Ukraine war: Russia says 'liberation' of Donbas its key priority

[candide]

4 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

No it isn't. Not in any meaningful cultural and historic sense. That's what this is all about. Ukraine's current borders have come about only by historic happenstance. People made them, people can break them. Again, you need to understand the history. Take the major city of Lviv. A century ago it was called Lemberg and capital of the kingdom of Galicia (part of the Austro-Hungarian empire). Before that it was Polish-Lithuanian. Historically, there's nothing uniquely Ukrainian about it. Things have settled down a bit after two world wars and the collapse of the Soviet empire, but the whole region is still not in a 'finished' state.

 

Seems you want the status quo to apply for all eternity, presumably for the sake of world peace - but again, the situation has never been peaceful - Donbas has always wanted autonomy and for some time there's been civil war. For the sake of world peace, it needs sorting out. It takes force sometimes when nationalism gets out of control - as Europeans all know. Hopefully Russia will help achieve that soon.

 

 

The Donbass used to have a majority of Ukrainian inhabitants (plus Don Cosacks who have been more or less exterminated or deported by Stalin). The current majority of Russian speaking inhabitants is the outcome of a policy of russification by the Soviet Union. It means that by recognising the right of Russian speaking people to be independent from Ukraine, you legitimate the prior russification. If russification was legitimate, it means that other xxxxxxxations are also legitimate, and that would include Ukrainisation as well. As Bild766 commented, It's not as simple as you present it.

 

Having said that, I agree that the Donbass issue has not been well managed by the successive  Ukrainian governments. Do that justify the Russian invasion and massacre? Certainly not.

Edited June 1, 2022 by candide

[Mr Derek]

50 minutes ago, billd766 said:

It is not quite as simple as you make it out to be,

 

Except that I'm not the one saying it's simple. I'm the one pointing out that the historical complexity still needs to be resolved. It's the people who think that the current snapshot of Ukraine's arbitrary borders should stand for all eternity - simply because that's what the latest atlas says - who are being simplistic. Those are the people who say 'Putin is Hitler' or think that the Russians actually want to conquer all of Ukraine and then start on the Baltic States and Finland. The paucity of understanding is breathtaking.

[Mr Derek]

17 minutes ago, candide said:

The Donbass used to have a majority of Ukrainian inhabitants (plus Don Cosacks who have been more or less exterminated by Stalin). The current majority of Russian speaking inhabitants is the outcome of a policy of russification by the Soviet Union. It means that by recognising the right of Russian speaking people to be independent from Ukraine, you legitimate the prior russification. If russification was legitimate, it means that other xxxxxxxations are also legitimate, and that would include Ukrainisation as well. As Bild766 commented, It's not as simple as you present it.

 

Having said that, I agree that the Donbass issue has not been well managed by the successive  Ukrainian governments. Do that justify the Russian invasion and massacre? Certainly not.

The invasion didn't need to involve a massacre. That has come about because of the west's unreasoning support for Ukraine which has encouraged/forced them to put up a fight. The west is actually escalating this conflict now by supplying weapons. Make no mistake, this is the west's proxy war against Russia, and the poor Ukrainians are getting thrown to the wolves on that account.

 

As to the history again, go back only a few hundred years and there's no Ukrainians at all in the 'wild fields'. I have read that Ukrainians mainly came to form the peasantry in the eastern regions, and the industry of the Donbas, which defines the place, was developed by the Russians and other immigrants. And as the Russians currently form a cultural majority across the region, and as Ukraine only has this territory because it was handed to them by Moscow a few decades ago (for obscure reasons), I would say that gives the Russians a far better moral and practical right to the land.

 

The situation needs sorting out. What do you propose? The Russians in Donbas swallow their pride? You surely know that no one ever swallows their pride when it comes to land.

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Mr Derek

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

Except that I'm not the one saying it's simple. I'm the one pointing out that the historical complexity still needs to be resolved. It's the people who think that the current snapshot of Ukraine's arbitrary borders should stand for all eternity - simply because that's what the latest atlas says - who are being simplistic. Those are the people who say 'Putin is Hitler' or think that the Russians actually want to conquer all of Ukraine and then start on the Baltic States and Finland. The paucity of understanding is breathtaking.

I get it. Russia sent troops advancing towards Kiev but had no actual intention of occupying the city and installing a Russia-friendly government. It was just a badly misunderstood holiday outing.

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

The invasion didn't need to involve a massacre. That has come about because of the west's unreasoning support for Ukraine which has encouraged/forced them to put up a fight. The west is actually escalating this conflict now by supplying weapons. Make no mistake, this is the west's proxy war against Russia, and the poor Ukrainians are getting thrown to the wolves on that account.

 

As to the history again, go back only a few hundred years and there's no Ukrainians at all in the 'wild fields'. I have read that Ukrainians mainly came to form the peasantry in the eastern regions, and the industry of the Donbas, which defines the place, was developed by the Russians and other immigrants. And as the Russians currently form a cultural majority across the region, and as Ukraine only has this territory because it was handed to them by Moscow a few decades ago (for obscure reasons), I would say that gives the Russians a far better moral and practical right to the land.

 

The situation needs sorting out. What do you propose? The Russians in Donbas swallow their pride? You surely know that no one ever swallows their pride when it comes to land.

 

 

 

Just because someone is an ethnic Russian that doesn't mean that they desire to be part of Russia. And Donbas was not handed over to Ukraine a few decades ago. It's been part of Ukraine for 100  years. As for your crocodile tears shed for the "poor Ukrainians", maybe you should reserve them for the Russian troops forced to fight this battle. Their morale is low. That's hardly the case on the Ukrainian side of the conflict.

[candide]

33 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

The invasion didn't need to involve a massacre. That has come about because of the west's unreasoning support for Ukraine which has encouraged/forced them to put up a fight. The west is actually escalating this conflict now by supplying weapons. Make no mistake, this is the west's proxy war against Russia, and the poor Ukrainians are getting thrown to the wolves on that account.

 

As to the history again, go back only a few hundred years and there's no Ukrainians at all in the 'wild fields'. I have read that Ukrainians mainly came to form the peasantry in the eastern regions, and the industry of the Donbas, which defines the place, was developed by the Russians and other immigrants. And as the Russians currently form a cultural majority across the region, and as Ukraine only has this territory because it was handed to them by Moscow a few decades ago (for obscure reasons), I would say that gives the Russians a far better moral and practical right to the land.

 

The situation needs sorting out. What do you propose? The Russians in Donbas swallow their pride? You surely know that no one ever swallows their pride when it comes to land.

 

 

 

Par. 1: following this line of thought, Russia did support the rebels in Donbass in 2014 which resulted in a deadly war followed by a state of quasi-war.. Had Russia not intervened in another country's internal affairs by supporting and arming the rebellion in 2014 (as well as by sending army members and mercenaries), there would have been peace in this region to start with. 

 

Par. 2:

- There is no "mysterious reason" why Donbass was attached to Ukraine, it was because the highest share of the population was Ukrainian. "Along with other territories inhabited by Ukrainians, the Donbas was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War." 

- It's not only a question of Russian origin. There has been a policy of Russification of Donbass. . "Russification was further advanced by the 1958–59 Soviet educational reforms, which led to the near elimination of all Ukrainian-language schooling in the Donbas".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donbas

Edited June 1, 2022 by candide

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Mr Derek said:

Except that I'm not the one saying it's simple. I'm the one pointing out that the historical complexity still needs to be resolved. It's the people who think that the current snapshot of Ukraine's arbitrary borders should stand for all eternity - simply because that's what the latest atlas says - who are being simplistic. Those are the people who say 'Putin is Hitler' or think that the Russians actually want to conquer all of Ukraine and then start on the Baltic States and Finland. The paucity of understanding is breathtaking.

This gives the lie to your contention that Russians didn't want to conquer all of Ukraine:

"Former Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) officer Igor Girkin (also known as Strelkov) condemned Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statements about the priority of the “special operation” in Ukraine being the liberation of the Donbas.[3] Girkin claimed that the Kremlin has forgone the ideological underpinnings of the conflict by focusing the conflict on the Donbas, rather than the entirety of Ukraine. Girkin complained that Kremlin officials are no longer questioning the legitimacy of the existence of Ukraine and that the concepts of “denazification” and “demilitarization” have been forgotten."

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-30

 

It seems you've forgotten them, too.

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

No it isn't. Not in any meaningful cultural and historic sense. That's what this is all about. Ukraine's current borders have come about only by historic happenstance. People made them, people can break them. Again, you need to understand the history. Take the major city of Lviv. A century ago it was called Lemberg and capital of the kingdom of Galicia (part of the Austro-Hungarian empire). Before that it was Polish-Lithuanian. Historically, there's nothing uniquely Ukrainian about it. Things have settled down a bit after two world wars and the collapse of the Soviet empire, but the whole region is still not in a 'finished' state.

 

Seems you want the status quo to apply for all eternity, presumably for the sake of world peace - but again, the situation has never been peaceful - Donbas has always wanted autonomy and for some time there's been civil war. For the sake of world peace, it needs sorting out. It takes force sometimes when nationalism gets out of control - as Europeans all know. Hopefully Russia will help achieve that soon.

"Ukraine's current borders have come about only by historic happenstance. People made them, people can break them."

 

How many countries can you name for which that is not true?  Certainly not Russia, Manchuria is not a "natural" Russian region.  The situation was worse for the Soviet Union, which Putin seems intent to re-create.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

Except that I'm not the one saying it's simple. I'm the one pointing out that the historical complexity still needs to be resolved. It's the people who think that the current snapshot of Ukraine's arbitrary borders should stand for all eternity - simply because that's what the latest atlas says - who are being simplistic. Those are the people who say 'Putin is Hitler' or think that the Russians actually want to conquer all of Ukraine and then start on the Baltic States and Finland. The paucity of understanding is breathtaking.

Gee, why would people think Putin wants to capture all of Ukraine?  Was it the suicidal attempt to encircle and capture Kyiv?  Or maybe the ongoing attempt to capture all of southern Ukraine, making it a landlocked fraction of a country?

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

The invasion didn't need to involve a massacre. That has come about because of the west's unreasoning support for Ukraine which has encouraged/forced them to put up a fight. The west is actually escalating this conflict now by supplying weapons. Make no mistake, this is the west's proxy war against Russia, and the poor Ukrainians are getting thrown to the wolves on that account.

 

As to the history again, go back only a few hundred years and there's no Ukrainians at all in the 'wild fields'. I have read that Ukrainians mainly came to form the peasantry in the eastern regions, and the industry of the Donbas, which defines the place, was developed by the Russians and other immigrants. And as the Russians currently form a cultural majority across the region, and as Ukraine only has this territory because it was handed to them by Moscow a few decades ago (for obscure reasons), I would say that gives the Russians a far better moral and practical right to the land.

 

The situation needs sorting out. What do you propose? The Russians in Donbas swallow their pride? You surely know that no one ever swallows their pride when it comes to land.

Russia isn't sorting.  It invaded, leveled cities, depopulated captured areas by deportation and murder, etc.

 

Ukraine isn't being "encouraged/forced" to fight.  Ukraine is willingly fighting for survival.

[Bkk Brian]

39 minutes ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

Professor John Mearsheimer explains the Ukraine situation.

 

You should research a little better on your sources:

 

John Mearsheimer and the dark origins of realism

Rage aimed at the eminent international relations scholar reflects liberal frustration over the West's limited power to prevent Russia's war in Ukraine.

 

41 minutes ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

Colonel McGreggor with an upate on what is happening in Ukraine

 

What 'Putin Wing' Ex-Colonel Douglas Macgregor Has Said About Ukraine War

 

Macgregor has confidently predicted that the conflict will end with Russia "annihilating" Ukrainian forces and winning the war. One such interview, with Carlson, was aired on Russia's state-controlled TV.

Macgregor also said that Russian forces were "too gentle" in the early stages of the Ukraine invasion, and referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a "puppet."

[Scott]

Unapproved video reported and removed.

 

[Bkk Brian]

18 minutes ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

Many people were caught off guard by the timing of the war. A lot of people thought it wouldn't take place until later. On the outside of the Russian military, we also don't know what their operational objectives were, or are. So we are all left guessing. Some people say that Russians pulled back from Kiev because it was a feint to decoy Ukranians away from the east, others say it came at a time when it looked like negotiations could work out in Turkey.

 

I prefer Macgreggor to the liars who said that Ukraine could defeat Russia, at the cost of a lot of lives.

 

Obviously the Russians are going to use whatever material works for them, true or false. They have been mostly accurate. Western media only tells the truth when a lie won't fit.

 

Zelinski is an actor. He was funded by Ihor Kolomoyskyi (another one of them) , a billionaire, who had so much to do with Euromaiden. Zelinski appeared in a TV show where he played an actor who became the President of Ukraine.

 

The Panama papers revealed that Zelinski has tens of millions, perhaps hundred of millions, of dollars. Quite amazing when the salary of the President is less than $12k.

 

Zelinski is a puppet.

 

I'm not going to ignore sources because of gaslighting or tone policing.

Like I said, research more other than fox news and the like:

 

FAIL: .............................Putin: ‘I can take Kyiv in two weeks if I want’

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

Many people were caught off guard by the timing of the war. A lot of people thought it wouldn't take place until later. On the outside of the Russian military, we also don't know what their operational objectives were, or are. So we are all left guessing. Some people say that Russians pulled back from Kiev because it was a feint to decoy Ukranians away from the east, others say it came at a time when it looked like negotiations could work out in Turkey.

 

I prefer Macgreggor to the liars who said that Ukraine could defeat Russia, at the cost of a lot of lives.

 

Obviously the Russians are going to use whatever material works for them, true or false. They have been mostly accurate. Western media only tells the truth when a lie won't fit.

 

Zelinski is an actor. He was funded by Ihor Kolomoyskyi (another one of them) , a billionaire, who had so much to do with Euromaiden. Zelinski appeared in a TV show where he played an actor who became the President of Ukraine.

 

The Panama papers revealed that Zelinski has tens of millions, perhaps hundred of millions, of dollars. Quite amazing when the salary of the President is less than $12k.

 

Zelinski is a puppet.

 

I'm not going to ignore sources because of gaslighting or tone policing.

"I'm not going to ignore sources because of gaslighting or tone policing."

 

So we should just trust you because nobody lies on the internet.  ????

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

Ukraine could have avoided invasion is many ways. If Zelinski hadn't spoken about joining NATO and rearming with nukes.

 

You only need to go to the "early life" section of the wiki of the last three Presidents of Ukraine, 80% of the cabinet, half of all election candidates to see that the government isn't representative of Ukranians.

 

Mikheil Saakashvili was the President of Georgia when they were making trouble with Russia in the short war. He left Georgia and became Mayor of Odessa. What? These people arrange the looting of countries between themselves. They have no loyalty to the people of a country.

 

It was Victoria Nuland who got caught on tape arranging the 2014 coup in Ukraine. She is another one of gang of international criminals.

 

What a coincidence! How representative of the Ukranian people!

 

Western politicians and military planners knew that Ukraine would lose the war from the start. Ukraine would have gotten a better deal by (1) not provoking Russia (2) giving up immediately.

 

Professor John Mearsheimer explains the Ukraine situation.

 

 

Colonel McGreggor with an upate on what is happening in Ukraine

 

 

 

"These people arrange the looting of countries between themselves. They have no loyalty to the people of a country."

 

That's certainly how Ukraine operated when it was being run by Russia backed oligarchs.  Breaking free from that kind of system takes a lot of time and effort.

 

 

"It was Victoria Nuland who got caught on tape arranging the 2014 coup in Ukraine."

 

Total BS.  There was an illegally recorded phone conversation between two State Department officials discussing the players in the 2014 protests and who was the best candidate for US support.  A normal internal discussions of an international situation.  Calling it a coup is ridiculous.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

The Panama papers revealed that Zelinski has tens of millions, perhaps hundred of millions, of dollars. Quite amazing when the salary of the President is less than $12k.

 

Zelinski is a puppet.

Zelensky was legitimately wealthy before he became President. Or is it only convenient to invoke his show business history to denigrate him? And where does the "perhaps hundreds of millions" come from? You got any evidence for that?

Next the Russians will be telling us that this Jewish President is a Nazi and you'll believe it....oh wait a minute...

Edited June 2, 2022 by placeholder

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

 Some people say that Russians pulled back from Kiev because it was a feint to decoy Ukranians away from the east, others say it came at a time when it looked like negotiations could work out in Turkey.

When you read the words "some people say", and no names are given, you can be pretty sure that fraud is about to be perpetuated. You are really going to seriously contend that Russia lost a huge number materiel and men, just to do a feint? Do you have any idea of how ridiculous such a claim is? This is like tempting someone into a fight by promising to use only one arm but instead of tying it back you cut it off. 

And I guess Putin's firing of the generals in charge of the Kiev "feint" was another feint?

[Mr Derek]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Russia isn't sorting.  It invaded, leveled cities, depopulated captured areas by deportation and murder, etc.

 

Ukraine isn't being "encouraged/forced" to fight.  Ukraine is willingly fighting for survival.

The so-called 'defenders' in Mariupol would have certainly been told by Ukraine, upon pressure by the west, to put up a 'heroic resistance' for a long time in order to garner worldwide sympathy and support, when it would have been far more humane and sensible for them to surrender earlier.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Mr Derek

[Mr Derek]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Gee, why would people think Putin wants to capture all of Ukraine?  Was it the suicidal attempt to encircle and capture Kyiv?  Or maybe the ongoing attempt to capture all of southern Ukraine, making it a landlocked fraction of a country?

Nothing suicidal or even misguided about the move on Kiev. After Russia's early sweep into Ukraine and the destruction of much of Ukraine's military infrastructure, it was quite possible that the Ukrainian army would have crumbled, just like the Afghans did with the Taliban. The push on Kiev would have been tentative, just in case that happened, in which case the invasion would have ended much earlier. Hoorah! Finding it wasn't possible - mainly because of the support Ukraine was receiving from the west - Russia pulled away. It was worth trying.

 

As to the occupied south, I'm guessing that much of that will probably be returned eventually. The Russians don't need it (except maybe Mariupol, as retribution for the Azov Regiment which was based there). They will use it as a bargaining chip to get Ukraine to accept independence of Donbass which has always been their primary objective (just as Israel used Sinai as a bargaining chip to get Egypt to recognise its statehood). Whatever the Russians have done in their former Republics (as in the Caucasus) they have done exactly what they said they would do and nothing more.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Mr Derek

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

The so-called 'defenders' in Mariupol would have certainly been told by Ukraine, upon pressure by the west, to put up a 'heroic resistance' for a long time in order to garner worldwide sympathy and support, when it would have been far more humane and sensible for them to surrender earlier.

By the same token, if all the Russian military in Ukraine would surrender, the war would be over and the killing stop.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

Nothing suicidal or even misguided about the move on Kiev. After Russia's early sweep into Ukraine and the destruction of much of Ukraine's military infrastructure, it was quite possible that the Ukrainian army would have crumbled, just like the Afghans did with the Taliban. The push on Kiev would have been tentative, just in case that happened, in which case the invasion would have ended much earlier. Hoorah! Finding it wasn't possible - mainly because of the support Ukraine was receiving from the west - Russia pulled away. It was worth trying.

 

As to the occupied south, I'm guessing that much of that will probably be returned eventually. The Russians don't need it (except maybe Mariupol, as retribution for the Azov Regiment which was based there). They will use it as a bargaining chip to get Ukraine to accept independence of Donbass which has always been their primary objective (just as Israel used Sinai as a bargaining chip to get Egypt to recognise its statehood). Whatever the Russians have done in their former Republics (as in the Caucasus) they have done exactly what they said they would do and nothing more.

Do you actually believe all the Russian propaganda, or are you being paid to promote it?

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

 

Zelinski was identified as a crook in the Panama papers

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zelensky was not identified as a crook. It may be sleazy what he did with the money he earned from his very successful career as a comedian, an actor and an owner of a production company. But no evidence to suggest that he stole state funds.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

 

Western countries banned Russia Today, and hordes of contrarians have been banned from social media. Because what we are being told in our media can't stand scrutiny. We have observed that our media and governments lie about everything.

 

The Ukrainian army is crumbling. Our analysts and media told us they were going to beat Russia, and on that basis more Ukrainians were thrown into the meat grinder, when a peace deal would have served them better.

 

 

Peace deal with Putin who is on record denying the very existence of Ukraine with any borders? Not possible. 

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

 

Western countries banned Russia Today, and hordes of contrarians have been banned from social media. Because what we are being told in our media can't stand scrutiny. We have observed that our media and governments lie about everything.

 

The Ukrainian army is crumbling. Our analysts and media told us they were going to beat Russia, and on that basis more Ukrainians were thrown into the meat grinder, when a peace deal would have served them better.

 

 

What are you talking about, the Russian state and Putin have banned all independent media and also banned western media all the way to actually blocking them on the internet. No Western Country has done that. The broadcasting activities of RT have indeed by stopped in just a few countries and quite rightly so but the website is freely accessible as is every other media site.

 

Where did you get the information that the Ukraine army is crumbling?

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

Ukraine is a very corrupt country. Zelinski was a front for a billionaire who put him a TV series where he played a normal guy who became the President of Ukraine on an anti-corruption platform.

Yet its not as corrupt as Russia is it. Your arguments are nonsense

[CharlieH]

Reported Video and post removed.

 

Please ensure anything you post is in English or has English subtitles so it can be easily understood.

 

[Smoothsailing1]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yet its not as corrupt as Russia is it. Your arguments are nonsense

It makes perfect sense not to back corrupt regimes, regardless of whether there are other corrupt regimes in existence.

 

 

[placeholder]

I know that's what Russia wants neo-nazi to mean. But on what rational basis does being neo-Nazi equate to being anti-Russian.? Who gave Russia the authority to drastically change the meaning of words? And if neo-Nazi does mean anti-Russian, then by that understanding, it should no longer have any relation to the Nazi party of Germany or its ideology.

 And exactly what percentage of the Ukrainian armed forces consists of the Azov battalion? It's vanishingly small.

The Azov battalion began as the military arm of a fascist political party in Ukraine. In the last election that party gott got about 2 percent of the vote. And in wartime, as the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Azov battalion may be repugnant but they are excellent soldiers.. What's more, their goal, once they defeated the insurrectionists in Donbas, was to overthrow the Ukrainian govt. So not really strong allies of the current govt. And of course, in WW2, America's most important ally in the fight against the Nazis was Russia. As you may recall, Stalin had 3 million Ukrainians starve to death. And that was only a fraction of the atrocities he committed. So does that mean fighting against Nazi Germany was a bad thing?

And by the way, the Pew Institute did a survey of anti-Semitic sentiment in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. You know which nation had the lowest percentage of anti-Semitic sentiment? Ukraine. Those people are really incompetent at being Nazis.

And you claimed that Israel supported the Azov regiment. Actually it was the billionaire, Kolomoisky. Just because he's an Israeli citizen, does that mean Israel was responsible for this? Seems like you're treading pretty close to, if not crossing the line into, anti-Semitic territory. What makes your slur particularly suspect, is the Israel has held itself aloof from the conflict. It has its own local reasons for not wanting to antagonize Russia. And it's gotten a lot of flak for that.

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

Stealing state funds himself is just a straw-man argument you are throwing out as a distraction.

 

Ukraine is a very corrupt country. Zelinski was a front for a billionaire who put him a TV series where he played a normal guy who became the President of Ukraine on an anti-corruption platform.

 

That was a psychological operation. Once Zelinski got into power we saw that he is just another crook, an actor playing the part of a savior of the people.

 

The people in control of Ukraine are not representative of Ukrainians. They are an international criminal cabal.

 

I just looked up the current Mayor of Odessa.

 

 

Sure, these people are fighting for Democracy, freedom, and liberty...

 

No, they're not fighting for freedom. Ordinary Ukrainian citizens are. And they've already forced the Russian army to abandon one arena. 

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, Smoothsailing1 said:

 

 

I can only post something here if it gets reported in the New York Times, the Guardian, etc. Videos of Ukrainian troops saying they have been abandoned by Kiev would get deleted, videos of Ukrainian troops making a run for it from Donbass would get deleted unless they are from approved sources.

 

You can take a look at how the tone of reporting has changed in the west to see what is about to happen.

 

[url=https://ibb.co/pzcZqt8][img]https://i.ibb.co/yyt52w1/FT827wx-Xo-AE5ba-D.jpg[/img][/url]

 

https://ibb.co/pzcZqt8

 

If Zelinski hadn't said that Ukraine was going to join NATO and rearm with nukes there wouldn't have been a war in the first place.

 

Russia is going to impose a peace deal and your sadness won't make any difference to that outcome. Russia is going to take a large chunk of Ukraine and force the rest to remain neutral, disarmed, and out of NATO. People died for nothing.

Moscow can be lovely in the spring time.

 

Putin's war of choice continues.

 

Battles are not wars.

 

It may last for years 

 

Nobody knows the outcome.