Russia invades Ukraine

____no5 said:
I think NATO expansion was a huge mistake and especially US pushed so hard for Ukraine.
The build up started almost immediately after the fall of USSR in 1990s with US backing Chechnya wars. Around that time you have US strategists openly support the balkanisation of Russia. Then NATO expansion, US exit for anti-ballistic treaty, more NATO expansion, Orange Revolution, Ukraine invited, Maidan regime change, Minsk Agreements etc. In retrospect, Russophobia had nothing to do with Communism, or Russia would have received the Poland treatment after USSR; it is a British Empire legacy that goes back to 1850s.
In all, I can understand why Russians freaked out.
Click to expand...

@____no5 - I know you hate it when people take apart your posts and go through it argument by argument. I was considering doing this here, but I thought better of it. I just want to ask you two questions: 1. Does Ukraine really have no agency at all? 2. Why does Ukraine want to join NATO?
Just think about these questions, just please allow yourself to consider the other side.
 
It's just very funny to me that the countries who have spent, in some cases, centuries being oppressed by Russia flocking to a military alliance that protects them from Russia is the military alliance's fault. Like Lithuania should say "oh thank you Mr Russia for the independence, but don't worry, we're gonna stay away from the people who are offering their blood and coin to guarantee their independence"
 
Hey Perun, thanks for being constructive, I appreciate that.
I knew you may come up with something like this. It was in this thread or in a private chat that I showed imperialistic stance and you called it and made me realized that I was wrong. But now is different.
For the first point obviously yes, but not to the point I was making. We are not dragged to a direct war with Russia because we gave weapons. I would argue that not even for "allowing" hitting inside Russia. But the fact that we are targeting those missiles yes. Or that we sending troops or that we intent to use NATO bases to take off our F16s. Or when we openly call for balkanisation of Russia. For all those points I don't see any agency for Ukraine.
For the second question, again it's obvious but my point was that US pushed too hard for that. Ukraine has been used. If you remember Ukraine were close to make a deal with Russians in spring 2022, a pretty good deal that would allowed them to keep their post 2014 territories and we stopped them via Boris Johnson. How many lives have been lost since then? Hundreds of thousands. Are the things any better? Far from that, we are in the brink of WWIII.
 
The Russian offer in 2022 was never seriously considered by Ukraine, because it required Ukraine to not join NATO and the EU. That's not a peace treaty, it's an offer to make Ukraine into Belarus 2.0.
 
I think it did, I saw various people in the know claiming it including Israeli prime minister Bennett, an Ukrainian that participated in those negotiations and UK diplomat Ian Proud.
Plus if it weren't, what would be the need of Boris to stop it?
 
Bennett attempted to negotiate a peace last minute, and failed, with few details offered. The Foreign Minister of Ukraine wrote an op ed refuting the idea of appeasement in 2021, before the invasion: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2021-12-10/dont-sell-out-ukraine
Boris didn't "stop" a peace agreement, I'm not sure where you are getting this. See: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

"Johnson didn’t directly sabotage a ceasefire deal in spring 2022; indeed, there was no deal ready to be signed between Russia and Ukraine. The two sides hadn’t agreed on territorial issues, or on levels of military armaments permitted after the war. Ukraine’s position during the negotiations necessitated security guarantees that western states were hesitant to provide. And there were domestic political questions inside Ukraine related to Russian demands about “denazification” to contend with."

In fact, there's really only one person accusing Boris of sabotaging the peace talks, from which all the other people saying it are drawing their instructions: Vladimir Putin.
 
This is immensely misleading, you even bolded Putin's name, funny. Boris stopping negotiations is all over the place on the internet. Just do a simple search and you'll find plenty of articles.

Here's a direct quote from David Arakhamia, head of Ukraine's delegation: Moreover, when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight.

 
*Regarding the Foreign Affairs article, you got a point, definitely.

But this doesn't cancel Boris role to sabotage the talks which was widely accepted everywhere except Western mainstream media, much before Putin gives that interview to Tucker Carlson. You just need to read behind the lines of what Arakhamia and with a little common sense taking into account he is still active and politically aligned with Zelensky.
Again, if Ukrainians just wanted to "gain some time" as they now claim, why Boris would need to travel and tell them "we aren't sign anything, let's just fight"?

As a side note the Arakhamia interview completely debunks the theory that Russians want to take over Europe, as it shows crystal clear that they wanted desperately to end this conflict fast and without further territorial gains for them.
 
From comments under that 2 min video:
Screenshot_2024-06-16-10-07-53-603.jpeg

Screenshot_2024-06-16-09-58-45-621.jpeg

And most importantly.... This one is from twitter, food for thought, for you all:
Screenshot_2024-06-16-10-09-38-454.jpeg

translation: "The NYT does a great job of working through the Kremlin’s agenda. On time, like clockwork, they dropped the news about the negotiations in Istanbul. Well done, Moscow suckers.
With such “allies” there is no need for enemies."

I don't think that all NYT is pro russia, definitely no, but I certainly agree that pushing this when peace summit is ongoing is a dirty play. Take a note, No5 posted not all interview but only small excerpt.
Regarding Istanbul negotiations, then Ukraine was in much weaker position and it very well may be that they tried to win some time and get the help from the West. And how they could sign new deal with a country which later will disregard it. No5 why do you ignore this fact, that russia is unreliable, just why?
 
Azas said:
"The NYT does a great job of working through the Kremlin’s agenda.
Click to expand...

No one can say these and be taken seriously.

Azas said:
Regarding Istanbul negotiations, then Ukraine was in much weaker position and it very well may be that they tried to win some time and get the help from the West.
Click to expand...

Could be. But what Johnson said and how he said it is not flattering neither for him or Ukraine. It made huge damage and now we are at the brink of a wider war. Why not try then? What anybody had to loose?

Azas said:
And how they could sign new deal with a country which later will disregard it. No5 why do you ignore this fact, that russia is unreliable, just why?
Click to expand...

Why disregard it? What makes you think that they would?
 
____no5 said:
What anybody had to loose?
Click to expand...
Are u serious? Have you heard 'newest' putin proposal? He wants all invaded territories, Ukraine's non NATO status and sanctions over russia to be lifted. It's beyound laughable. In fact, that would be Ukraine's capitulation. And a loss for worldwide security situation. Putin is not in such power position to demand such conditions.
 
That is also untrue. He was asking for the two Donbas fake states to be recognized, as well as international recognition of the annexation of the Crimea.

I, personally, think the Crimea will likely be confirmed by any peace deal, but there's no way that Ukraine was going to agree to the loss of the Donbas in 2022.
 
To No5.
No. His demands were almost exactly as of today. In fact, russian army was near Kyiv, when those negotiations in Istanbul were organised. So, please, tell no lies. Back then putin spoke solely in ultimatum language.
Crimea is Ukraine.
 
LooseCannon said:
That is also untrue. He was asking for the two Donbas fake states to be recognized, as well as international recognition of the annexation of the Crimea.

I, personally, think the Crimea will likely be confirmed by any peace deal, but there's no way that Ukraine was going to agree to the loss of the Donbas in 2022.
Click to expand...
For the limited understanding I have of the full situation, this is mostly my take as well. Crimea was "annexed" in 2014. A full 8 years prior to the Russia Ukraine war. I kinda feel that Crimea ever being recognized as Ukrainian territory is a ship that has already sailed. Ukraine is already in a position where they are very slowly losing a war of attrition and only doing as well as they are with the military backing of other NATO countries. Ukraine would never agree to just hand over any land lost since the war started in 2022, but I think they'd agree to have Crimea recognized as belonging to Russia at this point.

And again, my knowledge on the full situation is limited and I fully acknowledge that my opinion is probably coming from a place of ignorance.
 
LooseCannon said:
That is also untrue. He was asking for the two Donbas fake states to be recognized, as well as international recognition of the annexation of the Crimea.
Click to expand...

For Crimea I mentioned it in a post above. For Donbas states he didn’t ask to annex them just to be independent which holds some ground and logic as the states were in civil war with Ukraine for 8 years anyway.

LooseCannon said:
I, personally, think the Crimea will likely be confirmed by any peace deal, but there's no way that Ukraine was going to agree to the loss of the Donbas in 2022.
Click to expand...

Considering that big parts of Donbas are heavily Russian, there could be some middle ground I’m sure, this is the meaning of negotiations.
But they didn’t try. West wouldn’t let that happen. That’s why Boris flew to Kyiv, to make sure it wouldn’t.
US strategists seeking to extend Russia for decades and US Administration in 2021 was the perfect recipe for disaster. They thought sanctions + unprecedented military aid would work.
It didn’t. Now it’s time for NATO boots on the ground. Many of them.

I don’t think it was worthy to reach to that point for the sake of Ukraine being a NATO country or not.
But of course it was never about Ukraine anyway.
 
Time after time, the West is proved being wrong for fearing russia. Situation around Kharkiv is a prime example. As soon as Ukraine was given permission to attack russia, situation in Kharkiv stabilised big time.
Screenshot_2024-06-21-19-31-39-143.jpeg
 
I stopped listening to this bullshit when he said that USA teamed up to overthrow Janukovych. to me this man is clearly putin appeaser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top