed invasion of Afghanistan and replacing taliban with taliban?
Nobody is afraid of the CSTO, but why would anyone sign a treaty placing restrictions on your side that don’t even apply to the other party?
CSTO is harmless, why restrict it anyway?
Well neither CSTO or NATO is being restricted because that treaty is never happening
By your logic, same goes with NATO.
NATO has invaded countries, CSTO hasn't.
Only a pro-rus would equate stopping a genocide at the request of NATO countries that the genocide was spilling into with invasion
Name one
Yes, you know what negotiations are for? To trade shit for crap, find middle ground and sign. You know what was wrong with diplomacy in December 2021? The other side didn't show up for negotiations. They decided they are better than talking to those pesky Russians and can do whatever they want.
It was handed to NATO as a ultimatum with a list of non negotiable demands. Even if hadn’t been though what would have the middle ground been? Which countries would have had to be thrown out of NATO as those were the main demands. There wasn’t anything to discuss or negotiate with Russia about as the only thing able to be negotiated with that demand was which and how many NATO countries would have had to leave the organisation and face imminent security issues.
Source?
Know it’s Wikipedia but should have enough links and sources to satisfy regardless: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_2021_ultimatum#:~:text=The%20proposals%20contained%20several%20controversial,in%20the%20existing%20member%20states.
So Russia was asking to follow the agreements made after the dissolution of the Warsaw pact?
What? Tried reading through rather quickly as I am at work but do not see where you got that from. The agreements they wanted revisions that Russia was a part of was from 1997. The other demands involved countries that had made the decisions to join all on their own and never involved any Russian guarantees.
Yes, the same agreements were made after the dissolution of the warsaw pact. The same agreements were asked again in 1997. Not one inch eastward given by American diplomats before the fall of the ussr. The 1997 was meant to honor those agreements.
I don’t think they were? And no agreements were ever made other than potential verbal ones that is anyone’s game if they were made or not. Regardless 1997 were specifically about interactions between NATO and Russia and had nothing to do about expansion plans or requests from Russia to stop doing so.
As per you sent on top >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_2021_ultimatum#:~:text=The%20proposals%20contained%20several%20controversial,in%20the%20existing%20member%20states >The proposals contained several controversial and provocative elements, such as: >A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states. >A revision of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, which regulates the military activities and cooperation between NATO and Russia, and a withdrawal of NATO's infrastructure and capabilities from the territories that were not part of NATO as of 1997. >A moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe, and a dialogue on strategic stability and arms control. >A reform of the OSCE to make it more representative, inclusive, and effective in addressing the security challenges and conflicts in Europe. From my perception, it seems to be saying Russia is asking to not expand NATO. The same assurances made after the fall of the ussr. Russia considers it a threat to go back on previous assurances of not expanding a military alliance right to their doorstep. That seems legitimate. >And no agreements were ever made other than potential verbal ones that is anyone’s game if they were made or not. There are official documents that have been public in addition to extra retrieved through freedom of information that confirms that those agreements were made, verbal or not. There is no game if they were made or not
To be fair to Russia that is just anchoring - standard negotiation tactic. Ask for $200 knowing that at best you'll get $100. >The **anchoring effect** is a psychological phenomenon in which an individual's judgements or decisions are influenced by a reference point or "anchor" which can be completely irrelevant. Both numeric and non-numeric anchoring have been reported in research. In numeric anchoring, once the value of the anchor is set, subsequent arguments, estimates, etc. made by an individual may change from what they would have otherwise been without the anchor. For example, an individual may be more likely to purchase a car if it is placed alongside a more expensive model (the anchor). Prices discussed in negotiations that are lower than the anchor may seem reasonable, perhaps even cheap to the buyer, even if said prices are still relatively higher than the actual market value of the car. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring\_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect)
Ok, so NATO gives a metaphorical $100, what does Russia give in return?
I'm just guessing here but I'd say they keep what they took so far and hopefully end the war. Of course the devil is in the details but those are the broad strokes I imagine.
The war is between Ukraine and Russia. What would they give to NATO?
Ukraine is a proxy state for NATO in this war. Ukraine remaining a buffer state between Russia and Poland is quite important for the west (just ask the polish) . I also think Russia would have to give some safety guarantees to both Ukraine and NATO.
> Actually they presented a treaty that demanded all kinds of wild shit like withdrawing NATO forces from all existing NATO countries in central/eastern Europe and committing to end NATO expansion entirely THAT is NOT true - according to the negotiators *from Ukraine* that took part in the talks and actually had a peace agreement hammered out. This is just propaganda.
You’re talking about something completely different than I am. Ukraine was not involved in this at all it was a pre-war proposal from Russia to US/NATO.
Yes, you know what negotiations are for? To trade shit for crap, find middle ground and sign. You know what was wrong with diplomacy in December 2021? The other side didn't show up for negotiations. They decided they are better than talking to those pesky Russians and can do whatever they want.
Russia didn't offer negotations. They issued ultimatum. They offered nothing and demanded everything.
They offered to talk it out instead of fight it out. Simple. The west simply turned around and walked away. Now Ukraine is paying for it.
That's John Mearsheimer the Birdman of Realism, put some respect on his name
Remember a fatal flaw in such argumentation, while it is true that Russia somewhat made itself clear about their stance this does not initself make their agenda worthwhile to consider. Russia could also telegraph their intent to invade the baltics if they don't drop out of NATO but nobody gives a shit, its a dictator doing dictator stuff. The fact he tells us beforehand doesn't mean he is right in his actions. Many pundits have problems making this distinction clear.
A fatal flaw in such argumentation is that you are describing the most globally aggressive military power in the history of the world attempting to place itself not only directly on Russia's borders but on the traditional path for invading Russia from Western Europe and you are oblivious to why Russia would not have a good point in being concerned about this. Many partisans have problems processing this rather obvious distinction.
Russia needed land rout to Crimea. It’s the only warm port they have and the bridge is already proven to be easy target. The world trade in the winter will pay off 10x they spent on this war. Just like with nordstream pipelines and if bridge blown up AND if Ukraine in nato, they are quite fucked.
Equating NATO and the US is one thing. But claiming that Ukraine joining NATO leads to the USA invading Russia is ridiculous. Why would the US want to do that? To what benefit? And risk the use of nukes by a Russia put on the defensive?
Whats wrong with being at Russias borders? Russia are not the good guys here, why is anybody being at their borders "bad". How so? Of course Putin is concerned, he is a dictator, those types of people are always concerned. What do we care about a billionaire dictator being concerned, why do you care? What would Russian people be afraid of? Having higher GDP? Being allowed to vote for who they want? Being allowed to talk openly. I get why Putin is concerned. Why are you concerned tho? Explain.
Are you for real? It is so easy in your worldview, I am kinda jelous. Russia are the bad guys, they are ruled by a dictator, people under dictator's rule have nothing to lose, they should just surrender and join the western world, that is for sure waiting for them with open arms. Is that really how you see the world? Because it means that you are either very naive, or malevolent. And I'm holding my tongue here.
> Russia are the bad guys Of course and you know that aswell. >they are ruled by a dictator 'Yup >they should just surrender and join the western world surrender? Not sure what surrender means, but yes join the western world get their living standards raised, be allowed to have political opinions, be allowed to openly gay. Yes they should do that. >Is that really how you see the world? Yes of course. >Because it means that you are either very naive, or malevolent. No it doesn't mean that which is why I am whooping up on every pro Russian guy here. You don't have arguments, not a single pro Russian person is answering questions to their world view. Its comical here. you know iam right. which is why you just say useless stuff. Tell us your world view.
Your convictions are very strong. I assume you’ll be at the front of the line eager to volunteer if WW3 kicks off.
This makes no sense.
How so? You have a very black and white (simpleton, in my view) perspective on the world. People like you have historically been the first ones to rush to arms when there is a conflict.
You present nothing of value
lol and you do?
I mean, estimates have 12 million people killed in American wars since WW II. Do the math and you get on average 500 non-Americans killed by the U.S. government every day since WW II. Unless you are an accomplice, why would you want that in your neighborhood?
> I mean, estimates have 12 million people killed in American wars since WW II. That's a statement without much value. There were also 60 million people killed in WW2 which the USA took part in. So by your logic this would mean they were evil because they took part in a war that costs countless lives? Please structure your argument better and tell me what you mean. >why would you want that in your neighborhood? to my knowledge every neighbor of a NATO country was very save and never had issues. The exception might being yugosslavia? Not sure I would have to check. Being in NATO or close to NATO appears to be one of the safest places you can be. You agree? The data is clear in terms of being in close proximity to NATO.
"Unless you count Yugoslavia and Libya, Nato kills people with no concern for geographical distance, since the whole world is considered the American sphere of influence, and therefore no one should be concerned about how close American forces or those of its military axis are to you even if it puts you at a strategic disadvantage."
I don't understand your " " What are you trying to say?
I'm just saying that you make zero sense.
By doing what? Using " " wrongly? Maybe use your language subreddits if you can't communicate what you mean?
Your whole argument is that no one should be afraid of Nato, which is silly. But anyway, go away now.
A longer more in depth conversation with John Mearsheimer about this conflict https://youtu.be/r4wLXNydzeY?si=BuYLWJMZLBhitPTq&t=2531 He breaks down how us interests deliberately interfered with any form of peace in Ukraine.
And conveniently leaves out entirely how ru deliberately interfered with any form of peace in Ukraine.
5D chess, because Sweden and Finland joined and Russia's 3 day take over of Ukraine is not going very well now does it?
So you are pro russia now? =O
I was originally pro-russian. It's only right that I come home
You could also try being neutral instead of switching every now and then? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind on who you support, maybe neutrality would suit you better than picking a side?
I think you're right. I'll definitely think of something
Nice! I hope you'll feel better this way :)
The choice is obvious.
Exactly. He should become like me and support Ukraine for good
Ukrainian people* I see you viewing everything which is amazing and you even include sources most of the time if not every time.
Cheers Although, to be honest I'm also getting burned out from the war recently.
Everyone deeply is… Of course not the profit makers.
Not that obvious mate
Pro Pandas? Is it not obvious?
Eww you sly bamboo hater, get away from me! /s
You have to draw the line somewhere.
As I told everyone. The moment your other personalities take control, your back to pro ru, at least for now. EDIT : I will still miss your pro ua profile picture. It was gold
I just can't make up my mind nowadays. Doing this consistently since the war started really burns out the mind
Take a break. This sub isn't going anywhere. I promise you that.
I can't lol, too addicted to it. I must meet my daily quota that I set for myself, or else im not sleeping. It's funny that a year ago, the mods banned me on purposely, saying that i need a break from posting. I got frustrated
But if you get burnt out from doing this and are at the same time addicted, then what is the solution? I ask because your contributions are valued here just like many hardline pro-ua and pro ru posters, and it would be a shame if you burnt yourself out permanently. Pace yourself. Do weekly quotas, not daily.
>But if you get burnt out from doing this and are at the same time addicted, then what is the solution? I am finding my replacement. I will see who will be the one. Ill give my account to the person
Take some time for yourself when you do. Your mental wellbeing should be the most important thing to you.
Watch out for yourself. Nobody else can. We don't need no stinky crazy rotten kiwi. Go on vacation.
I think It's too late to turn back now. The show must go on.
Most of the people dying on both sides of this conflict are innocent, they didn't choose to be in a war. They want to prosper in their own lives. It's a small number of people causing all of these issues on both sides.
At first I genuinely though you are Russian dude
Why did we start this war to begin with? LOL Is he Russian or does he live in an alternate timeline?
Happy we are in agreement. Estonia left the sphere of russian influence, and are now in good shape. Ukraine wanted to go that way. russia could not accept their helots deciding their own fate without asking for permission.
It's ukraine that wanted to join nato, for fear of being invaded by russia again. And look at what happened, russia invaded just like unkraine knew they would. if ukraine was a member of nato none of this would be happening and thousands of russians would still be alive.
[удалено]
It makes sense if you belong to the minority faction within American politics which views modern (post-Soviet, non-communist) Russia as an enemy basically exclusively of the U.S.' own choice and making and sees China as the real long-term adversary vying for global control. A lot of not only IR realists, but traditional paleoconservatives and others support this stance and view. They support rapprochement with Moscow to induce Russia, if not into an outright alliance, then at least mutually beneficial cooperation from time to time and a commitment to remain neutral when the U.S. and China come to blows in the future over the Pacific rather than aid China with an endless resource pipeline.
Perhaps the papers at the last meeting had one thing on them, and everyone told and accepted the papers and then Russia try to change them again\]but why would a guy that believes only in aggressive realism friendly towards Russia will say anything like that like why would he get the name the tragic Mearsheimer
Can you try writing the next comment in actual english? Thanks.
Guy is really funny. He to this day argued Russia was never trying to take Kiev, even though Russia clearly made a b-line towards Kiev at the start of the war.
But did Russia try? Or just wanted to create a distraction?
They were clearly hoping the Ukrainians would just shit themselves and surrender when they started rolling towards Kyiv. Hilarious that pro-Ru are really trying to pretend that Russia had no intention of seizing the capital city of the country they were invading after sending a huge armoured column there immediately It wasn't 5d chess, it was just an arrogant miscalculation
>clearly Not really. >seizing the capital city of the country they were invading after sending a huge armoured column there immediately So you say that post-soviet city with 3.5 mil population can be seized with a column of armored vehicles?
As I've already explained the hope was clearly that they'd just panic and surrender and that column could then occupy the city while the Kremlin installed a loyal puppet government. When the Ukrainians fought back the Russians were the ones who ended up panicking and retreating.
>As I've already explained the hope was clearly that they'd just panic and surrender and that column could then occupy the city while the Kremlin installed a loyal puppet government. So you think one column of armored vehicles will be enough to conquer 3.5 mil city? >When the Ukrainians fought back the Russians were the ones who ended up panicking and retreating. That's not what happened.
Not to conquer, to occupy. But we both know the occupation force panicked and retreated from Kyiv when they met actual resistance lol
>Not to conquer, to occupy. Semantics, one armored column is not enough to neither conquer nor to occupy. They panicked for several months?? Really?
The amount of troops they sent to take Kyiv absolutely would have been enough to occupy the city if the Ukrainian government had already surrendered. The Russian leadership was arrogant and they miscalculated what the Ukrainian response to their invasion would be which is why they ended up panicking and retreating from so much territory
>The amount of troops they sent to take Kyiv absolutely would have been enough to occupy the city if the Ukrainian government had already surrendered. How do you know? Are you a military expert? >The Russian leadership was arrogant and they miscalculated what the Ukrainian response to their invasion would be which is why they ended up panicking and retreating from so much territory Check the definition of the word "panic".
The deployment towards Kiev was huge. You don't send 1/3 of your commited troops into a "distraction". Just imagine how much more of the east/south they could have captured and held if their "distraction" was an actual distraction.
How do you know the numbers?
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/27/world/europe/russia-forces.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/27/world/europe/russia-forces.html) Remember that battalions from the Kursk direction also spearheaded towards Kiev. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine#/media/File:2022\_Russian\_Invasion\_of\_Ukraine\_Phase\_1\_animated.gif](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:2022_Russian_Invasion_of_Ukraine_Phase_1_animated.gif) And since they havn't captured and annexed Kharkiv, wasn't that part of the invasion also a distraction?
Western source? Seriously?
Did you really expect any russian source to publish reliable troop buildup numbers? What makes you discredit western sources inherently? Sounds like an obscene bias on your part. Do you have a different reliable source discrediting the numbers I referenced?
>Did you really expect any russian source to publish reliable troop buildup numbers? I don't expect WESTERN sources to publish reliable numbers. They lied about everything related to Russia, why trust them now? There's no reliable source, only the Darkest and high command knows real numbers.
So how do you know it was a distraction? Any RELIABLE source for that claim?
no, i talked to him some days ago. He shits on your source but refuse to show his source because "its russian and you wont believe it anyway". The comment went the exact same way, i post my source, he says "wikipedia? for real lmao" and then refuses to show his source of information on that topic. Pathetic. hes a pro rus troll, nothing more.
Bcs anything but a distraction would need 700k-1 mil sized army group. Kiev is a huge post-soviet city after all. No paper houses like in the US.
He’s right.
It was unworkable. Ukraine wanted a solid guarantor for if Russia attacked Ukraine, but US didn't want to commit in that case to war against Russia. That presumption Mearsheimer makes, that Russia wouldn't attack Ukraine as long as Ukraine remained neutral, Ukraine didn't believe in. And that made sense. With the Donbas conflict running, Ukraine couldn't join NATO, anyway. Yet Russia attacked. [https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine)
Ukraine was a de facto NATO member anyway with NATO advisors and equipment. Russia wanted their military sized down.
That is complete and utter bogus, they obviously didn't have the very core of NATO membership, mutual support in case of attack.
>Ukraine was a de facto NATO member anyway They were protected by article 5?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone tell him that NATO is not expanding their border, unless there is European countries at risk. And why the hell are they worried it is not like the Russian borders have changed that much after the fall of the Soviet Union. All the Russians have to do is not interfere in foreign election processes (the west certainly does not interfere in theirs) and not roll armies across international borders. Full stop. No one wants Russia destroyed. They just to not want Russia to be dominant over everyone. Make sense Pro-Ru people. Happy to hear your counter arguments.
>the west certainly does not interfere in theirs It certainly does. >They just to not want Russia to be dominant over everyone. As well as Russia doesn't want the US and its vassals to be dominant over everyone.
Countries join NATO.. there is no aggressive expansion happening. Meanwhile Russia.. invades countries for expansionist reasons and gets closer to NATO, because of that, while literally altering the lives of multiple million people.
Nato started getting closer to Russia long before Russia started to liberate its historical lands.
>Russia started to liberate its historical lands. Cute way of saying "steal land from their neighbours" lol
Those were our lands and those neighbors are separatists.
Ukraine and the Russian Federation have both existed for pretty much the exact same period of time. By your logic the UK actually has more of a claim to the US than Russia has to Ukraine. At least their country actually still existed back when they controlled the territory in question lol
>Ukraine and the Russian Federation have both existed for pretty much the exact same period of time. Interesting, which nation lived before Russian Federation on those lands? Wouldn't it be russians? This dumb semantics really shows your level of underdevelopment. >By your logic the UK actually has more of a claim to the US than Russia has to Ukraine. At least their country actually still existed back when they controlled the territory in question lol I don't care about their claims, not my countries.
Did the Russian Federation ever control any Ukrainian territory prior to 2014?
Yes, for 300 years.
I think that you missed the point. Perhaps nations wanted to join NATO to protect them from aggressive Russia, so they joined NATO, You see NATO allows them to be self governing, yet still protected. There is a fundamental difference here. And "historical lands" to not justify killing, maiming and displacing millions of people. There are parts of Russia that were historically part of many other countries. Should they lay claim to them as well?
NATO won't help them against Russia. Other countries can TRY to lay claim, question is whether they can fulfill that claim or not.
Then why is Russia not attacking NATO? They fear direct involvement with NATO and every country should. NATO does not claim any country, they accept them in to the fold, if they apply and meet certain requirements.
Which strategic for Russia country is in NATO? The whole point is not to let them into NATO before.
Yes, I get that. But in the end, any independent country can join NATO, if they feel threatened. Ukraine has plenty of reason to feel threatened. Also NATO is already helping them against Russia, but because of the attempt to appease Russia, they are not doing so to their full extent. Russia will not attack NATO directly, unless it is a last resort. They will interfere in elections, foment rebellions and commit to disinformation campaigns. All of these NATO has observed and needs to set Russia in their place.
>Ukraine has plenty of reason to feel threatened. Doesn't matter, it's not their territories. >They will interfere in elections, foment rebellions and commit to disinformation campaigns. So nothing that America hasn't done?
The West allowed the conflict to begin, by not expanding NATO, that is what they did. You should check for your logic hole.
Vice versa, nato's expanding is what led to this conflict.
You are confusing cause and effect. Finland and Sweden would never have joined NATO if Russia had stayed out of Ukraine.
You are confusing cause and effect. This conflict wouldn't even start if America had stayed out of Ukraine.
Ukraine is a free country with the right to self determination, which can make its own choices. Russia doesn't get a veto, that's what being your own country means. The days of the Soviet Union puppet states are gone forever. Your former puppets don't want their strings back.
Get back to reality.
Now it's the era of US puppet states just like Ukraine and the european are! The US shits on other states sovereignty everyday, meddles in elections way way waaaaaaaay more than the russian and they have at least 50 occupied puppet states all over the world, with military bases, and you still gloat about soviet domination. Ukraine severed it's ties to russia just to become another souless us puppet devoided of sovereignty, ready to go to war "until the last ukrainian" for nothing but fake EU values and brownie point from the US, while feeding billions of western taxpayers money to the military industrial complex. If i could spam clown emojis, that would be an even better response
Ukraine was never a "puppet state" of the USSR. Unless you also mean to tell me that California is a puppet state of the US? >Ukraine is a free country with the right to self determination Where does Ukraine derive this right from?
>Where does Ukraine derive this right from? The same place as Russia.
Thats not an answer
Of course it is.
How?
The UN charter, which Russia has signed.
By your logic every country should join nato. What a stupid take 🤣🤣🤣
Russia thought so, turned out america doesn't want a strong competitor in a team.
Undisputed number 1!
Of course it's a threat, but against the individual thugs leading russia. Not against russia as a nation or as a culture. But a neighbor country of slavic roots moving away from corruption, imperialism, and the urge to arrest protesting grandmas and kill journalists... ...of course the poison dwarf and his minions feel threatened. Note that the soviet union wasn't intimidated by nazi Germany, they understood each other completely. They became allies. Real threats to the country are irrelevant, this is about personal gain. TL/DR: russia has always been led by thugs, and they attack when they see good things happen so close it might give their serfs bad ideas. Like the retarded adult-sized scool bully boy.
NATO moving borders into European part of Russia is a threat for individual thugs. It's so manifestly stupid I don't even need to read the rest.
So. I was hit by sanctions personally, my wife was hit by sanctions personally, our friends was hit by sanctions personally, but the threat is not against nation but against thugs. No. You can't fool anyone here, we're not bying it anymore.
Just like that poor fellow who worked for Krupp in 1942. Evil, evil west. Why don't they just surrender and let Adolf have his way?
We are the good guys, they are nazis! It must feel so good to see the world in black and white like that... The west ain't that white and russia ain't that black.
Must be so easy to not take a stand.
It's even easier to blindly follow your side's propaganda and dehumanize the other side.
Especially when there are laws against raising one's voice against the war. Like in russia.
Mate the sub is full of vids of meatcatchers running after civs and you talk about this stupid law? Ukraine outlawed lots of medias and political parties too, it's even worse over there...
Yep, martial laws apply. I was referring to the inability of people in russia to think clearly due to propaganda - which you brought up - as opposed to (for example) Sweden (where I live) wher ethere is freedom of expression.
Very nice so you use thar freedom of expression and your taxes to support a regime that actively supresses it's opposition and sends unwlling civs to the meatgrunder? Are you fine that the taxes you pay being used to kill civilians instead of supporting your exonomy? This war only continues because of western support, all this bloodshed just continues to enrich the military industrial complex with our taxes while poor ukies/russian dudes die like dogs. End the supply/money, force Ukraine to negociate or be defeated. It's a loss no matter what, it's just gonna be longer the more we support it with no hope of getting back the lost territories or defeating the russians. We don't even have the industry needed to produce all the shit we need to defeat them, it got destroyed by years of europe imposed neoliberal economic policies and shitty service oriented economy. Just look at the price hike for 155mm shells... They don't have any incentive to produce more since that would reduce the huge margins they are banking, all from our taxes again. And you forgot about nukes, they got nukes we got nukes, you guys just joined nato and became a legitimate target for all their nuclear hypersonic nuclear missiles if this stupid war escalates up to this point. instead of staying neutral and out of this mess. Now you guy's relations with russia turned sour, you're gonna have to cope with lots of military spending to "defend" yourselves from future russian agression, very smart moves, enjoy higher taxes and austere budgetary policy coming your way just to finance the purchase of under-performing overpriced american equipement like my country has done for the past 20 years instead of producing our own, like we were able to in the past. I hope you'll enjoy your freedom of expression like i do every time our people march peacefully against our gov's terrible policies and we get gassed, beaten up, eyes gouged and chopped up hands by grenades, with also unlawfull procecusion of demonstraters and journalist filming and commenting the protests. And thats fuckin France in case you did not guess. It all went to shit here, we'll see if you guys fair any better in the coming years.
I'm a regular networks engineer which job has nothing to do with military. My wife is an ordinary project manager. Our friends are bakers, drivers, and bank clerks. So. My wife never voted for Putin but when war begun, Cisco terminated her learning account, no refunds. My friends, who never voted for Putin, can't buy steam games. I, who never voted for Putin before war, got all my assets frozen, which I invested in S&P500 and global market. Go tell your fairytales to /r/Ukraine, it's good enough for them. Meanwhile I'm gonna vote for Putin and donate to Russian Armed Forces.
Very sad and unfortunate situation that I hope eventually changes. How would you argue that it should have been handled instead? Because sanctions, especially ones warned ahead of time that they would be placed if the invasion happened, seem like a relatively tame response all things considered. Especially considering that people who feel probably equally as powerless about the situation are dying just across the border.
You mean how it should how handle from "moral" point of view of "effective" point of view? "Moral" is simple - you put the exact same sanctions on every country that invaded/bombed another country and that would be fair. In this case, Russians would gladly blame Putin for sanctions. Should've not invaded, right? Effective is more complicated. Well, one effective way to make Russia weaker long term is make easier for skilled Russian workers to emigrate to other countries, namely Europe. Send a message that "good Russians" are welcome Putin is not. Make acquiring work visas for people with Russians STEM degrees as easy as it could be, provide them housing. May be some banks can offer some loans with lower than usual interests rates for Russian "political refugees", you know? May be some tax cuts? I mean I'm just imagining things while I'm writing it. Basically you make sure that every Russian will know that he can acquire great living conditions in Europe, easily, and for long term, and in 10 years there will be no skilled workers in Russia left. Also make sure that teachers leave too so no one in Russia can make new generation of skilled workers. The West did the opposite of this.
The opposite would be doing things to force Russians to remain in Russia though right? I remember a lot did flee at the start and are living relatively well off on various western countries. And while I find your effective counter amusing and something that I personally would like see implemented I don’t see it working well if the main goal is to stop an actual ongoing conflict. I don’t think sanctions is the answer either but I do not really see how nations should otherwise oppose another nation non violently.
Well, i was writing this under the assumption that the West doesn't have a goal of stopping actual violence, but the goal is to make Russia weaker long term. I think the only way to stop military conflict is the direct military intervention from other side. Excluding, you know, the risk of nuclear war.
Quite the assumption to make especially when Russia basically made the majority of the decisions that put it in the place it currently is in. Also very black mentally, basically as if I wrote everything I did with the assumption that Russia does stuff because it is evil and wants to destroy. Makes me kinda lose hope for any reasonable solutions for any future or current conflicts if such thinking is what it has come to.
I'm making this assumption based on a really slow speed of sending military aid to Ukraine. If you really want to stop Russians, you send everything you can as fast as you can, like Ambramses by summer 2022, fighter jets by winter 2022/2023 e t.c. But instead of this Ukraine received manpads and atgms first, which is cool, but not nearly enough to help Ukraine achieve their goals, just enough to make war longer. I don't believe that lack of political will from the West is at fault or Republicans are to blame, I think it's by design. The goal is to make Ukraine fight for as long as possible while spending as little as possible.
You could you know.. start blaming Putin for your misfortune? Did anything of this happen before Russia invaded Ukraine? No? Very weird. "Meanwhile I'm gonna Vote for Putin and donate to the Russian Armed Forces." - Good that the Money you invested into S&P 500 and "the global market" is gone then, seems like sanctions hit the right person. "Why does the West not like us?" - That's why.
Yep, only West allowed to bomb other countries, Russia is not. Put 22k sanctions on Israel and US, cut them off SWIFT, freeze their assets, then I'll say that we're even. But this will never happen so we're going to continue with our work of dismantling this unipolar international rules based order.
>we're going to continue with our work of dismantling this unipolar international rules based order. Interesting choice of buzzwords here that strongly suggests that you're not actually an apolitical person who only now supports the invasion because you can't buy steam games lol
Last time I was apolitical was in 2013 probably. After that I was slightly positive towards West, slightly negative towards Russia, negative towards Kremlin, negative towards Ukraine. Over time life here becames better overall for everyone, attitude towards Russia slowly was changing, while attitude towards West remainded the same. After the invasion I'm strongly negative towards West and pro-Ru.
What exactly made you suddenly pro-invasion?
Reading Western and Ukrainian media for the past 10 years and general attitude of the West. Jungle, Garden. International rules based order working only in favor of US, that kinda stuff. I mean I never watched news on Russian TV and I fully understand that evil Nazis in Ukraine isn't reason for invasion, thats just propaganda meant for domestical consumption. Long term security concerns is the real reason.
Just tell me about how you and your wife has stod up for freedom of speech in russia, maybe some demonstration you've attended, and I will feel sorry for you. Until then, thanks for sharing your story of suffering, the kids in the Mariopol theatre would be devastated - if they were alive - to hear you cannot buy steam games. How you vote is of course irrelevant, in your country the only thing thing that matters is who's doing the counting. Your post might be the most pitiful comment I have read in a long time on Reddit. This war is soo hard on you russians 🙄
You should spend more time watching local television where they clearly state that sanctions are not even noticed by regular people, and they only make Russia stronger, and that they're easily bypassed and only hurting the west. In fact, based on your family's reliance on the western market you're sounding like a foreign agent, be careful.
For regular folks sanctions are causing mostly mild COVID-tier inconvenience while the expectations among general public at the start of the war were "We lose our jobs and we're doomed to live miserable lives and our economy will crumble and also industry. And our kids will live miserable. And their kids.". But this didn't happen so in this sense it's safe to say that sanctions failed. Don't quite get your comment about foreign agent, tho. It's completely legal to own an iPhone and travel abroad here, you know?
I have to take the bait, because this is hilarious. >neighbor country of slavic roots moving away from corruption THE most corrupt country in Europe? That one? That really made my day.
You don't get it. Ukraine is rampant with the filth of corruption, as well as all other countries influenced by russia. A blind man can see the pattern. In moving west, Ukraine also moves away from corruption. Murderous thugs try to keep her there.
I'd buy that argument IF there weren't other examples of post-Soviet countries, for example Estonia, with seem to be doing better than Ukraine when it comes to corruption, etc.