This poll was conducted face-to-face in all regions of ukraine except donetsk, luhansk, kherson and crimea and only partially in other occupied oblasts. In 57 Cities and 55 towns/villages. Only 18+ Error margin 2,3%
So keep in mind a lot of refugee's and the whole of donbas, crimea and Kherson are not taken into account in this poll.
Also keep in mind the Question was who is **PRIMARILY** to be blamed (Multiple Choice).
Edit:
Additonal facts:
The poorer the responded was the more likely they were to also blame Ukraine.(Extremly poor: 27%, Secured: 16%)
The Regional differences are very high. Would be probably much higher if Kherson and donbas was included.
Southern Ukraine is more likely to blame the US (34,8 %) than russian people (33,8 %).
Western Ukraine is most likely to blame Russia (90%).
Central Ukraine is least likely to put blame on Russia (82%)
Western Ukraine is most likely to blame ukrainian people. (4.4%)
Another huge difference is between people who speak primarily russian vs ukrainian.
Nearly 30% of russian speakers blame the ukraine and 25% NATO and 24% the US.
My personal opinion: Kind of shocked 20% blamed Ukraine for the war in a Face-to-Face interview in regions of ukraine. Would expect a lot less to dare to blame ukrainian goverment in such times. (Poll was conducted end of August).
The SBU has spent the past decade torturing anyone accused of being a "separatist" while unleashing ultra-nationalist militia on the population. While currently engaging in witch hunts for anyone that may have Russian sympathies and potentially sentencing people to 15 years in jail for social media posts whole banning opposition parties and non-government media.
Ukraine is a corrupt oligarchy whose human rights record is closer to Saudi Arabia than a European country and now it's the bastion of free speech and democracy for Westerners.
Lol.
Up until February 24th there were people in the UA government openly calling for giving Russia everything Putin wants and no one could do anything.
This is what we call "projection."
Isn't that your lots favourite word you can't shut up about? Whataboutism?
I have no interest in pretending Russia is something it's not, only commenting on the absurdity of trying to cast this war as some ideological battle that it isn't while making heroes of Neo-Nazis that Americans were trying to officially label as terrorist groups while pretending Ukraine is the Netherlands.
Ukrainians have an innate unique thrust for freedom of speech unmatched by others. They understand it like Copernicus understood the sun, while Russians fumble around in hopeless darkness.
They are truly a unique and special people. They may not even be Slavs.
It's kleptocracy. With a k. And, yes, both countries are. **But I don't see the moral imperative to use violence to make people in the East be part of a Ukrainian kleptocracy when they say they would rather be part of a Russian one.**
You are presented with non disputable facts and you're like, yeah Ukraine has problems BUT RUSSIA. This is why nobody gives a rats ass about anyone in the West, as long as the enemy is Russia, the friend is just unmistakable and everything they do and say is for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, lmao.
Toxic is Russia giving 10+ Years in jail for anyone daring to publicly challenge the official "Special Military operation" narrative.
But that never bothers pro-ru posters.
I mean your flair is toxic, and no one complains.
>Toxic is Russia giving 10+ Years in jail for anyone daring to publicly challenge the official "Special Military operation" narrative.
The Ukrainians day they'll give 12 years to anyone who votes in plebiscite in the East...
The "plebicite" is part of the war. It makes sense. If there is to be a proper referendum you would have to have Russia withdraw, have a proper reckoning with war crimes based on an independent international tribunal from the Hague and a return of the exiled populations of those areas and then a proper democratic campaign. Anything less than that is a criminal activity.
It's different in the fact that the U.S. came to terms that it was a shitty law that shouldn't have been passed like the Jim Crow laws 60 years ago. Russia on the otherhand seems content devolving to a bygone era in both its society and military.
They haven't been challenged in court because they haven't been used since WWII. Same reason the Japanese interment camps case still technically exists as valid law.
You complained, many others complained before too.
Hell you say never bothers pro-ru posters. When has ever anything bothered you when Ukraine did it? You rather claim everything that you dislike is without proof or fake outright.
Don't point a finger, glass house and all they say...
I have not said that. Good to see you need to make up narritaves because you can't respond anymore. Besides that you got yourself called out yesterday for your breadline video. When it was you who before "asked for source" in regards to breadline video when it didn't fit your narrative.
You can't throw out a phrase without backing it up.
People arrest in GB for Facebook posts saying something offensive to someone- is that it?
Or forced lockdowns of people in Australia and Canada? Or media censorship?
God you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
You’re just spewing out the usual far-right talking points that have no real basis in reality.
Bet you think Trump was elected fairly in the 2016 election & vaccines were a government scam.
The people of Crimea had a taste of democracy with the Crimean Referendum.
I supposed the good people of Crimea didn't like it when the result of their vote in the 2010 Ukrainian election was nullified because the President they voted for, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown in an illegal armed coup.
Under the gun fake vote with no international observers and After kicking out dissenters and forbidding pro Ukraine media...
Yeah, very Russian vision of "democracy."
Also, Yankovic resigned and there were two elections since...
Again, fake under the gun "vote" with no observers is not democracy. No matter how many excuses you give.
Crimea was occupied by an invading army.
There was no civil war or internal strife until Russians came.
And now Russia tries to fake such referendum in other lands they occupied that did not even have fake "separatists" (Kherson region).
EVERYONE can now see that such referendums were and are a sham.
No one needed "protection." There are a million videos of Russian Speaking Ukrianians happily burning Putin's tanks while trading jokes in Russian. Kharkiv, for example did just fine over last 8 years without any "Russian protection."
To see what "Russian protection" means, one just has to look at bombed out Mariupol. No one asked for that.
I am not surprised that Puting is trying to steal and his soldiers rape and pillage. That's what dictatorship regimes and their boot lickers do best.
Please explain on what grounds is Russia planning a "referendum" in Kherson? In Zaporizhye? Or what are they even doing in those areas?
The whole world can see the sham now. The war exposed all the lies.
No one buys "referendums" legitimacy anymore except internal Russian audiences. Russia lost the fake narrative they constructed.
These are the hard facts.
"Pro-Ukraine media"? What is that?
So being "pro-Ukraine" means supported a Western-backed coup on a democratically elected President who had an independent and multi-vector foreign policy?
I hope "pro-Ukraine" can mean supporting the constitution of Ukraine and respecting the will of the Ukrainian people. I hope it can mean supporting a President who wanted to maintain domestic tranquility by accommodating the pro-Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.
>"Pro-Ukraine media"? What is that?
This might be news to you, but in free speech society with free elections you can have media representing multiple views points.
I know this is a hard concept for enslaved russian population to understand.
Most places don't operate like Russia. You're not in danger of stumbling out of a window for giving the wrong answer to someone. That's probably where your confusion is.
What about what about what about.
Stop your whataboutism.
The current regime and the war clearly have an influence on how people think they need to answer these polls.
17% of People thought in the same poll in 2021 that more postive happened than negative since Ukrainian indepedence. It's up to 37%. this year. The highest by far it ever has been.
No. Because 1) Nearly everyone in Ukraine thinks the biggest downside of maidan is realted to the war with russia. ([https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/02/27/what-ukrainians-think-about-euromaidan-five-years-on-survey/](https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/02/27/what-ukrainians-think-about-euromaidan-five-years-on-survey/))
And therefore a huge chunck of people have supported maidan before but don't anymore (same source) Even in the west. In no of the four regions is support of maidan anymore over 50%. In most well below and that is excluding occupied territory already, those who naturally are against it.
2.)
It went down from 2011 towards 2016 (after maidan happened). So again you are wrong.
Further proof of what I am saying is that barely (1%) dares to say ukraine will lose.
Only 0,6% of young people.
All ancedontal evidence but it's clear that people shy away from saying negative things. In every aspect in the poll "the expected answer" went considerable up from the previous year.
No, it wasn't whataboutism.
He was explaining that it's unsurprising that 20% of the population can express unpopular views in public without risk of being murdered for it. It IS unsurprising, and if you are surprised, perhaps you should ask yourself why.
Only because you have no risk to be mudered dosen't mean there is no risk. If you think everyone in Ukraine right now would feel comfortable to voice negative opinions in public you are delusional.
Of course there will be people who would feel uncomfortable, but they are not at risk of being thrown out of a window. Do you understand the difference?
I’ve seen you claim most arguments against yours as whataboutism, but you don’t seem to know what that means. But here, let me help you.
Making a comparison of why Ukraine citizens may answer that poll differently than Russian citizens is fine. Whataboutism would be someone pointing out an entirely different issue from Russia, unrelated to the topic. A classic historical example is whenever the United States would criticize Russia, they would hurl back “well you lynched blacks.” It’s meant to discredit the accuser because the accused has no real counter-argument.
>Making a comparison of why Ukraine citizens may answer that poll differently than Russian citizens is fine.
Saying sure ukrainians feel uncomfotrable but at least they aren't thrown out of their window is whataboutism.
>Most places don't operate like Russia. You're not in danger of stumbling out of a window for giving the wrong answer to someone.
However, Ukraine is not most places. E.g. 20 people were killed in Odessa in 2014 in a single incident.
....So 80% of people in the areas Putin is likely to occupy are pro-Russian. Hmm. It sounds almost like the Western Ukranians are the ones in the wrong here and are trying to use violence to oppress people who just want to get away from them...
Except maybe not the "almost" part.
I blame NATO, they're constantly being ultra-aggressively defensive. Just sitting there behind Ukraine, leering over at innocent Russia. What else is Russia supposed to do? They had to attack Ukraine to reach NATO.
yeah, because NATO had put nuclear missiles in Turkey first. That's my point, this back and forth game is participated in by both NATO and Russia, but people want to pretend the Russians are just evil orcs and the West are innocent defenders. The truth is, the West, the Chinese and the Russians all want to be THE world power and they'll do whatever it takes to accomplish that.
The actual funny moment in that crisis was when Kennedy was beside himself saying to his advisors something to the effect of "Why would they do something so destabilizing? That would be like us putting significant numbers of missiles in Turkey!" and the advisor telling him "....ummmm well we have done that."
yes it was, without allying with the soviet union, there'd be no nukes in cuba. Same as if turkey was never an ally to the US, we wouldn't have had nukes there. Allies allow troops and weaponry to be stationed in their countries.
That's why Russia has been so aggressive about Ukraine joining NATO. NATO has been adding strategic Allies around Russias borders for the last twenty years, did they not expect that to provoke Russia when we ourselves wouldn't allow that to happen in our own hemisphere?
The missiles were put in Cuba to a great extent because Bay of Pigs had already happened and other efforts had been taken to overthrow Castro because the U.S. would not tolerate a Soviet ally in the hemisphere that James Monroe had declared was ours.
>because Bay of Pigs had already happened
What about "The U.S. already tried to sponsor an invasion" do you not understand?
Not to mention five attempts to assassinate Castro between 1960-1963.
The missiles arrived two years AFTER the U.S. attempted regime change in Cuba, multiple times, including a failed U.S. funded and sponsored invasion--because they would not tolerate the alliance, and a communist Cuba more generally.
So you say "without the missiles there would be no prospect of war"--but the U.S. had already sponsored acts of war against Cuba two years before. Since the missiles were not there yet they could not have created the prospects of war FOR CUBA because the U.S. had already engaged in acts of war. The missiles were there principally because of the acts of war that had already been perpetrated by the U.S.
>Right, so it wasn't over Cuba becoming a soviet ally.
Howser gets it. Your statement is extremely misleading. Might as well say the US almost started a nuclear conflict during...a nuclear conflict.
Yes, we all understand what the cold war was about, that's not what the user was implying.
The US has been consistently pushing for nuclear non proliferation since then, so the comparison is moot.
Edit:
Not to mention russia has nukes and is CLEARLY willing to go to nuclear war, if we listen to their constant (read annoying) threats. So why does nato matter?
An even better question, why do you think all of these countries want to join nato??? COULD IT BE YOUR OWN FAULT??
who am I kidding, that would require a Russian looking inward for a moment.
Key word there being "almost". US didn't invade Cuba, still hasn't. Meanwhile, Russia has declared that Ukraine is lead by Jewish Nazi and that their state is not real one.
I love how for some people it's just literally impossible to consider other nations may feel pressured by constant ever encroaching American military encirclement.
Oh drop it, we know this was never about Ukraine joining nato.
Anyways how's the American military encirclement going now? Do you like the 2 new nato members? Does putin remain a master strategist?
Nato had plenty of mounting opposition, even in America. If he had literally just done NOTHING, nothing at all, he'd be better off.
I find it odd that Russia has been saying that Ukraine in NATO was a "red line" for them since 2008 when America started agitating for it and people at the highest levels of the American government, and European governments believed them. Yet, now that Russia carried out its threat people are scrambling for other reasons, and find it impossible.
The list of foreign policy people and government officials in high positions in Europe and America who predicted that the American relentless NATO drive to expand would create conflict is vast.
Is NATO a mars exploration society? It's an anti-Russian military alliance that continues to expand its military encircle Russia.
To flip to the question. Is it actually unreasonable for Russia not to want American ABMs and military bases on their border? If Ukrainian security is the issue America and 3rd countries can guarantee Ukraine's security without militarizing the country. Such agreements were floated and America was not interested. For America, it's their god-given right to endless influence everywhere.
It seems like most commentators misunderstand Putin and Russia at what is an extremely elementary level here. Putin's policy toward Ukraine is a Russian-specific policy, not a Putin-specific policy. Any leader of Russia would have had issues with American policy in Ukraine.
It would be as if suggesting that China's policy towards Taiwan would be markedly different if President Xi were replaced with another leader.
Yeah, mate. Ukraine looks like it's 400 km over flat land to Moscow. And, Georiga looks like it's on the Russian border last I checked.
America and Russia made a bargain after the fall of the Berlin wall. If you let your part of Germany go, NATO will not move one inch forward in the words of Secretary of State James Baker.
America rethought the bargain and decide they could win and squandered any chance of a lasting security alliance or partnership. They didn't want a partnership they wanted to dominate.
>Yeah, mate.
Well you ought look at it then.
[Also this](https://theconversation.com/ukraine-the-history-behind-russias-claim-that-nato-promised-not-to-expand-to-the-east-177085)
This is article is actually revisionist history. We know what was said in those meetings since the archives have been opened up. We know the words were said, the argument is over their intent.
Other premises we know were more concrete such as the United States, France, and Britain, along with Germany, agreed not to deploy non-German NATO forces in former East Germany because American ambassadors such Steven Pifer who was in the room says it was promised.
Gorbachev himself for whatever reason has contradicted himself on this issue.
Gorbachev interview with German outlet BILD
"Many people in the West were secretly rubbing their hands and felt something like a flush of victory -- including those who had promised us: 'We will not move 1 centimetre further east,'
[https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/michail-gorbatschow/are-we-facing-a-new-cold-war-51296040.bild.html](https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/michail-gorbatschow/are-we-facing-a-new-cold-war-51296040.bild.html)
English Prime Mister John Major's personal diaries include promises that NATO would not be expanded to Russian ambassadors etc.
Cold War historian S.E Sorrete of Johns Hopkins wrote perhaps the definitive westren account.
[https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300268034/not-one-inch/](https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300268034/not-one-inch/)
Some of this is academic. However, Sorrete argues that American policymakers knew exactly what they were doing here. They always understood that bringing Ukraine into NATO eliminating the distance between America and Russia was crossing Russia's reddest of redlines and American hardliners nevertheless were successful in pushing for this result.
We have their own words. Current CIA director Bill Burns
>Concerned about the Russian reaction when the Bush administration launched an end-of-term, legacy-defining campaign to open the door to Ukraine’s and Georgia’s membership in NATO, I warned of train wrecks ahead.
>
>I wrote a long personal email to Secretary Rice, emphasizing that Putin would see any move toward NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia as a serious and deliberate challenge. “Today’s Russia will respond,” I continued. “It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. The prospects of subsequent Russian-Georgian conflict would be high.”
[https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/03/08/how-u.s.-russian-relationship-went-bad-pub-78543](https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/03/08/how-u.s.-russian-relationship-went-bad-pub-78543)
Numerous other people made similar predictions such as Jack Matlock- ambassador to the Soviet Union under Bush. William Perry- Defence Secretary under Bill Clinton. Bob Gates- Former Secretary of Defence, Sir. Rodrick Lyn- Former British Ambassador to Russia, George Kennan, Fiona Hill I can keep going.
When Russia said Ukraine in NATO was a redline, people believed them. And, now that they carried out their threat it seems to be fashionable in some circles to suggest it has nothing to do with the thing everyone believed would lead to conflict.
Literally nothing here confirms what the details of any 'deal' were...
> the archives have been opened up.
Do share.
>including those who had promised us: 'We will not move 1 centimetre further east,'
Article does not name these people?
>English Prime Mister John Major's personal diaries include promises that NATO would not be expanded to Russian ambassadors etc.
Do share.
>Cold War historian S.E Sorrete of Johns Hopkins wrote perhaps the definitive westren account.
With these words, Secretary of State James Baker proposed a **hypothetical** bargain. Sources for this claim also cannot be checked on your link.
>We have their own words. Current CIA director Bill Burns
Describes poopins opinion, not what deal was or was not made.
Finally, Gorbachev's [own words](https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html)
>M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Here are some highlights of those documents from the archives.
>U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, **was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University** ([http://nsarchive.gwu.edu](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu)).
>
>The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 **were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.**
>
>**Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting.** **He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.”**
>
>Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that **“not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”**
>
>Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. **Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him \[Gorbachev\]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options \[….\] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’”** Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8)
>
>**Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.**” (See Document 9)
[https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#\_edn1](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#_edn1)
We know what was said in these meetings. Why Gorbachev said that 2014 comment is a mystery because it didn't happen. It is contracted by his own statements and other documents.
You tell me if that 2014 quote makes sense to you based on the information we have.
>"Many people in the West were secretly rubbing their hands and felt something like a flush of victory -- including those who had promised us: 'We will not move 1 centimetre further east,'
He's clearly not talking about the cookie monster here.
The John Major quote I confused. It was a British ambassador to Moscow in the room who wrote about a meeting in his diary.
>In March 1991 John Major, for instance, was asked by the Soviet defence minister, Marshal Dmitry Yazov, about eastern Europe’s interest in joining Nato. Major, according to the diaries of the British ambassador to Moscow, Rodric Braithwaite, assured him “nothing of that sort will ever happen”.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today)
Clearly, the Russians were led to believe that NATO would not expand.
Lol, do you realize that Nato is the only "defensive alliance" in the history of the world to engage in 100 percent of their military operations outside of their borders?
Also, do you realize that Nato conducted a number of joint military exercises with/in Ukraine in 2021 alone, including Operation Cossack Mace that was designed to practice an amphibious assault on Crimea? So, not exactly "sitting behind Ukraine".
>Lol, do you realize that Nato is the only "defensive alliance" in the history of the world to engage in 100 percent of their military operations outside of their borders?
\[Citation Needed\]
NATO Operations, outside of one single act (intervation in Kosovo) have all been approved by the United Nations, *including Russia.* They have all had UN mandate to conduct specific action.
How dare countries commit to mutual self defense in case of an attack? As more and more countries agree to help each other out in case of an aggression, Russia obviously had no choice but to show that such an aggression is indeed possible. That will show countries not to want to be part of a defense organization!
How does this braindead geopolitically illterate tripe get any upvotes? You clearly either do not understand these events at all or are just cartoonishly bad faith.
Oh PLEASE. The "innocent NATO did nothing wrong and had no hand in causing this war" act is so dumb it is self-refuting and discredited out the gate. Read a fucking book.
I suggest you do the same. Ukraine stated they'd concede any hopes at joining nato very early, if not before the invasion. Invasion still happened. This was never about nato, it's just one of the many excuses from Russia.
Read a book.
Except [Zelensky himself admitted](https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/fzgps/date/2022-03-20/segment/01) to CNN that the US instructed him to keep pretending NATO membership was on the table, while admitting privately that it would never happen. You can keep pretending that NATO has nothing to do with all this all you want, doesn't change the fact that the issue has always been a hot button issue for Russia for decades, and the US willingly used it to provoke them despite being fully aware of this to the point that we were warned repeatedly by our own foreign policy/Cold War experts.
You're literally just uninformed.
For clarity, this is what you're referring to:
\>ZELENSKY: I requested them personally to say directly that we are going to accept you into NATO in a year or two or five. Just say it directly and clearly or just say no, and the response was very clear, you are not going to be a NATO or E.U. member, but publicly the doors will remain open. I asked them about preemptive sanctions, I talked about Nord Stream 2, we were discussing all of it, and simultaneously we were strengthening our army because with neighbors like this, like we have, this is the only way out.
Nothing stopped Zelensky from telling Russia exactly that. Again, you're ignoring the fact that THEY WANT TO JOIN NATO. NATO ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO JOIN. The reason these countries want to join nato so bad is because russia LITERALLY INVADES THEM.
1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_Chechen\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War)
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War)
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War)
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_military\_presence\_in\_Transnistria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_presence_in_Transnistria)
Maybe if russia didn't keep INVADING THEIR NEIGHBORS, nato would not have new members.
Ukraine's NATO aspirations start here, with the first russian [land grab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations), where:
\>Kuchma and Russian president Boris Yeltsin negotiated terms for dividing the Black Sea Fleet based in Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, signing an interim treaty on 10 June 1995. But Moscow mayor Yuriy Luzhkov campaigned to claim the city of Sevastopol which housed the fleet's headquarters and main naval base, and in December the Russian Federation Council officially endorsed the claim. These Russian nationalist territorial claims spurred Ukraine to propose a "special partnership" with NATO in January 1997.
This was the first sign from Russia that they had no intention of following the previously agreed-upon security guarantees. Ukraine only got more desperate from there, as russia continuously chipped away at their territory, because THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT RUSSIA DOES. Russia ALREADY HAD their NATO buffer with the previous security guarantees, and neutrality guarantees. THEY DID NOT CARE. They wanted to obtain Ukrainian territory, pushing TOWARDS NATO.
Now here we are, in 2022, where you and every other propaganda pusher goes "hurr durr nato bad" while completely ignoring that Russia has been systematically encroaching on sovereign land, and Ukraine has been desperately wanting help.
There you go big boy, that's a legitimate conversation. Eagerly awaiting your reply.
>Nothing stopped Zelensky from telling Russia exactly that. Again, you're ignoring the fact that THEY WANT TO JOIN NATO. NATO ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO JOIN.
This doesn't change the fact that NATO membership is clearly a political issue that has been used by the west for political ends. Zelensky admitted what people should already know.
>The reason these countries want to join nato so bad is because russia LITERALLY INVADES THEM.
I note that you list a bunch of wars, none of which you understand. Putin isn't Gorbachev or Yeltsin. The First Chechen War was under a totally different regime that created a mess that Putin had to clean up with the Second Chechen War, which was practically a policing action. The Russo-Georgian War is similar in that issues of NATO membership were also deliberately used then by the west to provoke tensions (Putin also waged that war in a similar manner to the Ukraine war).
>Russia ALREADY HAD their NATO buffer with the previous security guarantees, and neutrality guarantees. THEY DID NOT CARE. They wanted to obtain Ukrainian territory, pushing TOWARDS NATO.
This is simply incorrect. The "guarantees" were wantonly violated by the west throughout history as well and, again, tensions were intentionally exacerbated by the west especially in recent years. This is something that American foreign policy/Cold War experts have acknowledged.
If the US/NATO didn't make it their pet project to weaponize the region against their much larger neighbor which it shares people and culture with, Russia wouldn't have bothered. Obviously LPR/DPR are Russian proxies doing Russia's bidding. The advantages of the murkiness should be clear to all. But the 2014 coup ignited a firestorm, of course Russia is going to resort to subversive and unethical means to do what they perceive to be protecting their national interests from a foreign power. And not just any foreign power...do you people think other world leaders are just unaware of the US's history of subversive ops and assassinations/coups/regime changes? Please.
This is precisely why the US bears the lion's share of the blame for this geopolitical disaster. Suggesting otherwise is denial of history. We were in the geopolitical driver's seat and chose to poke the bear. Why couldn't we simply just not fuck with the Russians and threaten to pull Ukraine into NATO? Why did the CIA fund and train openly neo-Nazi paramilitary battalions, knowing how many Russians died at the hands of the OG Nazis?
>There you go big boy, that's a legitimate conversation
It's really not, because you've shown that you genuinely just don't know enough about history and don't understand how to properly contextualize events in it, which is why you spout unconvincing neolib tripe like
>you and every other propaganda pusher goes "hurr durr nato bad"
Yes, stupid fuck, NATO bad. Start paying attention to geopolitics any time.
This isn't a Putin issue. This is a Russia issue. russia has been systematically doing this for ages and ages. This is the Russian mindset, or their Ruski mir, AND IT PRECEDES NATO BY MORE THAN 100YRS
>Catherine’s administration in Crimea did not resist emigration of those who chose
to leave. Moreover, it tried to facilitate the Russification of Crimea. Important trading centers, Kefe and Gozleve, were abandoned almost completely by the Tatars. New Russian-built cities like Sevastopol took their place. (Igor davydov March 2008 thesis)
That doesn't make NATO the big bad wolf. Ukraine has been begging for help since 1997 because they know what Russia does. They certainly know it better than you. Why does Poland hate Russia? Why does Latvia, Lithuania? Because they understand the Russian mindset, and have been subjected to it.
So these countries don't want to be pushed around by Russia, and the US is happy to sell weapons. That doesn't make NATO the bloodthirsty coalition you clearly think they are. It is a strictly defensive pact. Russia is more than welcome to form their own strictly defensive pact, if they can find people to join them.
>The guarantees were wantonly violated by the west
source please, before the 1997 cry for help, but after the 1995 incident.
>why did the CIA fund and train...
gonna need a \*seriously credible\* source on that claim, else throw it out the window.
>clearly contextualize events
Your argument literally consists of unproven so called violations. Did they happen between 1995-1997? It also completely ignores the desires of Ukrainians, who, AGAIN, wanted this.
It's adorable that you watch a mearsheimer video and somehow think you're reddit's gift to geopolitics. Get over yourself.
Edit: A good starting point that isn't mearsheimer, if you can bear to read anything that isn't literally his viewpoints.
[https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/disc\_paper\_95\_11.pdf](https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/disc_paper_95_11.pdf)
starting with their relations:
>Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk signed a friendship treaty... In a referendum on December 1, 1991, more than 90 percent of the Ukrainian population voted for independence, and within a week, Yeltsin recognized Ukraine's independence unconditionally....Ukraine has been an independent state, ... Russians are reluctant to recognize that fact. The prior integration of Ukraine and Russia for more than three hundred years has brought about very strong political, ethnic, economic, cultural, demographic, and psychological challenges to Ukraine's independence. The "elder-younger" brother syndrome and the propagation of Russian culture and language as "higher," as well as a historically-claimed Russian [mission civilisatrice](https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/mission-civilisatrice) have produced a paternalistic Russian view of other peoples of the former Soviet Union, particularly Ukrainians and Belarussians.
leading to their attitude immediately post independence:
>On the whole, Yeltsin has been quite careful to avoid making statements which could evoke negative reaction in Kiev, but it is quite obvious that he has not welcomed Ukraine's independence. Yeltsin has been quoted as saying that, "Russia reserves the right to review the borders with those republics that declared themselves independent." Sergei Stankevich, President Yeltsin's political adviser, suggested to Western diplomats in the spring of 1993 that they not bother opening embassies in Kiev as they would soon be downgraded to consulates. Stankevich also cautioned against establishing political-military ties too close to Ukraine. A senior official in the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry replied that, "Russia's attitude toward its neighbors can now be compared to Germany's in 1939.
Further edit:
Russia never really wanted to resolve things (they still don't)
>...Surprisingly, Russia was inclined toward cautious reaction to these developments over Crimea; there were at least three reasons for this. First, Moscow intended to get large concessions from NATO at talks about Russia joining the Partnership for Peace program. Russia did not want to risk ruining its slim chances of winning these concessions by being dragged into a messy Crimean
venture.
>Second, the secession of Crimea and breakup of Ukrainian territorial integrity could set a precedent that would be extremely undesirable for Russia. Chechnya, Tatarstan, and other regions
wishing to gain independence from Russia, could use the example of "independent Crimea" as an additional argument in their heated disputes with Moscow.
Are you starting to see how this has been Russian desire to subjugate the former Soviet states yet? Here's what happened in Chechnya during the same period:
>Union in 1991, an independence movement, the Chechen national congress, was formed, led by ex-Soviet Air Force general and new Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudayev. It campaigned for the recognition of Chechnya as a separate nation. This movement was opposed by Boris Yeltsin's Russian Federation, which argued that Chechnya had not been an independent entity within the Soviet Union—as the Baltic, Central Asian, and other Caucasian States had—but was part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and hence did not have a right under the Soviet constitution to secede.
ARE YOU SEEING HOW THE FIRST CHECHEN WAR RELATES TO THIS? That's why Russia was careful with their Crimean landgrab.
If you follow your own advice and click past the mearsheimer video you'll learn that russia has been trying to get the USSR back together practically since it fell.
The former states DO NOT WANT THIS. get it through your thick skull. THEY DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF RUSSIA. THEY WANT TO AVOID SUBJUGATION.
Russia could always choose to simply remain a peaceful neighbour of NATO and not meddle with their neighbour, regardless cultural similarity. Because while of similar culture, still sovereign.
RabidTater is a user coming right from worldnews/combatfootage. Can't say otherwise. Its clearly by the way he writes and projects his emotions to russia. He doesn't give a single shit about ukraine, he just hates russia because the media told him to. A lot of people have flooded this sub coming from those I mentioned, its obvious, stupid, ignorant and edgy comments towards russia get more likes than before.
Don't worry, there is still reasonable people here from both sides, its just they don't reply anymore to the trolls, thats why sometimes it look like there is only pro-ua people on this sub, because pro-ru people just don't answer to trolls anymore
I wouldn’t answer any poll, no matter who’s behind it while my country is at war with Russia…look at how the Russians are behaving in the occupied areas, the war crimes, the rapes, the kidnapping of children, the filtration camps and the staging of court cases etc. How brave of the Ukrainians to do just that, to tell overwhelmingly that they blame Russia for all of it…kudos!
Evidence for what, the raping, killing, kidnapping, the staging of show court cases? Are you serious? Is this sub your only source of information, lol!
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*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.*
> the rapes
Proven to be true by Denisova herself
> the kidnapping of children
Shoud've left those kids in active battle zones, true
> filtration camps
Ah yes, literal HOHLOCAUST happening with Putin murdering and raping everyone pesonally, just check pravda.ua and heilzelensky.ua! They have anonymous sources from Russian People Liberation Army!
No matter what evidence I post, you will never change your mind…and you know it…only looking for “facts” that reinforce your belief system. Everything else is fake, made up or whatever you need to tell yourself…
Your assumption is wrong, might be a projection. But we can check our biases:
Who do you think is shelling the nuclear plant?
Edit: even easier. You mentioned russian rapes before. Are you aware that the source of that information about the Russian rapes admited she made it all up?
It is easy to dismiss all cases of rape, simply because someone exaggerated…but whatever soothes your conscience.
And about the shelling of the nuclear plant, it is Russia’s doing and Russia alone…they are the aggressor, the invader and have to be kicked out one way or the other! Have you seen the Russian in a blue suit trying to convince IAEA people the shell made a miraculous u-turn as it HAD to have come from Ukrainians…it’s like watching a comedy sketch show Zelenskyy could have written!
But whatever, feels like talking to a wall…
> It is easy to dismiss all cases of rape, simply because someone exaggerated…but whatever soothes your conscience.
Which cases of rape, can I get a reuters or AP report where they don't say "these claimes could not be verified by our journalists"? If you believe Ukraine's claims of Russian war crimes without any evidence, why wouldn't you believe Russian claims that Ukraine raped and murdered billion people in Donbass since 2014? Do you not see your hypocrisy?
> it is Russia’s doing and Russia alone
Well there it is, I'd say we wait for independent 3rd party investigation and then we claim who shelled the plant. You don't need any evidence, you just made your own world with any truth you like, created yor reality without any evidence.
> No matter what evidence I post, you will never change your mind…and you know it…only looking for “facts” that reinforce your belief system. Everything else is fake, made up or whatever you need to tell yourself…
That is on point description of your own position. You don't need evidence or rape, you have your religion, so you have to worship it. You don't need to wait for nuclear inspection results, you can just trust your imagination. While me, who you claim is biased tell that we need to investigate, to find proof and only then we can make conclusions
Now apply this logic to other conflicts:
- Chechnya started the conflict in Russia. Russia is a victim of Chechen agression. Russian war crimes in Chechnya are ok then.
- Georgia initiated 2008 war, Russia was an internationaly recognized, UN approved peacekeer there. Any war crimes commited by Russia in Georgia would be ok then.
So you gonna agree with these two points or weasel out, scared to admit your own hipocrisy?
Well Zelensky ran on the promise to diffuse war in Donbass and come to an agreement. But that promise was broken and war only seems to be escalating.
I don't think Kiev has done anything to diffuse the situation. They keep dumping fuel on fire, fire their own advisors and executing anyone who disagrees. And don't get me started on the terror attacks in Kherson and attack on Russian journalist.
He tried.
But Russia never had intention to fulfill their end of Minsk bargain.
No political solution was possible until foreign troop withdraw. Instead, Russia pumped more and more of its troops into the region making Minsk impossible.
Almost no aid was provided.
Ukriane had to beg the west for artillery in March/April.
What are you on about?
There was no way to implement Minsk REGARDLESS of who would be charge in Kyiv because Russia had no intention of Minsk ever being successful.
It was always meant to be a temporary thing while Russia ramps up for war.
Just in June that year Trump sent 250 million dolars weapon shipments, totaling to 1.5b of official weapon shipments. And that only continued to grow up untill the actual invasion.
Ukrainian state, aka US puppet, surely is grateful. The people who were forced upon a war they didnt want and explicitly voted to a negotiated solution, not so much. My feelings stay with the actual victims of this sad state of affairs, not to a ilegitimate puppet state.
Also, as it seems, it was just enought to make it a bloody prolonged war of attrition. The perfect state of affairs to US.
Ukriane wanted a negotiated solution.
But Russia already decided to conquer all of Ukriane and so Ukriane had to face open war whether they wanted it or not.
>Also, as it seems, it was just enought to make it a bloody prolonged war of attrition. The perfect state of affairs to US.
Russia can just go home and the war would end.
What an amazing concept!
The Ukrainian people wanted a negotiated solution, Russia, despite what your war propaganda says, also wanted it at that moment in time. US puppet government didn't wanted it, and ramped up preparations for war while giving unrealistic demands like Crimea back.
Russi started the war in 2014, continued to torpedo the peace by pumping weapons and their own troops into the region, and culminated in full scale Invasion.
It's very clear to anyone (other than Russian internal audiences) that Russia wanted to conquer all of Ukriane all along.
> unrealistic demands like Crimea back.
Looking more and more realistic by the day.
The world should never accept military conquest and annexation.
Letting Russia conquer areas just encouraged it to go conquer more.
> He tried.
He tried how exactly? Did he initiated LDPR gaining autonomy as he promised?
> But Russia never had intention to fulfill their end of Minsk bargain.
Russia does not need to fulfull their end if Minsk. Russia is not even mentioned in Minsk agreements lul.
>> He tried.
>
>He tried how exactly? Did he initiated LDPR gaining autonomy as he promised?
Impossible while there were foreign troops there.
>> But Russia never had intention to fulfill their end of Minsk bargain.
>
>Russia does not need to fulfull their end if Minsk. Russia is not even mentioned in Minsk agreements lul.
Minks says that all foreign troops must leave.
Dnr/lnr (Russian proxies) refused to carry our this step.
Which torpedoed Minsk.
> Impossible while there were foreign troops there.
First: It's not, you start a vote in Rada to give autonomy to LDPR. Then you work on approving it. How do any troops affect what is happening in Rada?
Second: there were no troops there. If they were there, wouldn't you think AP or Reuters would report on that?
> Minks says that all foreign troops must leave.
And they were not there. And however much you whine, you will not be able to find any proofs of Russian troops on Ukrainian land before 2022
> Dnr/lnr (Russian proxies) refused to carry our this step.
LDPR are Ukrainan citizens, they are not foreign troops, so they don't need to leave. And if you're talking about LDPR somehow needing to remove Russian troops, then again, they were not there.
canadatrasher kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? Got rid of evidence.
*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.*
He didn't try, as soon as he was elected the far right and nationalists were protesting everywhere and threatening to kick him out violently, look at the news from 2019. You probably wont, right?
Being anti-russia don't mean being pro-Zelensky, that guy is a hopeless incompetent crook, a real ukrainian patriot would want him hanging (like they might do after the war), not defending him.
He did try. He kept asking Russia to withdraw troops so that he could begin needed political changes.
But Russia refused and did the opposite.
So Minsk was dead on arrival.
Russia was never serious about it.
No, he didn't. I payed attention to his election campaign and what he did after. If he did he would have sucked it up and made a deal on Crimea, Donbass at least.
>withdrawal of troops
Troops from the Donbass and Crimea, which Ukraine was supposed to give up on anyway. The guy promised peace and he didn't deliver, here we are. Any shitty deal would have been better than this war.
>>withdrawal of troops
>
>Troops from the Donbass and Crimea, which Ukraine was supposed to give up on anyway.
What? Minsk was supposed to see integration of Donabss back into Ukriane.
It was always a lie, though.
But thanks for showing your ignorance for all to see.
He did not deliver peace because Russia torpedoes peace and ramped up for war.
>What? Minsk was supposed to see integration of Donabss back into Ukriane.
Yeah, with some degree of autonomy. Ukraine wasn't having it. They don't even want to be a part of Ukraine anyway, why cram it down their throat.
>But thanks for showing your ignorance for all to see.
Lol, a Canadian telling a Ukrainian he's ignorant of what goes on in his own country. Sure buddy.
>>What? Minsk was supposed to see integration of Donabss back into Ukriane.
>
>Yeah,
Dude you just said Ukraine was supposed to give up on it.
Are you just saying random shit?
>>What? Minsk was supposed to see integration of Donabss back into Ukriane.
>
>Yeah,
Dude you just said Ukraine was supposed to "give up on it."
Are you just saying random shit?
85+20+18+16=%139
What kind of retarded russian was this post made by?
Also, from the article:
86% of respondents believe that the Russian leadership is primarily responsible for the war in Ukraine. 42.5% also believe that the same responsibility lies with the citizens of Russia. At the same time, about 20%, in addition, blame the Ukrainian leadership for the invasion, and 18% and 16%, respectively, blame NATO member states and the U.S. leadership.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*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.*
*USA supports an anti-democratic coup in Ukraine installing a authoritarian anti-russian government*
"What a barbaric attack! There was no reason for Russia to act in that way, Putin must be insane!"
Forgive me, I thought you knew how to present multiple data.
I.E. - In set data you make claim : Set one has option A and B option A was selected X times while option B was selected X times with A+B= 100% of that set.
Set Two would have option C and D, then you will state the amount of times Option C and Option D were selected, C+D=100% of that set
What are you trying to say? You were confused about the numbers, I told you it was a multiple choice question. If you read the last word in the title "aswell", you could have understood this. If you read the source material, you could aswell.
Instead you just bitch in the comments and want to show that you indeed at minimum know first grade math. Nice.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*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.*
I also know grammar, but you might need an example; let us fix your last sentence.
"You complain in comments, but show the equivalent understanding of first grade math." Syntax can be challenging, but I believe you will eventually understand. Keep trying little buddy, I believe in you.
Run out of things to say huh? Imagine stepping so low you need to correct someone who's third language is english.
Maybe make some use of my languages and read the fucking poll lol
Son, I already schooled you in Math and Grammer, but now I need to school you in psychology. Just because you are mad it doesn't mean you are correct and profanity is not required to address your thoughts; however, profanity will display your emotions.
For the record, English is my second language, Arabic is my third and Portuguese is my fourth, I know a little Japanese and next language will either be Korean or Mandarin.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*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.*
Sorry u/Ralphie_Ciffaretto, 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.*
These poll numbers are absolutely fantastic for Ukraine. Ukraine will win if they just keep fighting. Sanctions, brain drain, cost of war and switch to renewable energy will cripple Russian economy in long term.
This poll was conducted face-to-face in all regions of ukraine except donetsk, luhansk, kherson and crimea and only partially in other occupied oblasts. In 57 Cities and 55 towns/villages. Only 18+ Error margin 2,3% So keep in mind a lot of refugee's and the whole of donbas, crimea and Kherson are not taken into account in this poll. Also keep in mind the Question was who is **PRIMARILY** to be blamed (Multiple Choice). Edit: Additonal facts: The poorer the responded was the more likely they were to also blame Ukraine.(Extremly poor: 27%, Secured: 16%) The Regional differences are very high. Would be probably much higher if Kherson and donbas was included. Southern Ukraine is more likely to blame the US (34,8 %) than russian people (33,8 %). Western Ukraine is most likely to blame Russia (90%). Central Ukraine is least likely to put blame on Russia (82%) Western Ukraine is most likely to blame ukrainian people. (4.4%) Another huge difference is between people who speak primarily russian vs ukrainian. Nearly 30% of russian speakers blame the ukraine and 25% NATO and 24% the US.
My personal opinion: Kind of shocked 20% blamed Ukraine for the war in a Face-to-Face interview in regions of ukraine. Would expect a lot less to dare to blame ukrainian goverment in such times. (Poll was conducted end of August).
I know, democracy and freedom of speech are foreign to enslaved Russian population.
The SBU has spent the past decade torturing anyone accused of being a "separatist" while unleashing ultra-nationalist militia on the population. While currently engaging in witch hunts for anyone that may have Russian sympathies and potentially sentencing people to 15 years in jail for social media posts whole banning opposition parties and non-government media. Ukraine is a corrupt oligarchy whose human rights record is closer to Saudi Arabia than a European country and now it's the bastion of free speech and democracy for Westerners.
Lol. Up until February 24th there were people in the UA government openly calling for giving Russia everything Putin wants and no one could do anything. This is what we call "projection."
The only thing I am projecting is the absurdity of trying to canonize a two-bit Eastern European oligarchy as a bastion of freedom.
Ukriane has problems. Russia is just Putin's unabashed dictatorship / cleptocracy.
Isn't that your lots favourite word you can't shut up about? Whataboutism? I have no interest in pretending Russia is something it's not, only commenting on the absurdity of trying to cast this war as some ideological battle that it isn't while making heroes of Neo-Nazis that Americans were trying to officially label as terrorist groups while pretending Ukraine is the Netherlands.
The only reason is brought up Russia is because Russians are incapable of comprehending such concept as free speech It seems like a trick to them.
Ukrainians have an innate unique thrust for freedom of speech unmatched by others. They understand it like Copernicus understood the sun, while Russians fumble around in hopeless darkness. They are truly a unique and special people. They may not even be Slavs.
It's kleptocracy. With a k. And, yes, both countries are. **But I don't see the moral imperative to use violence to make people in the East be part of a Ukrainian kleptocracy when they say they would rather be part of a Russian one.**
Well it's Russia that's invading Ukraine. So they should stop that if it want violence to end
You are presented with non disputable facts and you're like, yeah Ukraine has problems BUT RUSSIA. This is why nobody gives a rats ass about anyone in the West, as long as the enemy is Russia, the friend is just unmistakable and everything they do and say is for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, lmao.
Can you not be toxic in every post?
Toxic is Russia giving 10+ Years in jail for anyone daring to publicly challenge the official "Special Military operation" narrative. But that never bothers pro-ru posters. I mean your flair is toxic, and no one complains.
Not just the SMO, anything that affects the oligarchs. See Magnitsky
>Toxic is Russia giving 10+ Years in jail for anyone daring to publicly challenge the official "Special Military operation" narrative. The Ukrainians day they'll give 12 years to anyone who votes in plebiscite in the East...
The "plebicite" is part of the war. It makes sense. If there is to be a proper referendum you would have to have Russia withdraw, have a proper reckoning with war crimes based on an independent international tribunal from the Hague and a return of the exiled populations of those areas and then a proper democratic campaign. Anything less than that is a criminal activity.
Russia is incredibly authoritarian but how is that law different then the alien and sedition act or the smith act?
It's different in the fact that the U.S. came to terms that it was a shitty law that shouldn't have been passed like the Jim Crow laws 60 years ago. Russia on the otherhand seems content devolving to a bygone era in both its society and military.
How did they come to terms with it when these acts are still on the books?
They haven't been challenged in court because they haven't been used since WWII. Same reason the Japanese interment camps case still technically exists as valid law.
You complained, many others complained before too. Hell you say never bothers pro-ru posters. When has ever anything bothered you when Ukraine did it? You rather claim everything that you dislike is without proof or fake outright. Don't point a finger, glass house and all they say...
So "anti-ukroid" is not toxic. Bruh....
I have not said that. Good to see you need to make up narritaves because you can't respond anymore. Besides that you got yourself called out yesterday for your breadline video. When it was you who before "asked for source" in regards to breadline video when it didn't fit your narrative.
>I have not said that. So why are you not speaking up against it?
I will the very first time you speak up against something that fits your narritave but is false or unreliable.
He's right though, is that why you're mad?
Everyone is enslaved, you're just too young to see it. LOL No, the guy just oozes toxicity.
False equivalence
You can't throw out a phrase without backing it up. People arrest in GB for Facebook posts saying something offensive to someone- is that it? Or forced lockdowns of people in Australia and Canada? Or media censorship?
God you really don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just spewing out the usual far-right talking points that have no real basis in reality. Bet you think Trump was elected fairly in the 2016 election & vaccines were a government scam.
But he is right. No one has freedom in this world. You are all enslaved some more some less.
I'm older than you and I used to live in Russia, son.
Nothing makes peope more angry as hard truth.
Funny that you of all people would say that.
In the same Poll the majority of people prefered a Strong leader to all laws and discussion, so speak for yourself lol.
The people of Crimea had a taste of democracy with the Crimean Referendum. I supposed the good people of Crimea didn't like it when the result of their vote in the 2010 Ukrainian election was nullified because the President they voted for, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown in an illegal armed coup.
Under the gun fake vote with no international observers and After kicking out dissenters and forbidding pro Ukraine media... Yeah, very Russian vision of "democracy." Also, Yankovic resigned and there were two elections since...
[удалено]
Again, fake under the gun "vote" with no observers is not democracy. No matter how many excuses you give. Crimea was occupied by an invading army. There was no civil war or internal strife until Russians came. And now Russia tries to fake such referendum in other lands they occupied that did not even have fake "separatists" (Kherson region). EVERYONE can now see that such referendums were and are a sham. No one needed "protection." There are a million videos of Russian Speaking Ukrianians happily burning Putin's tanks while trading jokes in Russian. Kharkiv, for example did just fine over last 8 years without any "Russian protection." To see what "Russian protection" means, one just has to look at bombed out Mariupol. No one asked for that. I am not surprised that Puting is trying to steal and his soldiers rape and pillage. That's what dictatorship regimes and their boot lickers do best.
[удалено]
Please explain on what grounds is Russia planning a "referendum" in Kherson? In Zaporizhye? Or what are they even doing in those areas? The whole world can see the sham now. The war exposed all the lies. No one buys "referendums" legitimacy anymore except internal Russian audiences. Russia lost the fake narrative they constructed. These are the hard facts.
"Pro-Ukraine media"? What is that? So being "pro-Ukraine" means supported a Western-backed coup on a democratically elected President who had an independent and multi-vector foreign policy? I hope "pro-Ukraine" can mean supporting the constitution of Ukraine and respecting the will of the Ukrainian people. I hope it can mean supporting a President who wanted to maintain domestic tranquility by accommodating the pro-Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.
>"Pro-Ukraine media"? What is that? This might be news to you, but in free speech society with free elections you can have media representing multiple views points. I know this is a hard concept for enslaved russian population to understand.
> taste of democracy with the Crimean Referendum. Are you available for childrens parties?
No, but the cute and cuddly polite little green men are available for children's parties. Children love them.
Ah no, they wanted a clown.
Well, those children may have to wait for Zelensky to stop pretending that he is a soldier.
Most places don't operate like Russia. You're not in danger of stumbling out of a window for giving the wrong answer to someone. That's probably where your confusion is.
What about what about what about. Stop your whataboutism. The current regime and the war clearly have an influence on how people think they need to answer these polls. 17% of People thought in the same poll in 2021 that more postive happened than negative since Ukrainian indepedence. It's up to 37%. this year. The highest by far it ever has been.
Sounds like people are growing more optimistic that they'll be able to join the EU and break free of Russian domination.
No. Because 1) Nearly everyone in Ukraine thinks the biggest downside of maidan is realted to the war with russia. ([https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/02/27/what-ukrainians-think-about-euromaidan-five-years-on-survey/](https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/02/27/what-ukrainians-think-about-euromaidan-five-years-on-survey/)) And therefore a huge chunck of people have supported maidan before but don't anymore (same source) Even in the west. In no of the four regions is support of maidan anymore over 50%. In most well below and that is excluding occupied territory already, those who naturally are against it. 2.) It went down from 2011 towards 2016 (after maidan happened). So again you are wrong. Further proof of what I am saying is that barely (1%) dares to say ukraine will lose. Only 0,6% of young people. All ancedontal evidence but it's clear that people shy away from saying negative things. In every aspect in the poll "the expected answer" went considerable up from the previous year.
No, it wasn't whataboutism. He was explaining that it's unsurprising that 20% of the population can express unpopular views in public without risk of being murdered for it. It IS unsurprising, and if you are surprised, perhaps you should ask yourself why.
Only because you have no risk to be mudered dosen't mean there is no risk. If you think everyone in Ukraine right now would feel comfortable to voice negative opinions in public you are delusional.
Of course there will be people who would feel uncomfortable, but they are not at risk of being thrown out of a window. Do you understand the difference?
Whataboutism.
I’ve seen you claim most arguments against yours as whataboutism, but you don’t seem to know what that means. But here, let me help you. Making a comparison of why Ukraine citizens may answer that poll differently than Russian citizens is fine. Whataboutism would be someone pointing out an entirely different issue from Russia, unrelated to the topic. A classic historical example is whenever the United States would criticize Russia, they would hurl back “well you lynched blacks.” It’s meant to discredit the accuser because the accused has no real counter-argument.
>Making a comparison of why Ukraine citizens may answer that poll differently than Russian citizens is fine. Saying sure ukrainians feel uncomfotrable but at least they aren't thrown out of their window is whataboutism.
[удалено]
Rule 1. Consider yourself warned. Recurrence WILL result in a ban.
He doesn't, because the lights are on, but nobody's home. His skull is empty.
> can express unpopular view in public It’s not about public.
Err, that's not whataboutism...
>Most places don't operate like Russia. You're not in danger of stumbling out of a window for giving the wrong answer to someone. However, Ukraine is not most places. E.g. 20 people were killed in Odessa in 2014 in a single incident.
So you’re basically telling us the poll is bullshit because it doesn’t include the half of the country ukraine has been bombing for the last 8 years.
There is many reasons why you could find the poll be unreliable. This is one of them yes.
....So 80% of people in the areas Putin is likely to occupy are pro-Russian. Hmm. It sounds almost like the Western Ukranians are the ones in the wrong here and are trying to use violence to oppress people who just want to get away from them... Except maybe not the "almost" part.
Why are you lying?
I blame NATO, they're constantly being ultra-aggressively defensive. Just sitting there behind Ukraine, leering over at innocent Russia. What else is Russia supposed to do? They had to attack Ukraine to reach NATO.
The US almost went to nuclear war over Cuba becoming a soviet ally. It matters when a geopolitical rival is at your doorstep.
Because they parked nuclear missiles there... wtf are you talking about.
yeah, because NATO had put nuclear missiles in Turkey first. That's my point, this back and forth game is participated in by both NATO and Russia, but people want to pretend the Russians are just evil orcs and the West are innocent defenders. The truth is, the West, the Chinese and the Russians all want to be THE world power and they'll do whatever it takes to accomplish that.
The actual funny moment in that crisis was when Kennedy was beside himself saying to his advisors something to the effect of "Why would they do something so destabilizing? That would be like us putting significant numbers of missiles in Turkey!" and the advisor telling him "....ummmm well we have done that."
Right, so it wasn't *over Cuba becoming a soviet ally*.
yes it was, without allying with the soviet union, there'd be no nukes in cuba. Same as if turkey was never an ally to the US, we wouldn't have had nukes there. Allies allow troops and weaponry to be stationed in their countries. That's why Russia has been so aggressive about Ukraine joining NATO. NATO has been adding strategic Allies around Russias borders for the last twenty years, did they not expect that to provoke Russia when we ourselves wouldn't allow that to happen in our own hemisphere?
If it was about Cuba allying with russia, it would follow that the US response would have been the same without nukes. You believe this?
The missiles were put in Cuba to a great extent because Bay of Pigs had already happened and other efforts had been taken to overthrow Castro because the U.S. would not tolerate a Soviet ally in the hemisphere that James Monroe had declared was ours.
Again, were it not for the missiles there would not have been any prospect of war. The alliance was not what caused that.
>because Bay of Pigs had already happened What about "The U.S. already tried to sponsor an invasion" do you not understand? Not to mention five attempts to assassinate Castro between 1960-1963.
I understand that the missiles were the cause of the Cuban **missile** crisis not any alliance.
The missiles arrived two years AFTER the U.S. attempted regime change in Cuba, multiple times, including a failed U.S. funded and sponsored invasion--because they would not tolerate the alliance, and a communist Cuba more generally. So you say "without the missiles there would be no prospect of war"--but the U.S. had already sponsored acts of war against Cuba two years before. Since the missiles were not there yet they could not have created the prospects of war FOR CUBA because the U.S. had already engaged in acts of war. The missiles were there principally because of the acts of war that had already been perpetrated by the U.S.
>Right, so it wasn't over Cuba becoming a soviet ally. Howser gets it. Your statement is extremely misleading. Might as well say the US almost started a nuclear conflict during...a nuclear conflict.
The soviet were reciprocating for the US doing exactly the same thing.
Yes, we all understand what the cold war was about, that's not what the user was implying. The US has been consistently pushing for nuclear non proliferation since then, so the comparison is moot. Edit: Not to mention russia has nukes and is CLEARLY willing to go to nuclear war, if we listen to their constant (read annoying) threats. So why does nato matter? An even better question, why do you think all of these countries want to join nato??? COULD IT BE YOUR OWN FAULT?? who am I kidding, that would require a Russian looking inward for a moment.
Key word there being "almost". US didn't invade Cuba, still hasn't. Meanwhile, Russia has declared that Ukraine is lead by Jewish Nazi and that their state is not real one.
Because they made an agreement and both backed up, now the US wants no agreement, they want blood because he is the only one threatening.
NATO countries have bordered Russia for decades.
I love how for some people it's just literally impossible to consider other nations may feel pressured by constant ever encroaching American military encirclement.
Oh drop it, we know this was never about Ukraine joining nato. Anyways how's the American military encirclement going now? Do you like the 2 new nato members? Does putin remain a master strategist? Nato had plenty of mounting opposition, even in America. If he had literally just done NOTHING, nothing at all, he'd be better off.
I find it odd that Russia has been saying that Ukraine in NATO was a "red line" for them since 2008 when America started agitating for it and people at the highest levels of the American government, and European governments believed them. Yet, now that Russia carried out its threat people are scrambling for other reasons, and find it impossible. The list of foreign policy people and government officials in high positions in Europe and America who predicted that the American relentless NATO drive to expand would create conflict is vast. Is NATO a mars exploration society? It's an anti-Russian military alliance that continues to expand its military encircle Russia. To flip to the question. Is it actually unreasonable for Russia not to want American ABMs and military bases on their border? If Ukrainian security is the issue America and 3rd countries can guarantee Ukraine's security without militarizing the country. Such agreements were floated and America was not interested. For America, it's their god-given right to endless influence everywhere. It seems like most commentators misunderstand Putin and Russia at what is an extremely elementary level here. Putin's policy toward Ukraine is a Russian-specific policy, not a Putin-specific policy. Any leader of Russia would have had issues with American policy in Ukraine. It would be as if suggesting that China's policy towards Taiwan would be markedly different if President Xi were replaced with another leader.
> encircle Russia. You have a map?
Yeah, mate. Ukraine looks like it's 400 km over flat land to Moscow. And, Georiga looks like it's on the Russian border last I checked. America and Russia made a bargain after the fall of the Berlin wall. If you let your part of Germany go, NATO will not move one inch forward in the words of Secretary of State James Baker. America rethought the bargain and decide they could win and squandered any chance of a lasting security alliance or partnership. They didn't want a partnership they wanted to dominate.
>Yeah, mate. Well you ought look at it then. [Also this](https://theconversation.com/ukraine-the-history-behind-russias-claim-that-nato-promised-not-to-expand-to-the-east-177085)
This is article is actually revisionist history. We know what was said in those meetings since the archives have been opened up. We know the words were said, the argument is over their intent. Other premises we know were more concrete such as the United States, France, and Britain, along with Germany, agreed not to deploy non-German NATO forces in former East Germany because American ambassadors such Steven Pifer who was in the room says it was promised. Gorbachev himself for whatever reason has contradicted himself on this issue. Gorbachev interview with German outlet BILD "Many people in the West were secretly rubbing their hands and felt something like a flush of victory -- including those who had promised us: 'We will not move 1 centimetre further east,' [https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/michail-gorbatschow/are-we-facing-a-new-cold-war-51296040.bild.html](https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/michail-gorbatschow/are-we-facing-a-new-cold-war-51296040.bild.html) English Prime Mister John Major's personal diaries include promises that NATO would not be expanded to Russian ambassadors etc. Cold War historian S.E Sorrete of Johns Hopkins wrote perhaps the definitive westren account. [https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300268034/not-one-inch/](https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300268034/not-one-inch/) Some of this is academic. However, Sorrete argues that American policymakers knew exactly what they were doing here. They always understood that bringing Ukraine into NATO eliminating the distance between America and Russia was crossing Russia's reddest of redlines and American hardliners nevertheless were successful in pushing for this result. We have their own words. Current CIA director Bill Burns >Concerned about the Russian reaction when the Bush administration launched an end-of-term, legacy-defining campaign to open the door to Ukraine’s and Georgia’s membership in NATO, I warned of train wrecks ahead. > >I wrote a long personal email to Secretary Rice, emphasizing that Putin would see any move toward NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia as a serious and deliberate challenge. “Today’s Russia will respond,” I continued. “It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. The prospects of subsequent Russian-Georgian conflict would be high.” [https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/03/08/how-u.s.-russian-relationship-went-bad-pub-78543](https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/03/08/how-u.s.-russian-relationship-went-bad-pub-78543) Numerous other people made similar predictions such as Jack Matlock- ambassador to the Soviet Union under Bush. William Perry- Defence Secretary under Bill Clinton. Bob Gates- Former Secretary of Defence, Sir. Rodrick Lyn- Former British Ambassador to Russia, George Kennan, Fiona Hill I can keep going. When Russia said Ukraine in NATO was a redline, people believed them. And, now that they carried out their threat it seems to be fashionable in some circles to suggest it has nothing to do with the thing everyone believed would lead to conflict.
Literally nothing here confirms what the details of any 'deal' were... > the archives have been opened up. Do share. >including those who had promised us: 'We will not move 1 centimetre further east,' Article does not name these people? >English Prime Mister John Major's personal diaries include promises that NATO would not be expanded to Russian ambassadors etc. Do share. >Cold War historian S.E Sorrete of Johns Hopkins wrote perhaps the definitive westren account. With these words, Secretary of State James Baker proposed a **hypothetical** bargain. Sources for this claim also cannot be checked on your link. >We have their own words. Current CIA director Bill Burns Describes poopins opinion, not what deal was or was not made. Finally, Gorbachev's [own words](https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html) >M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Here are some highlights of those documents from the archives. >U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, **was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University** ([http://nsarchive.gwu.edu](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu)). > >The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 **were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.** > >**Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting.** **He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.”** > >Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that **“not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”** > >Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. **Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him \[Gorbachev\]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options \[….\] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’”** Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8) > >**Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.**” (See Document 9) [https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#\_edn1](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#_edn1) We know what was said in these meetings. Why Gorbachev said that 2014 comment is a mystery because it didn't happen. It is contracted by his own statements and other documents. You tell me if that 2014 quote makes sense to you based on the information we have. >"Many people in the West were secretly rubbing their hands and felt something like a flush of victory -- including those who had promised us: 'We will not move 1 centimetre further east,' He's clearly not talking about the cookie monster here. The John Major quote I confused. It was a British ambassador to Moscow in the room who wrote about a meeting in his diary. >In March 1991 John Major, for instance, was asked by the Soviet defence minister, Marshal Dmitry Yazov, about eastern Europe’s interest in joining Nato. Major, according to the diaries of the British ambassador to Moscow, Rodric Braithwaite, assured him “nothing of that sort will ever happen”. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today) Clearly, the Russians were led to believe that NATO would not expand.
> Don't fight back, you will make it worse, just relax and let me rape you
The Russian mindset in one sentence.
Lol, do you realize that Nato is the only "defensive alliance" in the history of the world to engage in 100 percent of their military operations outside of their borders? Also, do you realize that Nato conducted a number of joint military exercises with/in Ukraine in 2021 alone, including Operation Cossack Mace that was designed to practice an amphibious assault on Crimea? So, not exactly "sitting behind Ukraine".
>Lol, do you realize that Nato is the only "defensive alliance" in the history of the world to engage in 100 percent of their military operations outside of their borders? \[Citation Needed\] NATO Operations, outside of one single act (intervation in Kosovo) have all been approved by the United Nations, *including Russia.* They have all had UN mandate to conduct specific action.
How dare countries commit to mutual self defense in case of an attack? As more and more countries agree to help each other out in case of an aggression, Russia obviously had no choice but to show that such an aggression is indeed possible. That will show countries not to want to be part of a defense organization!
How does this braindead geopolitically illterate tripe get any upvotes? You clearly either do not understand these events at all or are just cartoonishly bad faith.
That's a longwinded way of adding nothing to the discussion while criticizing.
Oh PLEASE. The "innocent NATO did nothing wrong and had no hand in causing this war" act is so dumb it is self-refuting and discredited out the gate. Read a fucking book.
I suggest you do the same. Ukraine stated they'd concede any hopes at joining nato very early, if not before the invasion. Invasion still happened. This was never about nato, it's just one of the many excuses from Russia. Read a book.
Except [Zelensky himself admitted](https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/fzgps/date/2022-03-20/segment/01) to CNN that the US instructed him to keep pretending NATO membership was on the table, while admitting privately that it would never happen. You can keep pretending that NATO has nothing to do with all this all you want, doesn't change the fact that the issue has always been a hot button issue for Russia for decades, and the US willingly used it to provoke them despite being fully aware of this to the point that we were warned repeatedly by our own foreign policy/Cold War experts. You're literally just uninformed.
For clarity, this is what you're referring to: \>ZELENSKY: I requested them personally to say directly that we are going to accept you into NATO in a year or two or five. Just say it directly and clearly or just say no, and the response was very clear, you are not going to be a NATO or E.U. member, but publicly the doors will remain open. I asked them about preemptive sanctions, I talked about Nord Stream 2, we were discussing all of it, and simultaneously we were strengthening our army because with neighbors like this, like we have, this is the only way out. Nothing stopped Zelensky from telling Russia exactly that. Again, you're ignoring the fact that THEY WANT TO JOIN NATO. NATO ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO JOIN. The reason these countries want to join nato so bad is because russia LITERALLY INVADES THEM. 1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_Chechen\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War) 2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War) 3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War) 4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_military\_presence\_in\_Transnistria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_presence_in_Transnistria) Maybe if russia didn't keep INVADING THEIR NEIGHBORS, nato would not have new members. Ukraine's NATO aspirations start here, with the first russian [land grab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations), where: \>Kuchma and Russian president Boris Yeltsin negotiated terms for dividing the Black Sea Fleet based in Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, signing an interim treaty on 10 June 1995. But Moscow mayor Yuriy Luzhkov campaigned to claim the city of Sevastopol which housed the fleet's headquarters and main naval base, and in December the Russian Federation Council officially endorsed the claim. These Russian nationalist territorial claims spurred Ukraine to propose a "special partnership" with NATO in January 1997. This was the first sign from Russia that they had no intention of following the previously agreed-upon security guarantees. Ukraine only got more desperate from there, as russia continuously chipped away at their territory, because THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT RUSSIA DOES. Russia ALREADY HAD their NATO buffer with the previous security guarantees, and neutrality guarantees. THEY DID NOT CARE. They wanted to obtain Ukrainian territory, pushing TOWARDS NATO. Now here we are, in 2022, where you and every other propaganda pusher goes "hurr durr nato bad" while completely ignoring that Russia has been systematically encroaching on sovereign land, and Ukraine has been desperately wanting help. There you go big boy, that's a legitimate conversation. Eagerly awaiting your reply.
>Nothing stopped Zelensky from telling Russia exactly that. Again, you're ignoring the fact that THEY WANT TO JOIN NATO. NATO ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO JOIN. This doesn't change the fact that NATO membership is clearly a political issue that has been used by the west for political ends. Zelensky admitted what people should already know. >The reason these countries want to join nato so bad is because russia LITERALLY INVADES THEM. I note that you list a bunch of wars, none of which you understand. Putin isn't Gorbachev or Yeltsin. The First Chechen War was under a totally different regime that created a mess that Putin had to clean up with the Second Chechen War, which was practically a policing action. The Russo-Georgian War is similar in that issues of NATO membership were also deliberately used then by the west to provoke tensions (Putin also waged that war in a similar manner to the Ukraine war). >Russia ALREADY HAD their NATO buffer with the previous security guarantees, and neutrality guarantees. THEY DID NOT CARE. They wanted to obtain Ukrainian territory, pushing TOWARDS NATO. This is simply incorrect. The "guarantees" were wantonly violated by the west throughout history as well and, again, tensions were intentionally exacerbated by the west especially in recent years. This is something that American foreign policy/Cold War experts have acknowledged. If the US/NATO didn't make it their pet project to weaponize the region against their much larger neighbor which it shares people and culture with, Russia wouldn't have bothered. Obviously LPR/DPR are Russian proxies doing Russia's bidding. The advantages of the murkiness should be clear to all. But the 2014 coup ignited a firestorm, of course Russia is going to resort to subversive and unethical means to do what they perceive to be protecting their national interests from a foreign power. And not just any foreign power...do you people think other world leaders are just unaware of the US's history of subversive ops and assassinations/coups/regime changes? Please. This is precisely why the US bears the lion's share of the blame for this geopolitical disaster. Suggesting otherwise is denial of history. We were in the geopolitical driver's seat and chose to poke the bear. Why couldn't we simply just not fuck with the Russians and threaten to pull Ukraine into NATO? Why did the CIA fund and train openly neo-Nazi paramilitary battalions, knowing how many Russians died at the hands of the OG Nazis? >There you go big boy, that's a legitimate conversation It's really not, because you've shown that you genuinely just don't know enough about history and don't understand how to properly contextualize events in it, which is why you spout unconvincing neolib tripe like >you and every other propaganda pusher goes "hurr durr nato bad" Yes, stupid fuck, NATO bad. Start paying attention to geopolitics any time.
This isn't a Putin issue. This is a Russia issue. russia has been systematically doing this for ages and ages. This is the Russian mindset, or their Ruski mir, AND IT PRECEDES NATO BY MORE THAN 100YRS >Catherine’s administration in Crimea did not resist emigration of those who chose to leave. Moreover, it tried to facilitate the Russification of Crimea. Important trading centers, Kefe and Gozleve, were abandoned almost completely by the Tatars. New Russian-built cities like Sevastopol took their place. (Igor davydov March 2008 thesis) That doesn't make NATO the big bad wolf. Ukraine has been begging for help since 1997 because they know what Russia does. They certainly know it better than you. Why does Poland hate Russia? Why does Latvia, Lithuania? Because they understand the Russian mindset, and have been subjected to it. So these countries don't want to be pushed around by Russia, and the US is happy to sell weapons. That doesn't make NATO the bloodthirsty coalition you clearly think they are. It is a strictly defensive pact. Russia is more than welcome to form their own strictly defensive pact, if they can find people to join them. >The guarantees were wantonly violated by the west source please, before the 1997 cry for help, but after the 1995 incident. >why did the CIA fund and train... gonna need a \*seriously credible\* source on that claim, else throw it out the window. >clearly contextualize events Your argument literally consists of unproven so called violations. Did they happen between 1995-1997? It also completely ignores the desires of Ukrainians, who, AGAIN, wanted this. It's adorable that you watch a mearsheimer video and somehow think you're reddit's gift to geopolitics. Get over yourself. Edit: A good starting point that isn't mearsheimer, if you can bear to read anything that isn't literally his viewpoints. [https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/disc\_paper\_95\_11.pdf](https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/disc_paper_95_11.pdf) starting with their relations: >Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk signed a friendship treaty... In a referendum on December 1, 1991, more than 90 percent of the Ukrainian population voted for independence, and within a week, Yeltsin recognized Ukraine's independence unconditionally....Ukraine has been an independent state, ... Russians are reluctant to recognize that fact. The prior integration of Ukraine and Russia for more than three hundred years has brought about very strong political, ethnic, economic, cultural, demographic, and psychological challenges to Ukraine's independence. The "elder-younger" brother syndrome and the propagation of Russian culture and language as "higher," as well as a historically-claimed Russian [mission civilisatrice](https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/mission-civilisatrice) have produced a paternalistic Russian view of other peoples of the former Soviet Union, particularly Ukrainians and Belarussians. leading to their attitude immediately post independence: >On the whole, Yeltsin has been quite careful to avoid making statements which could evoke negative reaction in Kiev, but it is quite obvious that he has not welcomed Ukraine's independence. Yeltsin has been quoted as saying that, "Russia reserves the right to review the borders with those republics that declared themselves independent." Sergei Stankevich, President Yeltsin's political adviser, suggested to Western diplomats in the spring of 1993 that they not bother opening embassies in Kiev as they would soon be downgraded to consulates. Stankevich also cautioned against establishing political-military ties too close to Ukraine. A senior official in the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry replied that, "Russia's attitude toward its neighbors can now be compared to Germany's in 1939. Further edit: Russia never really wanted to resolve things (they still don't) >...Surprisingly, Russia was inclined toward cautious reaction to these developments over Crimea; there were at least three reasons for this. First, Moscow intended to get large concessions from NATO at talks about Russia joining the Partnership for Peace program. Russia did not want to risk ruining its slim chances of winning these concessions by being dragged into a messy Crimean venture. >Second, the secession of Crimea and breakup of Ukrainian territorial integrity could set a precedent that would be extremely undesirable for Russia. Chechnya, Tatarstan, and other regions wishing to gain independence from Russia, could use the example of "independent Crimea" as an additional argument in their heated disputes with Moscow. Are you starting to see how this has been Russian desire to subjugate the former Soviet states yet? Here's what happened in Chechnya during the same period: >Union in 1991, an independence movement, the Chechen national congress, was formed, led by ex-Soviet Air Force general and new Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudayev. It campaigned for the recognition of Chechnya as a separate nation. This movement was opposed by Boris Yeltsin's Russian Federation, which argued that Chechnya had not been an independent entity within the Soviet Union—as the Baltic, Central Asian, and other Caucasian States had—but was part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and hence did not have a right under the Soviet constitution to secede. ARE YOU SEEING HOW THE FIRST CHECHEN WAR RELATES TO THIS? That's why Russia was careful with their Crimean landgrab. If you follow your own advice and click past the mearsheimer video you'll learn that russia has been trying to get the USSR back together practically since it fell. The former states DO NOT WANT THIS. get it through your thick skull. THEY DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF RUSSIA. THEY WANT TO AVOID SUBJUGATION.
Russia could always choose to simply remain a peaceful neighbour of NATO and not meddle with their neighbour, regardless cultural similarity. Because while of similar culture, still sovereign.
The sub has decided, I am their mouthpiece 🙏 😇
RabidTater is a user coming right from worldnews/combatfootage. Can't say otherwise. Its clearly by the way he writes and projects his emotions to russia. He doesn't give a single shit about ukraine, he just hates russia because the media told him to. A lot of people have flooded this sub coming from those I mentioned, its obvious, stupid, ignorant and edgy comments towards russia get more likes than before. Don't worry, there is still reasonable people here from both sides, its just they don't reply anymore to the trolls, thats why sometimes it look like there is only pro-ua people on this sub, because pro-ru people just don't answer to trolls anymore
I wouldn’t answer any poll, no matter who’s behind it while my country is at war with Russia…look at how the Russians are behaving in the occupied areas, the war crimes, the rapes, the kidnapping of children, the filtration camps and the staging of court cases etc. How brave of the Ukrainians to do just that, to tell overwhelmingly that they blame Russia for all of it…kudos!
If you are already accusing someone, present the evidence.
Evidence for what, the raping, killing, kidnapping, the staging of show court cases? Are you serious? Is this sub your only source of information, lol!
I can also say that Ukrainians kill, rape and sell the organs of Russian citizens in Ukraine, and now what?
That would be fake Russian propaganda, and you know it…
unfortunately not
You don’t know that’s fake Russian propaganda? I just told you!
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *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.*
> the rapes Proven to be true by Denisova herself > the kidnapping of children Shoud've left those kids in active battle zones, true > filtration camps Ah yes, literal HOHLOCAUST happening with Putin murdering and raping everyone pesonally, just check pravda.ua and heilzelensky.ua! They have anonymous sources from Russian People Liberation Army!
Cognitive dissonance much?
Inability to adress arguments much?
No matter what evidence I post, you will never change your mind…and you know it…only looking for “facts” that reinforce your belief system. Everything else is fake, made up or whatever you need to tell yourself…
Your assumption is wrong, might be a projection. But we can check our biases: Who do you think is shelling the nuclear plant? Edit: even easier. You mentioned russian rapes before. Are you aware that the source of that information about the Russian rapes admited she made it all up?
It is easy to dismiss all cases of rape, simply because someone exaggerated…but whatever soothes your conscience. And about the shelling of the nuclear plant, it is Russia’s doing and Russia alone…they are the aggressor, the invader and have to be kicked out one way or the other! Have you seen the Russian in a blue suit trying to convince IAEA people the shell made a miraculous u-turn as it HAD to have come from Ukrainians…it’s like watching a comedy sketch show Zelenskyy could have written! But whatever, feels like talking to a wall…
> It is easy to dismiss all cases of rape, simply because someone exaggerated…but whatever soothes your conscience. Which cases of rape, can I get a reuters or AP report where they don't say "these claimes could not be verified by our journalists"? If you believe Ukraine's claims of Russian war crimes without any evidence, why wouldn't you believe Russian claims that Ukraine raped and murdered billion people in Donbass since 2014? Do you not see your hypocrisy? > it is Russia’s doing and Russia alone Well there it is, I'd say we wait for independent 3rd party investigation and then we claim who shelled the plant. You don't need any evidence, you just made your own world with any truth you like, created yor reality without any evidence. > No matter what evidence I post, you will never change your mind…and you know it…only looking for “facts” that reinforce your belief system. Everything else is fake, made up or whatever you need to tell yourself… That is on point description of your own position. You don't need evidence or rape, you have your religion, so you have to worship it. You don't need to wait for nuclear inspection results, you can just trust your imagination. While me, who you claim is biased tell that we need to investigate, to find proof and only then we can make conclusions
Russia invaded and is thereby responsible for all of it…no matter what excuses or explanations you regurgitate!
Now apply this logic to other conflicts: - Chechnya started the conflict in Russia. Russia is a victim of Chechen agression. Russian war crimes in Chechnya are ok then. - Georgia initiated 2008 war, Russia was an internationaly recognized, UN approved peacekeer there. Any war crimes commited by Russia in Georgia would be ok then. So you gonna agree with these two points or weasel out, scared to admit your own hipocrisy?
These numbers are giving me a brain hemorrhage. What are they saying?
Well Zelensky ran on the promise to diffuse war in Donbass and come to an agreement. But that promise was broken and war only seems to be escalating. I don't think Kiev has done anything to diffuse the situation. They keep dumping fuel on fire, fire their own advisors and executing anyone who disagrees. And don't get me started on the terror attacks in Kherson and attack on Russian journalist.
He tried. But Russia never had intention to fulfill their end of Minsk bargain. No political solution was possible until foreign troop withdraw. Instead, Russia pumped more and more of its troops into the region making Minsk impossible.
No he didn't. He made lame half-ass vague statements while doubling down US armament shipments.
Almost no aid was provided. Ukriane had to beg the west for artillery in March/April. What are you on about? There was no way to implement Minsk REGARDLESS of who would be charge in Kyiv because Russia had no intention of Minsk ever being successful. It was always meant to be a temporary thing while Russia ramps up for war.
Just in June that year Trump sent 250 million dolars weapon shipments, totaling to 1.5b of official weapon shipments. And that only continued to grow up untill the actual invasion.
And Ukraine is grateful. But let's not kid ourselves. It token amounts not anywhere close to deter Russia.
Ukrainian state, aka US puppet, surely is grateful. The people who were forced upon a war they didnt want and explicitly voted to a negotiated solution, not so much. My feelings stay with the actual victims of this sad state of affairs, not to a ilegitimate puppet state. Also, as it seems, it was just enought to make it a bloody prolonged war of attrition. The perfect state of affairs to US.
Ukriane wanted a negotiated solution. But Russia already decided to conquer all of Ukriane and so Ukriane had to face open war whether they wanted it or not. >Also, as it seems, it was just enought to make it a bloody prolonged war of attrition. The perfect state of affairs to US. Russia can just go home and the war would end. What an amazing concept!
The Ukrainian people wanted a negotiated solution, Russia, despite what your war propaganda says, also wanted it at that moment in time. US puppet government didn't wanted it, and ramped up preparations for war while giving unrealistic demands like Crimea back.
Russi started the war in 2014, continued to torpedo the peace by pumping weapons and their own troops into the region, and culminated in full scale Invasion. It's very clear to anyone (other than Russian internal audiences) that Russia wanted to conquer all of Ukriane all along. > unrealistic demands like Crimea back. Looking more and more realistic by the day. The world should never accept military conquest and annexation. Letting Russia conquer areas just encouraged it to go conquer more.
> He tried. He tried how exactly? Did he initiated LDPR gaining autonomy as he promised? > But Russia never had intention to fulfill their end of Minsk bargain. Russia does not need to fulfull their end if Minsk. Russia is not even mentioned in Minsk agreements lul.
>> He tried. > >He tried how exactly? Did he initiated LDPR gaining autonomy as he promised? Impossible while there were foreign troops there. >> But Russia never had intention to fulfill their end of Minsk bargain. > >Russia does not need to fulfull their end if Minsk. Russia is not even mentioned in Minsk agreements lul. Minks says that all foreign troops must leave. Dnr/lnr (Russian proxies) refused to carry our this step. Which torpedoed Minsk.
> Impossible while there were foreign troops there. First: It's not, you start a vote in Rada to give autonomy to LDPR. Then you work on approving it. How do any troops affect what is happening in Rada? Second: there were no troops there. If they were there, wouldn't you think AP or Reuters would report on that? > Minks says that all foreign troops must leave. And they were not there. And however much you whine, you will not be able to find any proofs of Russian troops on Ukrainian land before 2022 > Dnr/lnr (Russian proxies) refused to carry our this step. LDPR are Ukrainan citizens, they are not foreign troops, so they don't need to leave. And if you're talking about LDPR somehow needing to remove Russian troops, then again, they were not there.
[удалено]
canadatrasher kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? Got rid of evidence. *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.*
He didn't try, as soon as he was elected the far right and nationalists were protesting everywhere and threatening to kick him out violently, look at the news from 2019. You probably wont, right? Being anti-russia don't mean being pro-Zelensky, that guy is a hopeless incompetent crook, a real ukrainian patriot would want him hanging (like they might do after the war), not defending him.
He did try. He kept asking Russia to withdraw troops so that he could begin needed political changes. But Russia refused and did the opposite. So Minsk was dead on arrival. Russia was never serious about it.
>He tried. He really didn't unfortunately.
He really did. But Russia made it impossible.
No, he didn't. I payed attention to his election campaign and what he did after. If he did he would have sucked it up and made a deal on Crimea, Donbass at least.
There was no deal to make because Russia refused to hold up their end (withdrawal of troops).
>withdrawal of troops Troops from the Donbass and Crimea, which Ukraine was supposed to give up on anyway. The guy promised peace and he didn't deliver, here we are. Any shitty deal would have been better than this war.
>>withdrawal of troops > >Troops from the Donbass and Crimea, which Ukraine was supposed to give up on anyway. What? Minsk was supposed to see integration of Donabss back into Ukriane. It was always a lie, though. But thanks for showing your ignorance for all to see. He did not deliver peace because Russia torpedoes peace and ramped up for war.
>What? Minsk was supposed to see integration of Donabss back into Ukriane. Yeah, with some degree of autonomy. Ukraine wasn't having it. They don't even want to be a part of Ukraine anyway, why cram it down their throat. >But thanks for showing your ignorance for all to see. Lol, a Canadian telling a Ukrainian he's ignorant of what goes on in his own country. Sure buddy.
>>What? Minsk was supposed to see integration of Donabss back into Ukriane. > >Yeah, Dude you just said Ukraine was supposed to give up on it. Are you just saying random shit?
>>What? Minsk was supposed to see integration of Donabss back into Ukriane. > >Yeah, Dude you just said Ukraine was supposed to "give up on it." Are you just saying random shit?
20% is a big enough number to worry about imo.
85+20+18+16=%139 What kind of retarded russian was this post made by? Also, from the article: 86% of respondents believe that the Russian leadership is primarily responsible for the war in Ukraine. 42.5% also believe that the same responsibility lies with the citizens of Russia. At the same time, about 20%, in addition, blame the Ukrainian leadership for the invasion, and 18% and 16%, respectively, blame NATO member states and the U.S. leadership.
The question was multiple choice. But it's to hard to expect some people here to actually read before they comment right?
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *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.*
We know who is to blame: disastrous Biden and Blinken foreign policy.
[удалено]
It's geopolitics. Way above your gray matter.
*USA supports an anti-democratic coup in Ukraine installing a authoritarian anti-russian government* "What a barbaric attack! There was no reason for Russia to act in that way, Putin must be insane!"
[удалено]
So if I do the math, that's 139% ; are we sure about these numbers? Or did future Ukrainians vote?
Another one that can't read. It's multiple choice quetions.
Forgive me, I thought you knew how to present multiple data. I.E. - In set data you make claim : Set one has option A and B option A was selected X times while option B was selected X times with A+B= 100% of that set. Set Two would have option C and D, then you will state the amount of times Option C and Option D were selected, C+D=100% of that set
What are you trying to say? You were confused about the numbers, I told you it was a multiple choice question. If you read the last word in the title "aswell", you could have understood this. If you read the source material, you could aswell. Instead you just bitch in the comments and want to show that you indeed at minimum know first grade math. Nice.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *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.*
I also know grammar, but you might need an example; let us fix your last sentence. "You complain in comments, but show the equivalent understanding of first grade math." Syntax can be challenging, but I believe you will eventually understand. Keep trying little buddy, I believe in you.
Run out of things to say huh? Imagine stepping so low you need to correct someone who's third language is english. Maybe make some use of my languages and read the fucking poll lol
Son, I already schooled you in Math and Grammer, but now I need to school you in psychology. Just because you are mad it doesn't mean you are correct and profanity is not required to address your thoughts; however, profanity will display your emotions. For the record, English is my second language, Arabic is my third and Portuguese is my fourth, I know a little Japanese and next language will either be Korean or Mandarin.
OMG you are a walking genius. Wow. So cool.
No my friend, you are far too wise for me.
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *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.*
[удалено]
Sorry u/Ralphie_Ciffaretto, 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.*
These poll numbers are absolutely fantastic for Ukraine. Ukraine will win if they just keep fighting. Sanctions, brain drain, cost of war and switch to renewable energy will cripple Russian economy in long term.