Do you think Russia has the right to invade Ukraine or do you think they are defending their people (ukrainians), which are taken for a hostages and been used by third party (USA?)?
I don't want to take sides, but I think this should have been avoided by both sides by doing the necessary compromises.
For me - the war must be avoided at all costs, so my answer to the poll is no.
Definitely agree with you, the war must be avoided at all costs. I personally am not that into reading news, due to wars and for the most part the wrong information being put out there.
Interestingly enough, Putin's opinion on Ukraine is that it belongs to Russia.
Here's some context. I left a link too if anyone is interested for further reading.
The two countries’ shared heritage goes back more than a thousand years to a time when Kyiv, now Ukraine’s capital, was at the center of the first Slavic state, Kyivan Rus, the birthplace of both Ukraine and Russia. In A.D. 988 Vladimir I, the pagan prince of Novgorod and grand prince of Kyiv, accepted the Orthodox Christian faith and was baptized in the Crimean city of Chersonesus. From that moment on, Russian leader Vladimir Putin recently declared, “Russians and Ukrainians are one people, a single whole.”
Even thought Russia has no right to invade Ukraine, the coin has two faces - I think NATO doesn't have right to expand itself so much and so close to the border of Russia either.
So I guess attack is the best defense - they surrounded Russia 'defending' itself. NATO are pushing and pressing them being so close and getting closer and closer over time. I don't think there is a noble reasoning behind that - it's all about economic, strategic interests, positions and gains. What Putin is doing is not right by all means, but NATO is not a peace organization either.
I think some countries are being “invited“ to join NATO and the corrupted politicians accept the invitation without the need of an armed force. “I'll make them an offer they can't refuse.”
NATO constitutes a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.
How does Ukraines goverment being overthrown fall into that?
It's not acceptable to invade other countries an an attempt to bring them into alignment or for strategic interests. It wasn't acceptable when war criminals Bush and Blair invaded Iraq, despite its awful leader Saddam Hussein. It wasn't acceptable to invade Afghanistan, despite the atrocious Taliban. Neither of these invasions have had a good outcome. And now Putin joins the ranks of Blair and Bush as international war criminal. It's an ugly club to be in. These guys are megalomaniacs who have very little concern about killing people to secure power for themselves.
I think that the military operation of our army is justified by the multiple factors. One of them is NATO expansion, but the real reason which created this situation is a coup d'etat which led to neo-nazi forces gaining power in Ukraine. This action led to oppression of Russian minorities, therefore Crimea and Donbass had to ask Russia for defense, because a lot of Russians living there. Crimea left the country, but Donbass wasn't lucky in this regard. The illegitimate government started a non-ending conflict which led to more than 13 000 deaths since 2014.
I see that a lot of people are misinformed on this subject. They imagine the current operation as a massacre with massive civilian killings, when in reality it is nothing but an attempt to get rid of war criminals and destroy military infrastructure and lethal weapons supplied by US, Canada, Turkey, etc, in order to deescalate the tensions, especially in Donbass region.
Russia tried to avoid the conflict the whole time since 2014, but the Ukrainian side ignored the efforts, the Minsk agreements, so there was no choice left, especially after Zelenskiy's announcement to join NATO and develop nuclear weapons, the growing military activity at DPR, LPR borders. The question is: would you try to negotiate with terrorists, ISIS for example? Should one really choose shame over war because someone said so and then get both shame and war?
I wonder how the first statement corresponds with second. The second was taken out of context. In fact, Putin meant that our nations have so much in common we shouldn't fight with each other.
It doesn't fall under definition of NATO, yes. As much as NATO bombings of Yugoslavia.
I'm russian and it's a shame.
You may not know, but in Russia people get arrested for attempt to protest war in Ukaraine. In fact you get arrested for any opinion here. They'd better rename this counrty into GULAG. This is prison, not country. But the worst thing is most people likes it and supports it.
I remove that embarassing flag from my profile.
I hope to see you again, but i'm not sure they won't block the internet here.
Keep safe. Peace.
Russia acknowledged Ukraine in its borders as independent state, and these claims by Putin are lawless. To justify it by ownership back in history is absurd, since every piece of land in Europe has been in many states even over the last 2 centuries, and anyone could claim anything.
In reality, these are mere excuses, the real reason is post-imperial resentment. In 1989 the USSR, broadly speaking, lost the Cold war, and in new year 1992 collapsed. That event is what many want to take revenge for.
But it wasn't always like that. I remember late 80s, when most of the common people were fed up with the communist party and excited of possible friendship with the West. I remember common people, who weren't political dissidents at all, bemoan the regime all the time in 1988 and later. (Here's a good book with the study what people felt, based on diaries.) Only a few very ideologized people tried to defend the Soviet Union. Even the secret services did nothing. People were tired of communists and waited something new to happen.
Then came the crisis of the 1990s. I remember January 1st of 1992 when the prices in our city shops doubled, and then they doubled again 2 months later. Inflation in 1992 alone was 25x. Then many state enterprises and research institutes laid off personell, in some places there wasn't any cash to pay the wages for months. The crisis magnitude was -40% GDP/cap, and was a cold shower. I guess this is when many started feeling resentful, and the final turning point was the war in Yugoslavia in 1999. It made many turn around in their opinions. Those who had bemoaned the USSR, started to think it was a good country destroyed by some conspiracy. The ruling elites seem to share this resentment fully.
If stopping NATO were a goal (though our military generals who dare to speak, don't think it's a real threat), then Putin failed.
In early 2000s, state media would mention every once in a while an unfriendly symbolic move from Eastern Europe - a painted monument, a removed monument, an anti-Russian protest, and so on. Our state responded offencively, and things went in a downward spiral over the 20 years.
When you're told that "ours" are attacked somewhere "there", it's easy to take "ours" side. Maybe it was LFS that made me friends with a guy from Ukraine. We tested mods in 2004 and discovered that you could make bike (though we didn't change the XFG body). The guy made a video with a rock song about a scary biker, in Ukranian, from which I followed to listen to songs, read their media. Maybe this made me look at them from a different angle.
Another personal story: in 2003 I got the first bank card in my life. There was only one bank I knew that made them rather cheaply, and it took an hour by bus and subway, and a long walk in -15°C to get there, but I wanted an S1 licence that it didn't matter. And still there were some issues with payments, because there were few real buyers from Russia, and lots of fraudsters, and I hoped we'd become a friendlier and more opened country. Seems that in the coming years this process will go backwards. What a shame.
Thanks for the discussions and historical context.
We, the people, need to make sure we remain friends, because our 'leaders' are doing a terrible job!
We have so many terrible environmental crises ongoing and need to adjust our ways of life and the things we aim for, but in so many countries we install the very worst kind of people as our 'leaders' - people whose main interest is money and power.
Putin, Bush, Blair, Johnson, Bolsonaro, Morrison, Erdogan, Trump. What a bunch of standout fools. All they can do is take a situation and make it worse. The EU leadership isn't much better, their environmental care is a joke and is far down the list compared with money making.
That's truly amazing how you accuse people of not being educated and in the very same post you make it painfully clear that you are completely clueless to what's going on. Unfortunately, understanding the whole conflict will take a lot more effort than googling a few definitions.
Please be aware that Putin is a dictator that supresses it's own people, kills critics and his war efforts have already resulted in enough loss of life. Not to mention the billions he stole of the russian people to line his own pockets.
He is just upset that installing a pro russian government in ukraine failed and he can't control and supress them like he does with his own people.
The reason ukraine wanted to join NATO is because it gives them a chance at peace and tranquility for their people, something they desperately need. All russia is offering is a corrupt, greedy, powerhungry gimp that completely lost the plot now.
I do applaud the thousands of russians that went protesting despite a lot of them ending up locked up.
You are trying to play the "you're bad so they're not" card. It doesn't work like that. I'm not a supporter of Putin, but in that exact case he is not wrong. It has nothing to do with Putin ambitions, but with safety of our country and Donbass, with overthrow of neonazi supportive government. I think that this military operation would occur even if someone else was in power, it was just a matter of when and how that happens.
Saying that Ukrainian government wants peace and tranquility is a bad joke. They definitely wanted it when they ignored Minsk agreements and killed civilians on the east.
Protesters is another topic. Majority of them couldn't care less about peace, they didn't call for action against 2014 coup and its results. What they care about is ruble conversion rates, possibility to visit foreign countries and to buy foreign goods.
As a Russian, I voted "no" in the poll. I am against the war, like many Russian citizens, I am against what is happening now in Ukraine. And if someone watched Putin's appeal to the people, then this is so ****ed up I can't even put into words. In fact, he threatens with nuclear weapons any country which intervenes in this war and talks about things that did not happen, for example, about the "genocide of millions of the Russian population." This is what happens when an authoritarian ruler remains in power for more than 20 years. But if you think that everything is so one-sided, then this is also not true. I try to look at the historical process as objectively as possible. I follow and understand politics and history. In order for what is happening you need to understand the historical context:
During the unification of Germany in 1990, NATO and the European Union really deceived Russia when they said that NATO would not move east. At the Madrid summit in July 1997, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were invited to participate in the alliance, and then other states of the former socialist camp. Since the late 1990s, 14 countries have joined NATO: in 1999, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic; in 2004 - Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia; in 2009 - Albania and Croatia; in 2017 - Montenegro, in 2020 - North Macedonia. Thus, today NATO unites 30 countries. This is a very important turning point for Russia. The purpose of creating NATO is to protect the countries of the alliance from possible military aggression of the USSR. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established on April 4, 1949. When the Soviet Union collapsed, a natural question arises, what for does NATO exists now? If this is not against Russia, then can Russia, for example, join NATO? This is what Putin tried to do in 2000. But NATO refused. Why? I don't see any other answer as a threat to Russia.
After the Soviet Union collapsed America and the West generally treated Russia as a second-class country, we were not listened to when we were against the bombing of Yugoslavia, when we were against the invasion of Iraq. And other things like that. And what's more, after the advent of Gorbachev and under Yeltsin from 1885-1999, there was a huge turn in Russian politics towards true liberal democracy, with a free media, freedom of speech, and the people's right to choose their leaders. Etc. And we received a disregard of the West at this very moment as if hinting that Russia went the wrong way. USSR and Russia did nothing bad from 1985 to 2008. But from West, we have - "Did you lose the cold war? Shut up now." And we were treated like losers. it couldn't last long when a large country with a good army and nuclear weapons is in power with an authoritarian leader who wants respect for himself. From this context, such rulers as Putin appear. And the result of all this was Putin's speech in Munich in 2007 when he said that he was against American sole leadership in foreign policy. The world must be multipolar, which includes many leaders.
And after that, Russia has Georgia сonflict in 2008, Ukraine сonflict with Crimea in 2014, Syria in 2016, etc. And this is what it led to. Full-fledged military conflict in Ukraine.
Ukraine, which gravitated towards the European Union and joining NATO, which would mean NATO troops on the border with Russia and the American fleet next to our bases in the Black Sea.
Ukraine, in which there are east pro-Russian regions, people in whom they consider themselves Russian, and in 2014 with the support of America these people were quite oppressed by the pro-Nazi government with laws against the Russian language. Although this has changed a lot by today and the government is already different and Russians are treated better.
Ukraine, which, after the conflict in 2014, announced its intention to withdraw from the agreement on the absence of nuclear weapons. But I believe that this case was used as a casus belli to attack Ukraine. In my opinion, it was much more reasonable to do this in 2014. Which would still be wrong in my opinion. But Putin's actions still have reasons today.
Not only Putin alone is to blame for this, but also the West. Putin appeared because of the West.
-verde-
You said exactly the same what propagandists says on russian tv.
...meanwhile ROSCOMNADZOR (ministry of "truth", that blocked driftworks.com and genius.com in my country in ≈2016), sent precautions to the media, that they can't call it a "war"; if media want to cover happening, they should call it a "military operation" (of DE-nazification).
When you justifying things happening by Ukrainian government been shootong Donetsk and Lugansk for the last eight years - try to recall how Russia been shooting Grozny when Chechnia wanted to seperate. It's exactly the same thing. They don't let a part of their country to be seperated. And if Putin is so kind to help people seperate from 'opressive government', why didn't he let Chechnia seperate. Because all chechens wanted was "leave us alone, we have different culture, we want live as neighbours with you in our own country".
Now we have bad relations with Chechens, Georgians Ukraineans and the rest of civilized world while our own human rights and constitution constantly violates and prices going up.
What for?
PS
Politic talks are always a thin ice. And it can even quarrel a family members. I feel like we've should not start it here, but hope we are all stay fellow racers despite all that. Scawen, you may not like that this mess is happening on your platform, but thank you for giving people a chance to have their opinion here.
Maybe this analogy is not completely accurate, but you are absolutely right in this historical analogy. situations are very similar. But in their further progress, they differ greatly. What did Putin do in the case of the Chechens? He put a respected leader for the Chechens and poured a huge amount of money into it. In Russia, Chechnya is the most subsidized region. Thus showing that he has a good attitude towards Chechnya and its culture.
What did the Ukrainian government do in Donbass? Nothing. Military clashes between the militia and the military of Ukraine lasted for 8 years, did not change anything, the Minsk agreements did not work. But it couldn't go on forever. There must be some way out of the situation. So apparently it happened ... What I'm not happy about.
Let's make this analogy even more precise. Where Chechnya is even more similar to the Donbass. For a thought experiment, now imagine that in the event of a Chechen war, but instead of Kazakhstan and China and all of Asia, another country. let's call it Chechnya 2.0 Which has a much larger military arsenal than Russia. And there, for the most part, the same people live in Chechnya in Russia with the same culture and the same language. And in this case, I think it will be very easy to imagine the same scenario when Chechnya 2.0 invades Russia. Because what will stop them? Nothing.
I do not justify Putin. War is evil. But I can understand his actions. And why it's happening.
I don't know who you represent when you say "we" but Russia and Chechnya have good relations now for the reasons I described above. For the rest, you're right. But you reproach another person for the influence of propaganda. (which may be true) But if you have an idea of Good in the form of the "civilized world" and evil in the form of Russia. Not as easy as you think. Or maybe you yourself are under the influence of propaganda. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your words.
What i am trying to say is that people of Donbass and Lugansk are seperatists. Same as chechens in 90s. If you did't let checechens seperate and bombed them for years, why you surprised that Ukraine does the same?
And the language is not a reason to start a bloodbath. They could solve it in a different way, especially in case that Ukraine wanted to join EU, that problems with lsnguage could be solved by attracting attention to this problem, so the Ukraine government had no other chance than solve it peacefully, to join civiluzed world then.
I see this story with language as a manipulation to bring disbalance to region in the name of Putin's own interests (his rating was low down atm). Anywas, i talked to couple of people from both Donetsk and Lugansk, when this hell started few days ago, and surprisingly, they support what's going on, and happy to have russian documents and work in Moscow. So, who am i to judge, i just express my own opinion.
I'm looking forward to hear ukrainean people's opinions here, that's why i came here.
It's not the same thing. Chechnya was run by terrorists, who committed terror acts in Russia, as well as drug and human trafficking. Donbass, on the other hand, was trying to escape the neo-nazi aggression.
Answering the propaganda claims: I don't watch Russian TV in general for years, and read Western media besides Russian. I make my own conclusions as the result, they just happen to be the way they are and you may not agree to that, but that's my opinion and not someone's else.
From what I've read, the promise to not expand NATO wasn't articulated clearly in any treaty. And it's no surprize these 3 countries joined NATO: they had Soviet intervention in '56, '68 and '82. Hungary and Czech had street fights with lots of casualties. So their new, anti-communist elites were still remembering this and wanted protection. A piece of history we miss in Russia completely is how these countries turned Socialist. Most of them became electoral democracies after WWII, but gradually were manipulated into mono-party states - from elections manipulations in Poland or Czechoslovakia to physical elimination of any opposition in Romania.
So it's no surprise their leaders remembered and wanted to join. It would have been better for us if they didn't, but it would have been a sociologically impossible thing. They had to correctly predict reactions of Russia several steps ahead and come to a decision opposite of what was rational in mid-term (sociologist Sokolov explains that people can't predict even a single other person's immediate reaction to events, not even of a group of others).
Other 2 considerations: 1) Russia had a communist candidate in the 2nd tour of presidential elections, and unstable economy. Enough to be worried as a neighbor. 2) It didn't cause immediate hostility, quite opposite: Russia made part of Russia-NATO partnership, probably until 2008.
Russian economists (sorry, can't remember particular names) speculated in hindsight that what could have been done instead was an analog of Marshall plan and to write-off USSR debts -- Russia held responsibility for them and paid off for years, which led to the very costy state bonds in '95-'98 and then the '98 default.
Is that really necessary? This will only extend the war and will result in more deaths. With all my respect, but Ukraine cannot possible win this war. Probably Russia is the most powerful military country in the world, more or less equal of all of the countries of NATO.
I don't see how Biden is any different.
This might sound like I'm generalizing, but I've truly lost my faith in humanity long time ago. Still cannot comprehend how many have died in World War I, II and in all other wars. This is unforgivable act, which is being repeated (just a matter of time). Why we never learn?
