Putin says Russia ‘never oppossed’ EU membership for Ukraine but Nato bid ‘unacceptable’ | Rada deputy welcomes statement, and accuses West of using Ukraine as ‘no more than a convenient tool’: “The West realised there was a way to use some Russians against other Russians — and they did just that”
Posted by 1DarkStarryNight@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 449 comments
enterisys@reddit
Someone remind senile grandpa that his regime has no vote in EU and NATO.
viktlo70@reddit
well, like the US had the right to decide if Cuba could host soviet missiles ?
enterisys@reddit
More like when russia tried to meddle with Cuba. Again.
viktlo70@reddit
First of all, it was USSR, but I remember the US threatening to bomb and invade if they didn't dismantle the missiles.
enterisys@reddit
Same shit. Anyway call me when US stations nukes in Ukraine.
viktlo70@reddit
Well, that's the whole point of not having Ukraine in NATO...
enterisys@reddit
What? That's exactly the difference. Puten has no vote in NATO...
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Yeah, keep ignoring Russian concerns, worked great for Georgia and Ukraine.
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
Pandering to their imperialism works better does it?
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Who said anything about pandering? Just build your foreign policy based on the realities in this world instead of wishful thinking.
Rizen_Wolf@reddit
That would have been great. But nobody easily lays down the crack pipe of empire and they always want to hit that pipe again any chance they get.
Make-TFT-Fun-Again@reddit
Yeah cool if Russia could adapt to no longer being its USSR fantasy nation thatd be great
bollebob5@reddit
Is this also the case for the morally correct and overpowered, never-wrong, western countries and they invasion of other countries and politics meddling?
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
How many Western countries have annexed parts of their neighbours lately?
ChaosDancer@reddit
No they just burn everything to the ground, steal anything not nailed down and then make shity propaganda movies of how depressed they are for killing brown people.
Btw lets not forget the moralizing of how great democracy is.
Legiyon54@reddit
When they are the size of Russia and their concerns are valid? Yea, prevents wars
omg czechoslovakia czechoslovakia nevil chaimberlain remember what happened to czechoslovakia when hitler ww2 hitler czechoslovakia >!there you don't have to type it!<
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
But you don't appear to have learnt anything from it, do you?
Legiyon54@reddit
No I just learned that there were other events in history. Appeasing great powers is the norm throughout history, it's just that that one time was one of the very few that turned out to be a complete failure
enterisys@reddit
I have concerns fascist dictators should GTFO. Don't ignore it.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
And if you wish really, really hard everything is bound to come true!
enterisys@reddit
One good russian at a time.
zaplayer20@reddit
He doesn't have yet his guns are pretty strong buttons.
enterisys@reddit
So is NATO's. Skipped Cold War in school?
zaplayer20@reddit
NATO gave everything to Ukraine except troops and are still losing. NATO is dangerously low on ammunition and equipment so your point is that Ukraine is doing good?
enterisys@reddit
Yep, that's why puten is struggling with mobilisation and begs NK for ammo/meat.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
There is one country that keeps kidnapping man off the streets and pressgangs them into service. Want to make a guess about which country is that? Hint: it's not Russia
enterisys@reddit
Sounds like russian mobilisation.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Nope. Try again. Here's another hint: https://busification.org/
enterisys@reddit
Yep.
What's that website?
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Just a little aid for you, to help you to distinguish your fantasies from reality
enterisys@reddit
Sounds more like get a bunch of viruses website.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
That is fair, I'm always for internet security. I'd suggest the FireFox browser with the uBlock Origin plugin, to make sure you are safe while browsing. And unless you are downloading anything from those sites, there really isn't that much of a threat. Nevertheless, download Malware bytes to scan your pc every now and then, together with Microsoft's default antivirus that should keep you safe. In addition to that, privacy could be a concern, any website you visit will have your IP as well as some information about your system that could be used for fingerprinting. Firefox's private tab, will take care of the system information, but you might consider using a VPN service to hide your IP. You can also use sites like archive.org to visit a copy of the site without sending any requests to it.
enterisys@reddit
Nice.
Now give me a cookie recipe.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Just imagine any cookies you like, you already live in a fantasy land...
enterisys@reddit
Gimme a cookie recipe.
ExtremeCreamTeam@reddit
Astroturfer detected.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Russia hasn't started mobilization yet. It is still using volunteer soldiers.
enterisys@reddit
They have mobilisation just like Ukraine.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
No. They don't.
Ukraine has press gangs (the TCC) shoving people off the street into vans, has started drafting women, and is putting men in their 60s in the infantry.
Russia is using entirely volunteer soldiers (by offering staggeringly high signing bonuses).
If you are referring to the fact that (like many EU countries) young men have to spend a few months in the military even in peace time, those people don't get sent to combat since its a "special military operation" and not a war (Putin doesn't want young kids coming home in body bags and ruining his support)
enterisys@reddit
No. They don't.
They are mobilising just like Ukraine. Except only russians get gang raped for refusing meat assaults, or suicide live in 4k.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Except that is factually false according to not only Russia, but Ukraine and NATO as well.
enterisys@reddit
Yes it's false cos we have video evidence of it.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Except that isn't true is it?
Wanting Ukraine to be doing well is good and normal, lying and falsely telling people it is isn't either of those things. You are just helping Russia by convincing people Ukraine isn't in dire straights and there is plenty of time to deliberate on what to do. There isn't. Ukraine is in a crisis.
Stop helping Russia.
enterisys@reddit
Yep, just 3 more days and russians can stop hiding from mobilisation.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Russia is using a fully volunteer force, that is easily verifiable from western news sources. Hell Ukrainian news sources verify that.
enterisys@reddit
Trust me bro.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
You are making a claim Russia is sending conscripts, your source is that you want it to be so.
While a quick search shows that
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-russias-military-uses-volunteer-fighters-plug-gaps-ukraine-2024-02-24/
CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/29/europe/russia-recruits-volunteer-battalions-ukraine-war-cmd-intl
and even Al-Jazeera:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/26/despite-huge-manpower-losses-how-is-russia-replenishing-its-military
all show that you are wrong and Moscow is using an all volunteer force.
These articles go from 2022 all the way to barely over a week ago. You are flat out wrong.
enterisys@reddit
Stop making shit up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_mobilization
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Did you even read that? That was calling up active duty volunteer soldiers from the reserves.
AKA its Russia's version of the American Stop-Loss
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/26/despite-huge-manpower-losses-how-is-russia-replenishing-its-military
enterisys@reddit
You literally linked that article about mercenaries.
Got any real proofs about russian mobilisation?
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Proof of a negative? That is logically impossible.
Do you have any proof of Russia sending conscripted soldiers to Ukraine? Because you source is "trust me bro" and mine is reality.
Who are these conscripts sent to Ukraine? Any proof at all? Seems weird Ukraine themselves would deny their presence since this would be a big PR win. Maybe you should make sure to pass this magic proof to the Ukrainian embassy to help them out?
enterisys@reddit
There is like 1000 proofs every day.
Wiki is trust me bro? ROFL
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Your wikipedia article just proved me right.
Those were all volunteer soldiers called back to active duty in the Russian equivalent of the US stop loss policy.
If that is a draft then apparently Vietnam wasn't the last time the US had a draft but Iraq, which is not something a rational person would try to claim.
You should read articles before you link to them.
enterisys@reddit
Ah the good old whatabout USA.
facts hurt, eh?
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Its not whataboutism, its aa definition. Words have meanings.
You are still avoiding dealing with the crux of the issue. Were those volunteer contract soldiers yes or no?
enterisys@reddit
10-30k mercs versus 700k mobilised. That's the real definition.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
I want you to explain which definition of mobilization you are using.
Because it has two meanings. The popular definition is the draft. The technical meaning includes giving orders to contract soldiers to organize for battle.
I have feeling if I call you on bullshit for saying they are drafted (which they aren't) you will proclaim you meant they were called up for battle. I have no time for the Motte and Bailey fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
So which definition of mobilization do you mean? Do you mean that Russians were drafted or are you agreeing that volunteer contract soldiers were sent to battle?
Badeer21@reddit
They have mobilization. Conscription is what they aren't doing.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
semantic games at that point.
Russia isn't forcing any of their citizens to go into combat against their will (yet) is the key take away.
zaplayer20@reddit
I don't understand where you see the struggle? Is Putin begging for ceasefire or is Ukraine and EU begging for it? I think you see a distorted image here. And last time i checked, There are no Ukrainians in Russia anymore, they have been eliminated, taken as POW or ran away.
enterisys@reddit
Pretty sure puten was begging in Alaska.
zaplayer20@reddit
i don't know where you get your assumption for that but based on how Trump caved after the meeting, it means Putin doesn't seek to please Zelensky and the EU.
enterisys@reddit
That just proves my point.
BendicantMias@reddit
Ironic that tiny NK, under sanctions for decades, is able to outproduce all of Europe lmao. Ukraine has dozens of backers, Russia has two. And yet those two have proven far better allies than all of Ukraines' dozens. You aren't just losing to Russia, you're losing to frickin NK lol. 😅
enterisys@reddit
They don't produce anything. Just like russia.
The only difference is that there is still some in stock.
Neurobeak@reddit
Back to reality: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/16/is-russia-producing-a-years-worth-of-nato-ammunition-in-three-months
enterisys@reddit
Yes continue comparing mortar shells to 155mm lol
Neurobeak@reddit
What are those mortars that use 122mm or 152mm shells?
enterisys@reddit
Exactly. So why are you comparing mortars to arty?
Neurobeak@reddit
Do you read? The article claims that the majority of the produced Russian shells are 122 and 152 mm artillery shells.
Do you know any Russian mortars that are using that caliber?? Do you understand the question? Or should I repeat it like you're in a parade for special persons?
enterisys@reddit
Idk, can you? Why are you comparing mortars to arty?
Neurobeak@reddit
I can. There is zero mention of mortars in the article. The calibres are also not of mortars.
Earth to Mars, why did you even mention them in the first place? All the data is for artillery shells.
enterisys@reddit
Doesn’t like that.
Because you and your article are comparing mortars to arty. Why?
Neurobeak@reddit
The article doesn't mention mortars at all.
enterisys@reddit
That's just your imagination then.
Neurobeak@reddit
you're a bit slow in the head, as in, regarded, aren't you?
enterisys@reddit
At least I'm not dumb to compare mortars to arty.
enterisys@reddit
You're the one who compares mortars to 155 lol
Neurobeak@reddit
Gotcha. You're an old school unpaid low effort "no you" style troll. Carry on then
wasdlmb@reddit
If by "everything" you mean old scraps then sure. StormShadow might be the most advanced thing being sent, but other than that it's mostly stuff from the 80s and 90s, and a small amount of even those
arostrat@reddit
If the weapons are for show and online bragging only then they are no more than shiny toys.
wasdlmb@reddit
No like literally the jets and tanks and IFVs that were sent were versions from the 80s and 90s and a few from the 00s. There's a huge difference between an F-16 from 1980 and one from 2020, and then of course there's stuff like the F22 and F35 which haven't been sent at all. Are you trying to say those are just for show too? There's over 1000 F-35s at this point
hypewhatever@reddit
They vote with the fist. There is unfortunately not gentleman's agreement in geopolitics
TheDBryBear@reddit
There is. They simply ignore how much everybody gets ahead of them by doing gentlemen's agreements. That's what international treaties are all about.
And then they act surprised that nobody want them xD
Seriously, they are a good example why trying to force everything to go your way with the military almost always backfires. They solidified Ukrainian nationalism, they destroyed their Soviet weapon stocks, they lost their largest fossil fuel customers, they hamstrung their economy in three different ways, they caused NATO to expand, they turned most eastern Europeans against Russia, they lost their place as leading alternate arms dealer, their national wealth fund is depleted, they lost control over the Black Sea, nobody trusts them, their Central Asian and Caucasian neighbours have distanced themselves and their population is shrinking even more because of death, lower birthrates and emigration.
What they gained was a bit of land that does not generate any strategic or economic value but actually drains resources and the approval of some far right politicians who would have pogged if Russia kept shitting on gay people and saying that a christian family is important.
Make-TFT-Fun-Again@reddit
Russia turned Eastern Europeans against Russia.
hypewhatever@reddit
Military interventions besides other things made the US the most powerful country in the world. Just gotta be the bigger bully. It indeed works if done right. Thats where Russia failed tho. Had it been there 1 week special operation we would still trade and had a puppet regime in Kiev I bet.
Socraman@reddit
The USA at least has the carrot to go with the stick. Russia only has a stick.
sltn011@reddit
What carrot did Iraq and Afghanistan received after US invaded them? At least Russia is rebuilding cities destroyed on their part of east Ukraine instead of sucking out every resource and fleeing.
Socraman@reddit
Iraq and Afghanistan didn't have a carrot, that's why they failed spectacularly.
Also Iraq and Afghanistan were both a massive net drain on resources for the Americans. They invaded for (terrible) geopolitical reasons, not to loot the countries of resources.
Russia is rebuilding the cities because it's annexing and conquering land, something that goes against the UN Charter, not that Russia cares.
hypewhatever@reddit
They invade to destabilize regions to keep them down as competitive
TheDBryBear@reddit
No, if that was the case they would have needed to constantly wage war against everybody. The trade and the state department are more powerful and more integral to US dominance than the military, because those are designed to make you want to be America's friend. The failure in iraq and afghanistan is a prime example of one-sided military action not working and is exactly what would have happened to Russia in Ukraine.
Cases of intervention working are always quite specific and limited. Forcing people to be your friend or puppet does not work without the tacit acceptance or resignation of the local population. Vietnam failed. Afghanistan failed for the Soviets and the Amis. Iraq failed. The Nazis failed, as did the eastern union states like the USSR and Yugoslavia once the thing that held these things together vanished.
hypewhatever@reddit
You don't have to win a war as long as you don't get damage at home and get to fuck up another region that's all the win you need if it's about internal competition
Plethorum@reddit
Which is why everyone should come together and give Ukraine what they need to throw the bully out of their country
enterisys@reddit
And look what this fist did to russia.
dontpissoffthenurse@reddit
That is just as stupid as saying that you cannot have an opinion on the Catholic Church if you are not catholic.
enterisys@reddit
I have opinion. But I don't go to church telling Christians which prayer to read.
dontpissoffthenurse@reddit
You would if the christians came to your doorstep to shout their prayers.
enterisys@reddit
Just like puten.
GallorKaal@reddit
Unironically, a maximum age (similar to the already existing minimum age in many countries) could do wonders on international relationships. Clearly, it won't fix everything because corruption can devour anyone, but it might ease things up considering some power hungry tyrants who will sacrifice their own country just to stay in power a little bit longer.
AMechanicum@reddit
Only works if corruption doesn't exist. It will only change age of a guy who listens to rich old farts, not the fact he will listen.
steauengeglase@reddit
They've made it clear before that they'll buy one if necessary.
corree@reddit
But it does? Do I need to give examples?
enterisys@reddit
You really need my permission?
corree@reddit
In late August 2025, Austria indicted former intelligence officer Egisto Ott, who allegedly supplied sensitive police data and an EU-secure laptop to Russian operatives in exchange for €20,000. He's facing charges including espionage and corruption. Reuters
Austria has long been viewed as a hub for Russian intelligence activities, with official reports describing it as a “veritable aircraft carrier” for Russian espionage and “neutral” stances complicating Western cooperation.
Belgium launched an investigation into alleged Russian payments to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) intended to undermine EU support for Ukraine.
The controversy centers on a Prague-based operation called Voice of Europe, which allegedly paid far-right MEPs in cash or cryptocurrency to spread pro-Kremlin narratives. This prompted sanctions and broader EU-level concern.
A former Latvian Interior Minister, Jānis Ādamsons, was jailed in 2023 for spying for Russia. Other arrests followed targeting individuals accused of espionage and pro-Russian propaganda.
Indeed, MEP Tatjana Ždanoka was flagged in a January 2024 investigative report as possibly acting as an informant for the Russian FSB, reportedly receiving payments for services from 2005 to 2017.
In 2022, former MEP Béla Kovács was sentenced in absentia to five years in prison for spying for Russia.
Hungary is also criticized for maintaining close relationships with Russian interests, including not expelling diplomats and operating a known “spy bank” (International Investment Bank) until 2023.
enterisys@reddit
Wow, russian spy got what he deserved.
Now let's go back to puten's vote rights in EU, shall we?
corree@reddit
Do you really think Putin has nobody on Russia’s payroll in your weak ass parliament lmao? After he just got his asset as US president again?
Good one bud, I’m sure you guys are 100% clean 🤣🤣
enterisys@reddit
US president LOL
Cope levels off the charts.
corree@reddit
Lol okay friend, let’s just see how the votes look like when Ukraine policy is involved and you can show me how everyone votes 100% against Russia with no fishy looking votes🤷♀️🤷♀️
enterisys@reddit
Why would one vote for genocidal grandpa who is ready to sacrifice every russian just to get couple fields??
corree@reddit
Because idiots exist everywhere, including whatever country you live in.
enterisys@reddit
Thanks but we don't like dictators here.
corree@reddit
For a continent who has hosted so many, I disagree
enterisys@reddit
It's okay to be wrong.
corree@reddit
Please tell me you’re Italian, it would make the fact that Mussolini’s wiki page says the following:
“Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini[a] (29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician and journalist who, upon assuming office as Prime Minister, became the dictator of Italy from the March on Rome in 1922 until his overthrow in 1943. He was also Duce of Italian fascism upon the establishment of the Italian Fasces of Combat in 1919, and held the title until his summary execution in 1945. He founded and led the National Fascist Party (PNF). As a dictator and founder of fascism, Mussolini inspired the international spread of fascism during the interwar period.[1”
enterisys@reddit
Are we quoting unrelated wikis now?
corree@reddit
You said dictators weren’t welcome in Europe, yet the most famous ones who literally created fascism were from European countries
enterisys@reddit
Stalin.
corree@reddit
Hitler.
enterisys@reddit
Assad.
corree@reddit
Also…. you kinda forgot that bringing up the fact that dictators in other continents don’t detract from the European ones! Kinda shitty for y’all to create fascism and then act like you didn’t like it enough to vote it into power!
enterisys@reddit
Life began in Africa.
corree@reddit
And fascism’s home is in Europe!
enterisys@reddit
Let me see who asked.
corree@reddit
Buddy must be French the way he’s giving up so quickly!
enterisys@reddit
Kim.
corree@reddit
Even Kim hasn’t done nearly as much bad to the world as Europeans have!
North Korea > Europe
enterisys@reddit
Puten.
corree@reddit
Puten still hasn’t done as much bad to the world as Hitler, the European born dictator/genocider
enterisys@reddit
Kim junior.
corree@reddit
You have failed to list a dictator who was worse than the European-bred ones.
enterisys@reddit
Mao.
corree@reddit
You think Assad was more of a dictator than Hitler? Hehehehe
enterisys@reddit
Hussein.
corree@reddit
Also take a look at all your MPs who are glad to see Palestinian children get turned into minced meat 🥶 Just like our good old US senators doing the same.
enterisys@reddit
We prioritise starving children in Africa, sorry.
corree@reddit
Don’t starve children in Africa, that would be too early 1900s Europe of you!
enterisys@reddit
It's the opposite tho.
corree@reddit
Yeah Europeans did such a great job in Europe, they did great at… checks notes… ah yes…
Transatlantic Slave Trade (1500s–1800s) European nations (Portugal, Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands, etc.) were central players in the transatlantic slave trade. Millions of Africans were kidnapped, sold, and shipped to the Americas to work on plantations. This decimated populations, destroyed local economies, and disrupted social structures in many African societies. Some African leaders were complicit, but the scale and violence were driven by European demand.
Colonialism (Late 1800s–mid 1900s) At the Berlin Conference (1884–1885), European powers literally carved up Africa among themselves without consulting a single African leader — known as the "Scramble for Africa." Countries like Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Italy, and Spain established colonies, imposing artificial borders. Colonial rule involved: Land theft and forced labor Exploitation of natural resources (gold, rubber, diamonds, oil, etc.) Cultural erasure and imposition of European languages, religions, and education systems Violent repression of resistance movements
Economic Exploitation Colonies were seen as resource extraction zones for the benefit of Europe. Infrastructure (like railroads) was built not to help Africans, but to move resources to ports for export. Traditional economies were destroyed, replaced with cash-crop economies that kept colonies dependent and vulnerable. Even after independence, trade systems and companies often remained structured to favor Europe, a legacy known as neo-colonialism.
Artificial Borders and Divide-and-Rule Tactics Colonial powers drew arbitrary borders that grouped together hostile ethnic groups or split up cohesive ones. They used "divide and rule" strategies — favoring some ethnic or religious groups over others to maintain control. These divisions fueled post-independence conflicts, civil wars, and genocides (e.g., Rwanda, Nigeria, Sudan).
Post-Independence Interference European (and later U.S.) powers interfered in African politics, often to protect economic interests or during the Cold War. Backed coups, assassinated leaders, or supported dictators who allowed continued exploitation. Famous example: Belgium and the CIA’s role in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba (Congo’s first prime minister).
Resource Curse and Neo-Colonialism Many African countries remained trapped in dependent economic relationships, exporting raw materials while importing expensive finished goods. Multinational corporations (often based in former colonial powers) continue to profit from Africa's resources while dodging taxes and exploiting weak governance.
Psychological and Cultural Impact European narratives portrayed Africa as backward and inferior, justifying conquest. These narratives still linger in education systems, media, and global perceptions. The imposition of European values damaged or erased indigenous knowledge systems, languages, and identities.
enterisys@reddit
Boring chatgpt.
corree@reddit
It’s all true 🤷♀️
guillotina420@reddit
Moving the goalposts.
corree@reddit
How so? To say the EU/NATO is pure from RU votes is to pretend that there has never been nor will ever be any corruption of these conglomerates…. which is and has always been untrue
guillotina420@reddit
OP was clearly talking about literal votes in Russia’s name. Not times when they maybe/sort of/could have/possibly influenced one of the countries that does have an actual vote.
corree@reddit
So would you say Russia has no vote in the US? Considering they didn’t officially participate in voting with their government? Personally, I’d say that’s not true. They very effectively subverted millions of voters, much like they have done and are currently doing in the EU.
You seem to be using possible statements here, Russia has absolutely interfered and thus effectively voted in EU elections and there is no question about it.
🇫🇷 France – National Rally (Rassemblement National) Marine Le Pen’s party received a €9 million loan from a Russian bank in 2014. The party has repeatedly expressed sympathy for Putin, criticized EU sanctions, and questioned NATO’s role. Le Pen visited Crimea in 2017 and recognized Russia’s annexation as legitimate.
🇮🇹 Italy – Lega (League) Matteo Salvini, leader of Lega, has openly praised Putin. In 2019, leaked tapes suggested attempted Russian funding via oil deals to support Lega's European Parliament campaign. Salvini wore a “Putin” T-shirt in Moscow in 2015, symbolizing close ideological ties.
🇩🇪 Germany – Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) AfD has been critical of sanctions on Russia, advocates for closer ties with Moscow. Delegations from AfD have visited Crimea and Donbas, legitimizing Russia’s occupation. Party figures have appeared on Russian state media, echoing Kremlin narratives.
🇭🇺 Hungary – Fidesz Viktor Orbán maintains a close relationship with Putin, often obstructing unified EU action (e.g., sanctions or Ukraine aid). Hungary has hosted Russian intelligence-linked entities under diplomatic cover. Orbán promotes “illiberal democracy,” aligning with Russia's ideological messaging.
guillotina420@reddit
You are using the word “vote” metaphorically again when OP was using it literally.
themightycatp00@reddit
You're conflating official and unofficial votes/influence
corree@reddit
When unofficial influence leads to official votes, I’d say that’s effectively official by most people’s definitions
TheDBryBear@reddit
That's not a vote of Putin, that is just people who he influences with cash. Something he needs to do because he has no vote.
corree@reddit
Yepyep… tell me again how that’s not actually worse than Putin alone having a vote lol?
“Haha this guy’s so wrong, of course Putin can’t vote here!” Meanwhile the guy’s affecting your elections by the thousands…. good math friend.
TheDBryBear@reddit
As if he would not do that anyway ^^
corree@reddit
So he’ll have many votes regardless, exactly what I’ve been saying
Mein_Bergkamp@reddit
Someones forgotten about the US and Hungary....
enterisys@reddit
Exactly. They have, puten doesn't.
reddit_is_geh@reddit
Yeah dude that's not how geopolitics works. Go build up a bunch of military installations for China and Russia along the US borders on each side and see how fucking long that lasts. You wont be saying, "But the US has no vote whether or not Canada and Mexico can put up adversarial bases all along our borders! Guys! Come on... Why are you so anxious over this? It's their right!"
vladislav-turbanov@reddit
If rockets should have a say, according to Zlonsky, why can't they vote?
enterisys@reddit
According to who?
vladislav-turbanov@reddit
Boden, is that you?
enterisys@reddit
No it's yo mama.
Kahzootoh@reddit
Really? I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 when it was having protests over Ukraine’s association agreement with the EU being abrogated by Yanukovich in favor of a Russian deal?
This was never about NATO, prior to its invasion of Ukraine- Russia could always count on its corrupt friends in Germany, Hungary, etc to veto any serious Ukrainian attempt to join NATO.
At any rate, what is Russia so scared of about NATO? Estonia is a NATO member for years, and yet there have been no false flag attacks to justify a seizure of St Petersburg.
This has always been about Russia needing to keep Ukraine poorer and worse off than Russia, otherwise Russian people might start to openly wonder how their own lives might also be improved by integrating with Europe and dismantling the Oligarchy.
ferroo0@reddit
Ukraine is Russian strategic underbelly. Having both Poland and Ukraine under one umbrella is a straight way to geographically isolate Russian trade from the Europe. Russia seethed about it's other neighbors joining the Alliance, but ultimately couldn't do anything to oppose their ascension.
Ukraine is a whole another thing in a strategic sense. Russian geography, especially around Finnish and Baltic borders, is absolutely shitty and barely give any strategic advantage to have control over, in case of theoretical invasion into Russia itself. Rivers, climate, road systems and highlands are horrendous there. But it's not the case for Ukrainian-Russian border - it's a field, with little to no environmental barriers and with extremely developed road system. Basically a doorstep right into the Russia
that's where Russians drew the line - using their strategic defense as one of reasons to start the war. Plus Ukraine was one of the most capable armies in the world, and basically a #2 land army in the entire Europe. Allowing Ukraine to align with Western forces completely, in Russian eyes, is a strategic death sentence. Russian invasion in Crimea, back in 2014 was and always will be extremely controversial, since their reasoning was much more bleak back then. It's commonly accepted now, that the actual reason why they were compelled to take over the peninsula is to protect their Black Sea assets, specifically it's warm sea ports, that were really important for Russia back then. Russians feared that this whole revolution thing may lead to instability in Ukraine, and new Ukrainian government would completely revoke or ignore Black Sea Fleet partition treaty.
I wish everything was this simple. Maidan revolution wasn't "EU revolution", neither was it a referendum for EU membership. You have to remember how drastically Ukrainian foreign policy changed after it, how this event provoked a whole civil war in the country. Could you imagine a revolution in Mexico? or in Canada? or even in the US itself? wouldn't you feel a turmoil in the country, where everything started changing rapidly and unpredictably? I'm neutral to this whole ukraine-russia debacle, since idc about either of them winning or loosing, but looking realistically - there wasn't anything simple in that period of time.
Euro-integration isn't a simple equation of "membership = good and rich" and "no membership = bad and poor". There's like hundreds of different standards and requirements that country must make, and most of them change economy drastically. EU by itself isn't a fountain of money, they ain't giving their funding for nothing. Russians loved EU and US for decades after the fall of the USSR, but now a ton of people is extremely turned down by their actions; wave of societal nationalization, and rising quality of life in Russia post 2022 did their things.
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
This again... You do realise that this excuse only makes sense if Russia has imperial ambitions don't you?
ferroo0@reddit
and why so? US and Russia are rivals in defense and energy sector. Even excluding all of these imperial ambitions, US is absolutely interested in getting rid of Russian goods on the market. Because right now, Russia offers much cheaper product, and not that many EU countries are interested in extremely expensive US lng. Russia can, as well, offer their defensive capabilities and equipment to any country in the world - its much cheaper, robust, and easily available. US getting rid of this competition in the market can make billions. And there is no imperial ambitions involved - shit walks, money talks.
NATO is a useful tool in this scenario. It's a militaristic alliance, made with one reasoning - to contain Russians. It's an alliance that can threaten direct confrontation, without any nukes involved. Nukes are largely irrelevant, because no one is interested in committing mutual suicide in an attempt of annexing Moscow or something. The point is, that being right at the borders is perfectly great spot - you can make an effective embargo, you can create networks of spies, you can push anti-Russian positions more effectively via cultural exchange on the borders. It's a nice little way to physically isolate a country.
of course, it's just my interpretation of what is going on in NATO-Russia relations. But there is a real threat to Russian influence, trade and defense, posed by the NATO; same way how smaller countries' trade, defense and influence is threatened by Russia. For Russians, and especially Putin, way forward is complete pivot to the East, and closer cooperation with the countries who're much more willing to actually work with Russia, rather then threaten it. This war is nothing more then a fight of ambition, over influence and trade.
bxzidff@reddit
Sounds like they would benefit immensely from not acting hostile to all their European neighbors and force the EU even more towards the US, yet that was their choice
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Russia needs to stop putting its country right in front of our bases!
bxzidff@reddit
You say that because you are American, and do like many Russians, fail to consider that the people between your two countries also has agency. The best way for Russia to avoid American bases along their borders is to not act hostile towards their European neighbours in a way that makes them feel the need for American protection. This is why e.g. Poland is one of the most pro-US countries in Europe. Russia made it so.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
No the best way to avoid all of that was to include Russia in NATO, in the West.
That would solve problems for everyone. Russia was more than willing at one point for that.
But we made the conscious decision to exclude them, which created an enemy where there was none.
Socraman@reddit
Russia had to show it was trustworthy to its former colonies before being included in NATO. Instead it flattened Grozny when Chechnya rebelled. You are actively ignoring all of Russia's actions during those years, actions that showed Russia and Putin were just licking its wounds and wanted to go back to its imperialist past.
Even if the US wanted, no Eastern European country would've accepted Russia in NATO. You don't allow the fox into the chicken coop.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
What the fuck is this stupid “tough parent” crap?
No. We include Russia in NATO to ensure the security of everyone and to ally with a crucial country to contain China.
We didn’t do that now we have to face the problems.
Catalonia cited Kosovo as an example in declaring independence.
You should just be thankful China isn’t funding and arming Catalonia to the teeth.
NATO is not an organization focused on giving Estonia what it wants
Socraman@reddit
Lol good try bro, I am Catalan and I don't like the Spanish government (any) so if you think I'd support Spain flattening Barcelona in response to a rebellion you're missing the mark by a light year.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
So you are proposing we fight some indefinite Cold War against Russia?
Socraman@reddit
No, my proposal is that opportunities are given to Russia to show that we are open to trust them, but that doesn't mean bending over backwards and accept any bullshit they try to pull. Which is mostly what was done up until 2014, and even then the backlash for Crimea and Donbass was minimal. Russia was accepted in G-7, there was a treaty Russia-NATO, accepted into CoE... even the dictatorship that Yeltsin and then Putin slowly built in Russia was turned a blind eye. Georgia 2008, blind eye too.
Russia was given many chances to show it wanted to belong to the European Political Community, but to do that it had to reject Imperialism. And that was unacceptable for Putin, that's why he saw that Eastern Europe joining NATO as a direct affront to its interests. Because its interests were imperial.
pants_mcgee@reddit
Russia was never rejected from NATO membership, they never applied nor took any steps to even potentially qualify.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
You don’t apply for NATO membership. You have to be invited.
Socraman@reddit
What's the American base closest to Russia?
AlexanderTheIronFist@reddit
Are we just pretending the US has no bases in Poland, Turkey, South Korea and Japan, etc anymore?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_installations
Child_Summer@reddit
Are we just pretending Poland is "right in front of" russia?
AlexanderTheIronFist@reddit
It is, though? It's closer to Russia than almost any two states inside my own country...
Child_Summer@reddit
There's literally the biggest country in Europe standing between Poland and russia. Russia is actually closer to the US than it is to Poland
JPolReader@reddit
The base in Poland was established in 2022, well after the latest invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.gov.pl/web/national-defence/increasing-the-us-military-presence-in-poland
The troops in South Korea and Japan can't reach Russia.
Turkey only has an air base.
ferroo0@reddit
true, it's one of mine biggest grippes with Russian war regarding all of this. But if recent discussion about Russia being refused to get into NATO is true, then the argument that Russia had no other choice can be made. It's just speculations of course, but I bet that Russians would've loved to sell to both East and West. It's much easier way to get filthy rich, rather then wage war for barely any tangible benefits.
steauengeglase@reddit
Well, so much for the idea that NATO is merely the instrument of American machinations, given that Germany blocked it.
JPolReader@reddit
So you think that Russia had no choice but to invade a peaceful neutral nation, engage in human trafficking and possible genocide?
Socraman@reddit
Russia was seen as hostile by NATO members, because Russia was their Imperial overlord barely a decade prior. Russia's plan could've been to build trust and friendship with their former colonies, to be able to assuage them that it had no Imperial ambitions anymore.
But instead a Russian nationalist and nostalgic of this Imperial past became the President of Russia.
Really your whole analysis falls apart because you do as most "neutral analysts" of this whole conflict do: you fail to consider Russia as an active actor who had different paths to choose going forward, and it always chose the path of most hostility. Why? Because its leadership is made by a bunch of corrupt mafiosos with a nationalist and imperialist ideology.
CamisaMalva@reddit
Doesn't it?
Taokan@reddit
Russia worries about NATO for the same reason NATO worries about Russia. Even if present day, you'd assume no one's crazy enough to start a serious scuffle, there's no guarantees either side doesn't adopt a more ambitious government in the future.
RdPirate@reddit
But Ukraine is not blocking any trade that Greece can't, or any of the EU Balkan members could.
Thisnia just bad adhoc justification.
ferroo0@reddit
pipelines trough Ukraine and Belarus are the most effective ways to transfer Russian gas and oil to the European countries. Russian energy recourses are the butt of every discussion about Russian trade - and for a good reason, it's the most available and cheap option, that fueled European economies for years. Take a look at this map as well. Those pipelines are by far more effective at transporting Russian resources to the European states, and when they became effectively shut off - other suppliers became much more prevalent, prices rose, and Russia lost quite a bit of euros.
besides, Balkans can cut off only sea routes, while Ukraine could block both sea and land.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Yeah but those are a thing of the past with Russia and China finally signing that new Siberian pipeline that will be the largest pipeline ever constructed.
onespiker@reddit
1 that isn’t close to enough. 2 that agreement isn’t complete. It’s a memorandum not an actual agreement. It doesn’t include the important cost of gas witch is the entire reason why it’s hasn’t gotten anywhere the last 3 years.
So that agreement is more propaganda for the Russian base.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
The agreement overall does not mean anything.
But it is important because it signals Russia is orienting towards China and Asia.
It means China is reducing LNG imports from USA.
RdPirate@reddit
Umm, if the danger is that the EU will cit off trade to the EU, they do not neee Ukraine for that.
earblah@reddit
....the protest started over Yanukovych doing a 180 from his campaign. He got elected by promising to complete the EU deal, he('s government) completed the negotiation and instead he signed a deal with Russia.
bxzidff@reddit
So strategically unimportant that multiple wars was started over their territories. Without deterrents those countries would be Russian.
ferroo0@reddit
multiple wars for these territories were waged before NATO was even a thing. It's absolutely different geopolitical time now, then it was then.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
So you’re saying that NATO prevents wars for those countries?
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Well 1 war has.
Poop_Scissors@reddit
Russia have nukes. There don't have to fear being invaded.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
You can just say Russia is imperialist country who has a right to control all of its neighbors, and not waste so many words.
Plethorum@reddit
russia is scared that they cant invade Ukraine and kill/rape/torture their civilians without consequences if they join NATO
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
If Ukraine joined NATO it wouldn’t matter. Russia has already proven that we are not willing to deploy our boys and die for Ukraine.
You have to be pretty fucking stupid to think “yeah but in the future, the West will totally defend us!” Lol.
Plethorum@reddit
Who's the "we" that you are implying would not honor their pledge of mutual defense?
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
America. Germany. France. UK. Everyone.
It is very simple. We are not willing to die for Ukraine.
That’s all that matters
Plethorum@reddit
If Ukraine joined NATO every country therein would pledge to defend them if they were attacked. Not doing so would unravel the power of deterence by sdtting an ugly precedence which could bite them in the ass later if they should need that security
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
No. Every country would provide aid as they saw fit.
What you have now is a bunch of stale political leaders desperately trying to act like the world is still 1991
Plethorum@reddit
The world is a much worse place if treaties cannot be trusted, or international laws arent followed. If the russians are rewarded for invading a sovereign country it will set a dangerous precedence. On the other hand, if russia gets properly and deservedly fucked in the ass over their aggression, then they (and similar minded imperialists) will think twice before writing their name in history next to hitler and his like
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
So you mean like how the world has been since 2003?
Plethorum@reddit
Sure, throw bush up there too, along with putin and hitler
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
If you want international law to be important, you have to uphold it all the time, not just when it’s convenient to you.
Plethorum@reddit
Where did I suggest that bush should be excused? Unlike you I oppose all war criminals, including bush (by invading Iraq) and putin (for invading Ukraine, among other crimes against humanity)
Fresh-Wealth-8397@reddit
I don't know in another comment he admits to being Russian so lol
Plethorum@reddit
Are you saying that his "North America" flair is a lie? Say it ain't so!
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
No. This dude follows me around and says that because he doesn’t have any points to make
Fresh-Wealth-8397@reddit
Hey do you still think that mach 10 is somehow faster than mach 20?
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Well we can’t intercept Mach 20 either. Our only deployed system capable of intercepting Mach 20 has a 50% hit probability.
The Russian system is a lot better but it uses nukes, which has a lot of problems.
Fresh-Wealth-8397@reddit
I know right I trusted the flair like a fool lol
JPolReader@reddit
We haven't deployed troops to Ukraine because we have no defense agreement with Ukraine.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Pieces of paper do not matter. If we wanted to deploy troops, we would. If there were some kind of legal obstacle, we would make something up to get around it.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Yeah. Because you are framing it wrong.
1.) Yanukovich was in favor of the EU.
2.) it was an association agreement. Not membership. The text of that deal was not even available in Ukrainian.
3.) Yanukovich never rejected that agreement. He requested to renegotiate it.
Why? Because the association agreement required wholesale privatization, opening up their land to speculators, etc. That is way beyond what anyone else had to do for their Association Agreement and was unfair.
4.) the Russian deal was a bailout with no required provisions. Those wouldn’t have mattered anyways. The Russia deal didn’t require Ukraine to not join the EU.
5.) the day before Yanukovich was thrown out of power he signed an agreement with the opposition to settle the entire issue at the ballot box.
Instead they thought it was a smart idea to have a January 6th style election and overthrow him the next day.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
He was impeached*
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
He was never impeached.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/2/22/ukraine-president-yanukovich-impeached
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Well according to your own article, they voted to “dismiss” him, allegedly for “abandonment of duties”.
You should be thankful you live in a civilized country where to impeach a president they have to have committed a crime and you have to draw up articles of that crime in a court.
Not voting - without even a quorum - that he “abandoned duties” - that isn’t something that is written in any constitution.
And then to appoint your own new government. Lol.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
I’m sorry are you now claiming to be an expert in Ukrainian constitutional law?
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Their impeachment procedure is on Wikipedia.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Who wrote the Wikipedia article?
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
You are arguing over the authorship of a Wikipedia article?
WhoopsDroppedTheBaby@reddit
Yanukovich was never impeached.
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
Exactly. Even post Maidan government reiterated their neutrality towards NATO. It only flipped when Russians invaded. Historic revisionism in recent years has been jarring when it comes to the events of 2014.
YT_the_Investor@reddit
That’s delusional. There was already anti-Russian pro-Western government in power in Ukraine before Yanukovich and they were aggressively pushing Ukraine into NATO. Those same factions were leading Maidan and everyone with a brain knew that people were going to taken over after Yanukovich’s ouster. US state department was literally supporting the protests with Victoria Nuland being right there in the ground. It’s delusional to say that NATO wasn’t in the cards until Russia invaded
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
This needs to be said louder for the people in the back
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
NATO is really short hand (now) for the militarization of Ukraine and making it a fortified FOP for a future Operation: Barbarossa II
EugeneStonersDIMagic@reddit
There's that imagination again. Putin talks enough about nuclear weapons for you to understand how silly you sound.
angelolidae@reddit
Imagine equating a defensive alliance with the fucking nazis
Akatosh66@reddit
Hey false flag operation are a thing you know?
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
That will all happen right after we find Russian Auschwitz’s
GalacticMe99@reddit
Believe it or not: invading a country makes that country more willing to join an alliance that protects them against being invaded.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
No they didn’t. They literally immediately removed the neutrality clause in the constitution.
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
This is just blatantly false, but I would like to see what you are basing this on.
WhoopsDroppedTheBaby@reddit
Ukraine votes to drop non-aligned status - BBC News https://share.google/OwWeARdYTVhFYqDqm
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
Uhm Rusiian invasion of Crimea and Russian involvement Donbas already happened at that point...
WhoopsDroppedTheBaby@reddit
You are correct and I stand corrected.
While I would argue that there were pro-western and NATO influence in place prior, that is not a part of what you claimed.
JPolReader@reddit
That says that they dropped neutrality 9 months after being invaded. Which proves that poster correct.
Child_Summer@reddit
My man, that's December 2014. A whole-ass year after the Maidan and the russian invasion.
Plethorum@reddit
It is indeed jarring. Almost everyone here were alive 3.5 years ago, yet they behave like they werent
YT_the_Investor@reddit
You got it backwards.
The EU thing wasn’t what triggered Russia’s action, it’s what triggered the protests. Yanukovich ended the EU initiative and the protests began.
What triggered Russia’s action in 2014 was the ouster of Yanukovich, which meant that anti-RU pro-NATO forces once again were going to taken over (which they did).
The protests were about EU, Russia’s intervention was about NATO
Kiboune@reddit
Hah, ok, "russian people will realise" this and then that? Reddit users always talk like people in Russia don't know anything about corruption in country, because you never cared about internal situation in Russia, but you feel like experts. It doesn't matter if people realise anything, if every protests, every opposition is either beaten up or killed, since police and army are having tons of benefits and money from government.
MechaAristotle@reddit
I guess like for example Iran the Russian regime has it's security forces isolated and self-sufficient from the rest of the people so that they remain loyal? I'm genuinly asking since like you say, I don't know much about the internal situation.
Wiwwil@reddit
Estonia is tiny and insignificant
robber_goosy@reddit
Oh, is that why he offered Yanukovitsch a 10 times better deal than the EU in 2014 to join his trade union?
Chroma_primus@reddit
The trade Deal was worse thats the reason a lot of people protested against it.
robber_goosy@reddit
The deal Russia offered in 2014 was literally 10 times better and without annoying clausules about fighting corruption and getting finances in order. It was understandable Yanoukovitsch took it. But it would have meant Ukraine would be locked into Russias sphere of influence and thats what people protested.
Chroma_primus@reddit
Yanoukovitsch took the deal because He is a puppet of Putin.
The eu Deal is better thats why a lot of the Former soviet states joined.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
No he took the deal because Ukraine was on the brink of default.
They did in 2017. Surprise!
The EU Association Agreement required perpetual austerity, gutting government workforce, cutting pensions (they have down 5 times since 2014), eliminating the gas subsidy and selling off land & resources.
The 2021 land law is the most unpopular law ever passed in Ukraine, which resulted in 1/3 of its farm land being ripped from Ukrainian ownership to foreign ownership.
Poverty rates has skyrocketed in Ukraine. 60% of the population lives on less than $5 a day.
30% of the population struggles with food insecurity.
Prior to Trump forcing the minerals “deal” on Ukraine, the EU controlled most of their resources.
The EU deal was not better because it was not a deal for EU membership.
Chroma_primus@reddit
The EU Association agreement requires Balance budgeting and ukraine was already one of the poorest countrys in europe so the messures you describe where inevitable either way.
The biggest reason for the worsenig poverty Crisis and food chortages is the russian invasion.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Association Agreement does not defacto require you to abide by monetary rules.
And forcing candidates to do that is not only hypocritical but just stupid.
You want a very poor country to not spend too much? How are they supposed to develop? Magic?
Chroma_primus@reddit
If you want to you the association agreement is a first step in that direction and that is why most of them follow the monetary rules.
They will get aditional Funds from economic development and the free trade, free movment of services, capital and goods.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
No you don’t. Most of the EU doesn’t even follow their bogus monetary rules.
Chroma_primus@reddit
I belive you replied to the wrong commebt or worden it poorly maybe you could write out what you mean in greater Detail.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
EU fiscal “rules” require under 3% yearly deficit and under 60% overall debt to GDP.
The average EU country has 88.1% debt.
France is running a -5.70% budget deficit.
No one follows the fiscal rules. They are a total joke.
Brussels just changed the rules so that military spending does not count towards deficit spending, which makes zero sense.
Ukraine did not need to adhere to EU fiscal rules. It was unnecessary. It was counterproductive. Other association members did not have to do that.
Chroma_primus@reddit
Yeah i'm also for a fast joining of Ukraine and widening the depth Limit.
Neurobeak@reddit
Define "a lot".
Chroma_primus@reddit
The russian economy is only as big as italy while the eu is the biggest economic union on earth.
ravenrock_@reddit
only as big as Italy
Russia is a net energy exporter, net food exporter, and has a better debt to gdp ratio than any major European country. And by sheer size fourth largest economy on earth by GDP PPP. Just lol
Chroma_primus@reddit
Yes all valid points in favour of the russian economy.
However almost nothing of this immense wealth has trickeld down to the wider population or to the other countrys that are Part of russias economic and political Union.
Russia has extreme wealth inequallity even though it has a giant well of natural Ressources.
Neurobeak@reddit
You've said, literally, "a lot of former Soviet countries joined". What is "a lot" to you? What is the exact number?
Chroma_primus@reddit
Poland, chezia the three baltic countrys.
Neurobeak@reddit
Poland and Czech Republic were never Soviet countries. Out of these, only the Baltics were Soviet Republics. Which makes it 20% of the former Soviet states thay joined the EU
Chroma_primus@reddit
Okay i didn't know that sorry.
What were they then ?
Neurobeak@reddit
Warsaw pact countries. But not a part of the Soviet union, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union
Chroma_primus@reddit
Thanks
Poop_Scissors@reddit
How on earth can joining a trading block with Russia be better than the EU? You're talking absolute nonsense.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Lol, really? Lmao.
Because Russia is Top 5 exporter of like every major resource.
The entire European modern industry depends on trade with Russia
Poop_Scissors@reddit
You know this is a bad thing right? Exporting raw resources means you don't have a developed enough economy to process them domestically.
Russia also pretty much only exports hydrocarbons, Europe has shown they can buy them from elsewhere.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Yeah, that’s basically right. Still makes them a valuable trading partner.
Poop_Scissors@reddit
So that's better for Ukraine because??
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Because year on year trade value between Russia and Ukraine is 5 times what it was with Europe.
Poop_Scissors@reddit
Ukraine did more trade with just Poland than it did with Russia in 2021. Why are you lying?
Fresh-Wealth-8397@reddit
He super does know its a bad thing but won't admit it ever lol
robber_goosy@reddit
The long term is another story but in terms of immediate financial benefits the deal was literally 10 times better.
Poop_Scissors@reddit
The deal was basically Ukraine stays poor forever. The EU has mechanisms in place to invest in less developed regions, and far more money. Russia doesn't even invest in itself outside of two or three cities. You'd have to be a fool to believe anything in that 'deal'.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Well it wasn’t one or the other. At least Russia didn’t stipulate that
Poop_Scissors@reddit
... Yes they did. Are you not living in the same world as the rest of us or something?
1DarkStarryNight@reddit (OP)
lmao, the EU literally nearly managed to destroy the entirety of Southern Europe w/ their austerity.
of course, the EU itself is richer, but the OP is right that for the short-to-medium-term Russia’s offer was much better.
Poop_Scissors@reddit
Every single country in the EU has a higher gdp per capita than Russia. You're believing blatant lies if you think Russia had any possibility of investing that much in Ukraine.
What are you even talking about?
steauengeglase@reddit
AA/DCFTA:
-Expensive to join by way of modernization, but you get 330 million more potential customers.
-You'll get some cheaper goods from the EU and not have to deal with tariffs, but it might hurt local business.
-EU loans and aid.
-No cheap gas, but you'll probably get anti-corruption rules that will get the oligarchs off your back.
-Possible EU/NATO membership in the future.
EAEU:
-Protectionism from the EU.
-Russian subsidies, cheap credit, and promises of direct aid.
-Cheap gas. Expensive oligarchs.
-We promise to keep things most as is, but if you do sign, we promise not to hurt you.
-Corruption, just the way you like it.
-Potential to live in the sunshine of CSTO protection. As it turns out, that's kinda worthless.
In the end it's protectionism for legacy industry vs. potential for new industry. From some techno libertarian perspective, I can see where the EAEU is a no-brainer, but from the "I'm totally sick of bribing judges" perspective, AA/DCFTA seems like an obvious choice, not to mention the Russian path has a whole lot of "we pinky promise not to hurt you" built into it, while the EU path has a lot "no pain; no gain".
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
It didn’t have much about getting finances in order. EU is the last place you want to look to as a guiding light there.
It required things like selling off land and allowing foreign ownership of land, which transferred about 1/3 (officially) land ownership to foreign (mainly European) ownership.
Of course those same people would push Brussels to allow grain from lands they own in Ukraine into the EU without meeting with the same health & safety standards. They need to make money
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
It wasn’t better for Ukraine, it was better for yanukovych.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Yeah because austerity has been so good for Ukraine
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
How would you know what is or isn’t good for Ukraine? You’re defending russias bombing of Ukrainian children’s hospitals throughout this Reddit thread
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
It didn’t require him to join the customs union
AlexFullmoon@reddit
Well, a counteroffer is a perfectly normal thing to do in such case, yes.
The context here is not "we were completely fine with Ukraine choosing EU instead of EEU Customs Union and wouldn't have lifted a finger", it's that countermeasures would've been at most economical, not military.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
Its very simple.
Russia = Geopolitical rival both in military and energy vs. the US.
Ukraine = Perfect tool to cripple Russia as much as possible.
I really don't understand why people are trying to split atoms when its a simple matter of geopolitics.
CuriousCat31441@reddit
Please explain how Ukraine could have been used to cripple Russia (prior to 2022). And how does Nato membership play into this. I am interested.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
You sound genuine so I will provide a genuine answer as well.
In geopolitics, its not a matter of if X can utilized in a certain way to harm another nation. For example, lets look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lets say US allows USSR to station a lot of nukes on Cuba. One can easily say; so what? USSR is not crazy enough to launch an out of nowhere full scale nuclear attack on US.
Kennedy said and I quote "It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."
Which did not really make any sense. USSR would not do such a thing.
But idea behind geopolitics is not what a country WILL do. From a geopolitical perspective, a key point is about deterrence and the balance of power. It's not about whether the USSR had a genuine intention to attack, but rather the capability to do so and the strategic threat that capability represented.
Same goes with the Ukraine issue. Its not a matter of NATO attacking Russia from Ukraine. Its about the struggle for a sphere of influence and the management of a perceived strategic threat. By potentially hosting missiles or advanced military installations, Ukraine could provide a "launchpad" that shortens reaction times, making a preemptive strike more difficult to counter and thus weakening Russia's own nuclear deterrent.
Would Ukraine do it? No. But geopolitics is not about that.
CuriousCat31441@reddit
Your arguments are focused on nuclear weapons. But Nato membership does not include nuclear weapons stationed in the country.
Currently, there are no nuclear weapons stationed in any Nato country that joined after the fall of the Soviet union. Not the Baltics, not Finland, not Romania, not Poland, not Slovakia. Not one. The closest nuclear weapons are in Germany and Turkey, and they have been there since the cold war.
I understand that Putin has red and yellow lines. But anyone can say anything and have any red line they wish. Doesn’t mean they are correct. Doesn’t mean they make sense.
It is absolutely clear to me, that the way to keep safe and enrich the Russian population, is to integrate it into Europe and the world. You don’t have to be a bitch to the US as most European countries have chosen to be, but continuing on the path of peace and trade would have been the ticket to a developed and strong Russia. Having Ukraine ”in your sphere of influence” does nothing for the Russian people.
Instead, Russia is now fighting for the entrenched interests of the oligarchy. Bringing full scale war to 21st century Europe, killing and wounding over a million Russians, and potentially endangering the existence of the entire country, maybe even the civilized world.
Kinperor@reddit
This is false in term of US expectations. The US have heap of tolerance for dictators and inhuman regime. But it is chronically unable to tolerate any deviation from it's hegemonic ambition.
Look at all the places that got coup'd, sanctioned or bombed by the US for daring to act in their best interest (against the interest of the US).
The Shah of Iran was installed by a US and UK joint effort, because Iranians dared to talk about nationalizing their oil. A perfectly fine democracy turned into a brutal dictatorship, all because Iran wouldn't be a "bitch" to the US.
swelboy@reddit
Not that the Shah was any better, but don’t act like Mosaddagh was running a “perfectly fine democracy”, he was already more or less in the process of becoming a dictator by the time he was overthrown.
Also, can an event from all the way back in 1953 be used to represent current international relations? And if America still tries to coup nations that go against their interests, how come people like Orban and Fico are still alive? Why did the US proceed to do absolutely nothing when various military leaders in the Sahel couped their governments and then distanced their nations from the US and France? They lost almost an entire region’s worth of military partners within the span of a few years, does that really sound like a nation that brutally represses anti-US governments?
Kinperor@reddit
Does that matter? The story here is "US interfered", and the trigger is "Iran tried to nationalize resources". Who asked the US their opinion on either Mosaddagh or on oil nationalization?
Have your pick, then. I would argue the list is probably missing entries.
By all account, the US empire is dying, hence why more lackeys are getting away with rebellion, here and there. I would also argue that the US' main strength is creating conditions for crisis, more than direct intervention.
I would point out, that the US threatened Canada and Greenland with annexation for very short-sighted reasons, deployed ships to Venezuela's coast and bombed Iran to please Israel. I firmly believe that, were it not a dying empire, the US would absolutely be making the life worst for everyone (and they're trying to).
swelboy@reddit
I was only talking about your claim about Iran under Mossadagh being democratic, not the reasons why the CIA and MI6 helped coup him.
Well what do you mean by “regime change” though? Like as a whole or an imperialistic ones? Because ofc America has been involved in “regime change”* but I really wouldn’t consider the US helping to depose Mobutu or Noriega for example to be “imperialistic” or even amoral.
*a term like “regime change” literally just means a country working to replace one regime with another, so even the Allies deposing the Nazis falls under “regime change”.
Kinperor@reddit
I'm confused why you would bring up those two dictators. The US and Belgium cooperated to elevate Mobutu into a reign of terror, and Noriega had close ties with the CIA: the latter didn't care about his dictatorship until the relationships between Panama and the US devolved dramatically. So really, those are actually some prime examples that should show you that the US does not do "wholesome" regime changes.
I recommend reading about the fall of Libya and Gadafi (link to an article on the topic) to get a sense of the regime changes that the US support. The country went from stable with a well-educated population, to open air prison within a few years. And it was done with NATO's air support.
How is this about US imperialism? Gadafi's Libya was leading the charge for, among other thing, an unified african currency. Based on how the US would impose sanction with its leverage over the dollar, you can see how such a currency would be unacceptable, as it removes one of the levers that the US can control to force submission from third parties.
swelboy@reddit
And what did that support consist of and how recent was it?
And that wasn’t my point anyhow, my point was that the US still helped to depose Noriega and to an extent Mobutu, without really any imperialistic motives, that the Panamanian and Congolese people massively benefiting from the overthrow of their respective leaders. I would also say the US helping the Kyrgyz and Yugoslav opposition during the Tulip and Bulldozer revolution were morally just regime changes, even if Kyrgyzstan failed to become democratic in the long term, or is that America’s fault too?
Ofc you’re one of those “gold dinar” people. Gaddafi made also sorts of ludicrous promises of his tenure, talking about wanting to do something and actually doing it are very different. Also, it’s not NATO’s fault the opposition couldn’t work together after defeating Gaddafi, who may I remind you, was still a very brutal tyrant
Kinperor@reddit
NATO gave air support and blockaded Libya. The "rebels" had no chance at toppling the government otherwise.
I'm not going to argue that Gaddafi was perfect across the board, but under his leadership, Libya was "[...] boasting the highest Human Development Index (HDI) in Africa and a median income of $12,250, comparable to some European nations, Libya has joined the ranks of failed states like Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen since 2011".
I don't think I can get my point across to you if you think that this, Mobutu and Noriega are success stories. The US (and NATO) backed "rebel" forces they knew were unstable and violent.
Approaching this from another point of view, if the US are guided by morality with their regime changes: how come they are still supporting Israel? A single phone call from the white house could stop the genocide happening in Gaza. How come they aren't doing that regime change, if they truly care about morality?
swelboy@reddit
Your point? Without NATO intervention, the civil war would have been much more bloody and drawn out.
Since when did I say America is completely guided by morality/idealism? No country’s foreign policy revolves completely around idealism (nor should really, there must always be room for pragmatism), but some of America’s actions can be viewed as morally just regardless. Emphasis on some btw, I think Biden not being harsher Israel was a moral and arguably even a strategic failing in the long term.
Kinperor@reddit
I'm not sure how you are able to bridge these two points of view. Taking down Gaddafi and turning Libya from "highest african HDI" into a (temporarily, if you insist) failed state with open air slave market can be justified, but a regime change on a genocidal state is not fine due to risks to citizens? I don't even wish ill on Israelis, the genocide could be ended with a phone call without even dismantling their military deterrence.
I don't believe you stated it openly. But at this point I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make. Using your words, "no country’s foreign policy revolves completely around idealism (nor should really, there must always be room for pragmatism)"... So why do you think the US has such a laundry list of regime change credited to them? They have military bases across the globe, interfere in elections in multiple countries, and perform regime change operations, and all that is not imperialism?
Herooo31@reddit
The way Ukraine in EU is going to cripple russia is Ukraine becoming richer than russia. Russians see ukrainians and really everybody as lesser. They cant allow ukrainians to be richer country it would destroy russian political system. Russians would want what ukrainians have. They simply cannot allow that to happen.
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
And of course Russians still see Ukraine as a province so if the wayward province starts to do better than most of the non-Muscovite regions of Russia and even get close to Muscovite Russia then the non-Muscovites are going to start asking questions. Such as "Why can't we have running water and indoor bogs?" Indeed we saw Russian troops stealing toilets at the beginning of the war.
I was talking to an old colleague who worked for OSCE pre-war and spent time in both Ukraine and cisUral Russia who pointed out that whilst Ukraine was according to the stats poorer and more corrupt than Russia the average standard of living when you got out of the cites was probably a bit better.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
60% of Ukrainians live on less than $5 a day. So we know that simply isn’t true.
Yeah, Russia is poor especially outside the cities but not that poor.
Ukraine was the only Soviet republic in 2014 to be poorer than it was than at independence
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
Where did you get that from?
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
The world bank.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Is that why 8 of 32 Russian cabinet posts are held by Ukrainians?
And if the goal was to make Ukrainians richer than are doing a shitty job of that
CluelessExxpat@reddit
Geopolitics doesn't make sense. Its a reality of the world. Its existence is not based on rationality.
You can choose to live with this reality or paint a fake pink picture of the world you are living in.
The fact that you are talking about nukes or think that my point was about nukes mean you could not understand my comment and therefore geopolitics. Perhaps its my fault for not being able to do so, well, nothing i can do about that, i did my best.
CuriousCat31441@reddit
Oh it definitely makes sense. It just depends whose interests are taken into account. In dictatorships, hardly ever are the interests of the people taken into account. Beyond keeping enough of them somewhat satisfied, so they dont revolt. Thats the nature of political systems.
But, we both seem to basically agree that what mr. Putin is doing makes no sense, at least when it comes to bettering the lives of the Russian people. It probably makes sense for the interests of the oligarchy.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
No country takes its citizens' interest first. Otherwise you wouldn't have disgusting wealth and income inequality charts all over the world.
CuriousCat31441@reddit
Not perfectly, but democracies do more than dictatorships. Democracy esseantially means, that power and control is distributed in society.
And sure, no democracy is perfect. But democracy is not really something you either have or you dont. The line between democracy and authoritarianism is a spectrum, and no country is a perfect example of either one.
Even in North Korea, the dictator does not really do absolutely whatever he wants, and he cannot control everything. And even in countries such as Switzerland or Finland, there are significant imbalances of power and established interests that go against the population.
But a society can be closer to full concentration of power (perfect authoritarianism) or fully deconcentrated power (perfect democracy).
The more power the people have, the more their interests are taken into account in decision-making.
War is almost never in the interest of the majority. Cooperation is in the interest of the people. That is also why there has never been a noteworthy war between 2 well established democracies. War happens because of concentrated power and interests.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Deprive Russia of warm water port and all connection to Mediterranean.
Cut off their export route.
Be able to foment insurgencies and revolts in Southern Russia from a Ukrainian FOB, much like how it was used during the Civil War.
EugeneStonersDIMagic@reddit
Do you know what the Dardanelles are? The West™️ didn't need Ukraine to deny Russia transit from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean if push came to shove. And what's the water temp for the port of Novorossiysk?
CuriousCat31441@reddit
”Cut off their connection to the mediterranean”. What? The connection to the mediterranean is controlled by Turkey, a Nato member since the cold war.
As for insurgencies and revolts, you dont need Ukraine in Nato for that. Nato is a defence pact.
Again, Ukraine in Nato has nothing to do with what you are saying.
Kiboune@reddit
People still pretend what US doesn't have their own agenda in this. putin gave them a gift in 2022 and they're gladly used it to weaken rival
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Russia could have simply not invaded if it’s such an “obvious tool to cripple Russia”, unless you think Putin is an idiot?
CluelessExxpat@reddit
And US could have simply not naval blockaded Cuba. They make the rules, I don't. I can only observe the morons that are playing this game of geopolitics.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
So you think Putin is a moron?
CluelessExxpat@reddit
Yes.
But I also think all world leaders are morons for this geopolitics nonsense.
You will either be a moron and do stupid things or be left out of the game.
ferroo0@reddit
yeah I wish people just took it for what it is, rather then trying to create some sort of complicated narrative, with added layer of revised history on top of it ;/
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
Does he remember that he first invaded Ukraine in 2014 because they were going to join the EU? NATO wasn't even involved, Ukraine was constitutionally barred from joining up.
Perhaps he's going senile. More likely he is lying
Professional-Way1216@reddit
You got it wrong, Russia invaded because of the 2014 coup.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
It wasn’t a coup, yanukovych was impeached after ordering police to shoot at peaceful protestors. How do some people say the wrong thing so confidently?
And there were protests because he broke his campaign promises of closer ties to the eu.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Peaceful protestors demolishing public property ?
Well then protestors could've voted him out in the next elections half a year away. And again your claim is wrong, Russia invaded because of the coup.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
There wasn’t much destruction of peaceful property until yanukovych police started shooting.
Also in France the protests have so much property damage, would you say it’s okay for Macron to order those protesters to be shot at, and then for him to be not impeached for that?
Professional-Way1216@reddit
If you believe there was no coup in 2014 Ukraine, you also have to believe there was no coup in Iran 1953, and there was no coup in Chile 1973.
At least you'd be consistent in believing those were organic protests without any US involvement.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Were they legally impeached?
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Breaking social contract has no bearing on if it's a coup or not.
In all those coups were casualties during the process.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Someone has obviously never read Rousseau...
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Forcefully ousting democratically elected leadership after not fulfilling some election campaign promises is still a coup.
As far as I know neither killed any people before the coup process started.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
So they didn’t kill over 100, like yanukovych did. Completely different situation then.
So you think all instances of impeachment are coups? If Netanyahu gets impeached by his government for his war crimes you’ll be crying “coup”?
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Source on Yanukovych killing over 100 people ?
No, just violent protest supported by foreign actors with a goal of overthrowing democratically elected leadership.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-society/3769653-sprava-pro-rozstril-nebesnoi-sotni-pered-sudom-postanut-anukovic-i-ves-todisnij-silovij-blok.html
Okay so since this was an impeachment and the violence started by the removed president, it doesn’t satisfy your definition
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Those casualties were a result of a violent protest supported by foreign actors, so during the coup. I specified there were no killings before the coup taking place.
Casualties happened in all instances during the coup - it's the same for Iran, Chile, and Ukraine.
Impeachment was a result of the coup, it's not really relevant. So my definition still holds - the causality is coup -> impeachment.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Okay so changing of your definition. Got it. If Netanyahu gets impeached it’s a coup, and USA should invade and put him back in power?
Professional-Way1216@reddit
I haven't changed definition at all.
Yanukovych impeachment came AFTER the coup, so it's irrelevant in this regard. Your example would stand if for example Iran-supported violent protesters overthrow Netanyahu, he flees to US, and after a couple of months after that Netanyahu gets impeached. That would be coup as well.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Except the difference is the violence was done by yanukovych initially and not by the protesters.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Sometimes using force is necessary in prevention of the coup. Prevention of unlawful actions in general. That's literally how law enforcement works anywhere in the world.
I never said president can't be protested or impeached. But as long as the goal of the foreign supported protest is to forcefully overthrow democratically elected leadership, it's simply a coup.
Coup can be solely domestic as well as with foreign support, which was the case in Iran, Chile, and Ukraine.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
I mean that is Russia’s stated reason for intervening and it matches up with everything else
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Yes and weapons of mass destruction is America s reason for invading Iraq
Plethorum@reddit
If the putin-sycophants can't grasp for straws, how can they build their strawman?
Poop_Scissors@reddit
That's exactly what happened though. They held elections after Yanukovych refused to come back to Ukraine.
Russia also heavily pressured Yanukovych not to start ascension talks with the EU which is what caused the unrest in the first place.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
No. That is not what happened.
The goal was to get rid of Yanukovich. Why would he run away as president?
Poop_Scissors@reddit
I don't know, ask him. What do you think happened then? He just fancied a helicopter ride with his favourite suitcases full of cash and lost the keys?
His party openly asked him to come back and run the country and when he refused there was no choice but to have an election.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
I think armed “activists” - who were ordered to disarm - defied that order. When the police fulfilled their side of the agreement, vacating the square, those armed “activists” seized all government buildings and the presidential palace.
https://rus.azattyk.org/a/25273027.html
It was a coup.
Poop_Scissors@reddit
Mate what on earth is that source...
All government buildings? They didn't even seize the parliament building in Kyiv.
No it wasn't, they took part in the elections in 2014. Why are you lying when it's so easily verifiable?
If it was a coup why did Putin respect the outcome of the elections hmm?
Professional-Way1216@reddit
They held "elections" without Crimea and Donbas, and without a democratically elected president ousted by a violent protest.
Maybe they should've waited half a year for the regular elections instead of making a coup supported by the US.
JPolReader@reddit
Except that the president was ousted by a vote of parliament, not a violent protest.
AntonioVivaldi7@reddit
Russian dictator really cares about democracy, right?
Poop_Scissors@reddit
How were they supposed to hold elections in areas of the country that were being invaded? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
How can a country run without a president?
The US supporter Yanukovych staying in Russia did they?
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
https://www.unian.net/politics/888104-verhovnaya-rada-administratsiya-prezidenta-kabmin-i-mvd-pereshli-pod-kontrol-maydana.html
https://rus.azattyk.org/a/25273027.html
“Yanukovich is in Kharkiv, Kyiv is under our control”
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
lol citing a source owned by Kholomoisky is definitely “trustworthy”. But I’m also a bit confused what you’re trying to prove? Obviously there were some people with extreme positions in the protests. Hell the guy Putin sent to fight in Donbas just months later (because they couldn’t find enough Ukrainian volunteers) had SS tattoos on his neck. And Putin then personally gave him the George ribbon or whatever.
ferroo0@reddit
in 2014 there wasn't a referendum for EU membership, it was a fully fledged revolution that overthrew current government and lead to civil war. It was about much, much more stuff rather then "just joining the Union".
I tried looking for articles, where Putin proclaimed some sort of opposition towards Ukrainian EU membership, and the only thing related to that was Putin stating in 2013 (use google translate), that Customary Union between Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus will take "defensive actions", in case Ukraine will become integrated with UA, explaining that EU goods may flood the Russian market via Ukrainian suppliers. That's kind of it.
also this article states that Ukrainian euro-integration in 2013 was practically frozen after Ukraine arrested opposition leader Yulia Timoshenko, which is a fun trip to the past when no one in the West wanted to deal with Ukraine, lol
Practical-Pea-1205@reddit
It wasn't a civil war. There were Russian troups there, even though Putin denied it. And while he has said he's fine with Ukraine in the EU he has also said all of Ukraine belongs to Russia. He will only allow Ukraine to join the EU if they elect a Orban or Fico.
Kiboune@reddit
Russian troops in Kyiv? As far as I remember, they were in Crimea during annexion, but definitely not in the middle of revolution
ferroo0@reddit
It was, in fact, a civil war. It's all started in the April 2014, when self proclaimed Donetsk National Republic movement started, when separatists started raiding and pillaging Ukrainian police stations to gather weapons to raid Ukrainian administrative buildings. I'm perfectly aware about Russian troops, that were, quietly, transported there to help separatists.
it's disingenuous to claim, that the entirety of this movement was completely fabricated and created by the Russia itself. Since Ukrainian independence, the gap between Western and Eastern Ukraine appeared, both sides disagreeing on which political alignment should Ukraine make. Historically, Ukrainian leadership was represented by the Eastern candidates, who pushed for closer cooperation with Russia, rather then with Europe. When extreme elements overtook government in 2014, few month later equally extreme elements from the East started doing some sort of counter-revolution, anti-Maidan type movement.
and I know all of these debacles about Girkin, and "little green men", or whatever. I'm perfectly aware about Russian forces unofficially participating in the fight between Ukrainian government and Eastern separatists. But all of this started later, when Russia quietly took separatists side (cuz' it's benefited them, obviously).
Putin is, like I said, never really opposed Ukrainian ascension into the EU. I don't have a basis to believe that Russian government will make barriers for Ukraine in this regard. If there's any articles about Russian representatives opposing said ascension then you're free to share. Also Putin' manifesto about Ukraine belonging to Russia is pretty unhinged, but I never read it in full, only summaries, so no comment here either.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Igor Girkin, Russian fsb, was in charge of starting the separatist uprising in 2014. He talks about this on his podcast. One of the things he mentioned was that they couldn’t find enough Ukrainian volunteers so they had to get Russian soldiers out of uniform to come and be the majority of the fighting force.
MelodiusRA@reddit
There were never significant separtist forces. That’s why the little green men were sent in. There was no civil war.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Really?
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/ukraines-offensive-falters-as-elite-units-defect-to-pro-russia-side
Huh. So why did Ukraine call it an Anti-Terrorist Operation?
ferroo0@reddit
and how do you know that? and any amount of separating forces means that there was, in fact, a civil war - their low amount may signify their impending defeat, but not the fact of war itself.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
By your logic, no one should be opposed to January 6th either.
grand_historian@reddit
Putin is completely right of course, but you won't hear that in the mainstream media or from the think tank world.
ZhouDa@reddit
Anyone who knew about the events leading up to Euromaidan would know Putin is lying. If Putin didn't pressure Yanukovych into rejecting the trade treaty with the EU, there wouldn't have been protests in Maidan square nor the violent response to the protests by Yanukovych, nor would Yanukovych be forced to flee to Moscow and Putin wouldn't have used the subsequent chaos to seize Crimea.
So yeah, you are being downvoted because you are so clearly wrong. Hope getting a taste of Putin's boot is worth it.
pimmen89@reddit
Russia has centuries of history of dominating and using Ukraine, even starving it. It has always treated Ukraine as second class to Russians. I don’t understand the point that the EU are using Ukraine when Russia has never treated Ukraine as an equal.
Winjin@reddit
For centuries it was either the same country, or Kiev was literally the capitol.
pimmen89@reddit
For the past centuries Ukraine belonged to the Russian empire, you mean? I guess you have a point that everyone suffered equally under the Russian empire.
Winjin@reddit
No it did not. It was THE KIEVAN RUS for centuries, then half of it was of multiple countries including what's modern Poland (specifically Western half of the country) up until like, 1940s. And the other part was basically the same country as the rest, with the semi-autonomous Cossacks.
THEN we get to the XIX century, which has erasure of the language and autonomy, and then there's the XX century which has nothing to do with "Russia" and everything to do with "Soviets" because the Holodomor for example was engineered by... a Georgian. And the "engineered" part is debatable, because they, quite possibly, were just shit at managing resources, because the similar famine was happening throughout the USSR.
pimmen89@reddit
The Russification of the Ukrainian language started 300 years ago by Tsar Peter I, that would be the past centuries.
That was orchestrated from Moscow or St. Petersburg, which is in Russia and have been Russian speaking for the past centuries. It’s also from Moscow that the Soviet Union was controlled.
Winjin@reddit
No, that was when both Ruthenian and Church Slavonic, as well as other languages, were only beginning to see some sort of standardization, as far as I see, rather than some sinister attempt at locals control.
And you're not splitting hairs, but just straight up reading all propaganda points from "Russia Very Bad" bulletin that just throws out literally any nuance in favor of "Ukrainians good, Russians imperial and bad"
pimmen89@reddit
Are you going to deny the Russification of Ukraine and make the claim that they were treated equally just because we can quibble over when it started? And that the Holodomor doesn’t show Ukrainians being treated unequally because other people were also targeted and starved in the USSR?
Winjin@reddit
Nah. It's more about being somewhat salty or anti-establishmrnt or whatever and pointing out that pretty much every metropoly is shitty to other regions to some degree, especially towards their autonomy. And I don't like the Holodomor presented as some exclusive targeted event, as if Russians living in Ukraine were better off, or there weren't famines everywhere else, or Stalin being washed in with some average "Russians" when Bolsheviks were from all around and he wasn't Russian at all.
I just don't like two things, shitty government (I think most were throughout the times) and incorrect history (sometimes even these shitters would do stuff right)
1DarkStarryNight@reddit (OP)
now let's talk about the treatment of subjects of British, German, Austro-Hugarian, Polish-Lithuanian, Ottoman Turkish, Empires.
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
How many of those countries are still in the empire business? How many have annexed part of their neighbours in the last half-century? How many have decimated (in the literal sense) villages in cold blood or kidnapped children in their thousands?
pimmen89@reddit
Why? I’m not making the argument that the West is treating the Ukrainians like equals, or that they ever have. Ukraine is choosing between who of these two camps to ally itself with, neither of which treats them like equals, but one is leveling their cities and killing their children. It’s up to the Ukrainians to decide which one they like more.
Available_Command252@reddit
You won't hear it because he's not right
LeviathanGoesToSleep@reddit
What's up with reddittors always editing their comments to whine about downvotes when they get them?
ZillesBotoxButtocks@reddit
This is literally published in The Guardian.
grand_historian@reddit
You'll never hear that Putin is right.
ZillesBotoxButtocks@reddit
Of course you do. You hear that he's so right he might as well be far right.
AntonioVivaldi7@reddit
Invaders always want peace of course.
Russia invaded Ukraine even before NATO existed. Even before the US existed. It's just what they do. They'll keep doing it as long as they have the capacity to do it.
ferroo0@reddit
huh? some kind of alternative history?
ExArdEllyOh@reddit
Russia started conquering what is now Ukraine during the 18th century.
Interestingly the self-described "anti imperialists" who rightly condemn the British acquisition of India during the same time period tend to be quiet about Russian imperialism.
1DarkStarryNight@reddit (OP)
17th century,
and,in reality, Russia saved the then ‘Ukrainian’ state from Catholic/Polish-Lithuanian domination and potential extermination, via the Peryaslav agreement that the then Ukrainian authorities (political & religious) actively supported. subsequently, Poland-Lithuania invaded what is today Ukraine, & Russia successfully fought them off.
in fact, this served as an annual celebration in Ukraine until 2008 or thereabouts.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a democratic republic that guaranteed fundamental human rights.
They offered to make Ukraine a full member in a Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian Commonwealth if they signed the agreement and they kicked the Russians out.
Wide-Rub432@reddit
You've just got this out off your ass don't you?
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
It doesn’t really matter what I say.
This sub is pretty racialist so all that matters is your handle.
EugeneStonersDIMagic@reddit
Spends all their days crafting these wonders of imagination.
Halbaras@reddit
It's because they fall for the USSR's whole 'brotherhood of nations' shtick. Nevermind the fact that the USSR inherited huge swathes of their territories from the Russian Empire, they had to reconquer various areas that had declared independence, or that they continued the colonisation policies of settling ethnic Russians in historically non-Russian areas and forcing Russian culture on minorities. Also nevermind that entire ethnicities (like the Koryo-Saram) were ethnically cleansed and relocated because Stalin was paranoid about their loyalty to the Empire.
There was a point in time where France said the same things about Algeria that Russia says about Ukraine.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Have you not studied Eurasian history? Russia didn’t exist really in its modern form until like 16th or even arguably 17th century. And it conquered most of modern day Ukraine in the 18th century.
AlexanderTheIronFist@reddit
Man, you should look at Italy and Germany histories...
Main_Following1881@reddit
Soviet Russia invaded Independent Ukraine back in 1920s, but like that was during the civil war and you could argue that Soviet Russia was also invading White Russia at the same time
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Is that the same Ukraine that was ruled by a white army general who didn’t speak Ukrainian and had never been to Ukraine?
BallisticFiber@reddit
Even more, Russia invaded Ukraine in paleolithic period to enslave proto-ukranians and steal their women. Never forget, never again
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
And Putin is 6ft tall!
Practical-Pea-1205@reddit
Even if Putin is fine with Ukraine he will do everything to install a Fico or Orban in Kyiv. He doesn't want Ukraine to be neutral, he wants them to be fully aligned with and dependent on Russia.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
After how many children’s hospitals Putin bombed there’s no way in hell Ukrainians are electing an orban / fico.
TeaSure9394@reddit
I wish it was true but Georgia's example proves this logic wrong. You have to combat the russian influence on a constant basis in order to avoid that, not just blindly believe it won't happen again.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Oh yeah. Hahahaha.
Georgia tries to pass an electoral interference law that would combat Russian influence.
A law that is the direct translation of the American law…
Yeah, nothing makes Russia happier than making NGOs disclose their funding sources.
AMechanicum@reddit
"Making foreign influence known is a threat to democracy!"
Some politicians unironically.
Plethorum@reddit
Not without a whole lot of election interference
1DarkStarryNight@reddit (OP)
Artem Dmitruk, Ukraine’s parliament (Rada) deputy welcomed Putin’s statement, and added:
“Sometimes people tell me, Ukrainians are closer to the West, the West accepts us as its own. To this I reply: this is fundamentally not true. The West will never perceive us as equals. As slaves — yes. As a tool — yes. But not as partners. For the West, Ukrainians are the same as Russians. There is no, and never has been a difference. It’s just that one day they found a convenient tool: to use some Russians against other Russians”.
“The issue is, there’s always been our ‘authorities’ who, for three kopecks, would take jobs in the colonial project of ‘anti-Russia Ukraine’. That is the problem: our main enemy is not the West, or the Russian Federation, but us”.
“With the West, we should build completely different relations — equal, based on partnership, without slavery and humiliation”.
Born_Suspect7153@reddit
He says, while Russia is bombing his "fellow Russians". But of course the West is forcing his hand to blow up another Hospital or School while Putin is shedding a tear.
1DarkStarryNight@reddit (OP)
Putin has said many times that this war is a ‘tragedy’ provoked by the West.
Putin has never dehumanised Ukrainians, in fact he calls them brotherly people. this is in direct contrast to how the likes of Israel or Azerbaijan treat their opponents. heck, it's the opposite of how parts of the West are currently openly describing Russians.
In terms of civilian casualties, this conflict has the lowest, % of out of all major conflicts in the 21st century. still bad, but the idea that Russia is, consistently, going after civilians is bs.
members from both sides have committed war crimes, and I believe all should be held responsible, no question.
Russians and Ukrainians are one people, that is the reality,
and Ukrainians that realise that, despite the current crisis, should be given extra credit.
Born_Suspect7153@reddit
>Russians and Ukrainians are one people, that is the reality,
Austrians and Germans are one people, yet live in two different countries and respect eachothers borders.
We could get into detail how it's not necessary to target cities and especially hospitals etc. or steal children but in the end it's simple: If Russia really cares about Ukrainians then they can just leave Ukraine.
1DarkStarryNight@reddit (OP)
let's see how the US would have reacted if Canada had a coup, replace their government, and attempted to join the CSTO and align with Russia. all of this funded & promoted by Russia.
I mean the US already threatened to annex Canada as it is, the idea that they'd just ignore the scenario I outlined above, and instead go about their business, is ridiculous.
ultimately, more or less all states, care about their own interests. Russia is no different on that front. still, Russia could have chosen to dehumanise Ukrainians as disgusting creatures, or whatever, but they didn't. Russia could have gone after the over a million ethnic Ukrainians in Russia, if this was about ‘ethnic cleansing’ or something fundamentally anti-Ukrainian, but didn't. Ukraine is part of Russia’s identity and vice versa.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Canada has elections where the results are unsatisfactory for USA all the time.
Also yanukovych wasn’t “couped” this isn’t game of thrones, he was legally impeached after ordering police to shoot at peaceful protesters.
EugeneStonersDIMagic@reddit
I don't think they actually had enough members of the Rada present to have an impeachment vote when they did it.
LatterTarget7@reddit
If Russia doesn’t want it neighbours siding with the west and nato they should stop invading them, interfering in them and threatening them. What did Russia think was gonna happen?
Born_Suspect7153@reddit
So your message is: "Yes, Russia is an awful neighbor that attacks its brother-nation because it dares to not be a subject anymore, but USA would've done the same, maybe!"
I mean, even in the best case scenario Russia is still the evil power here that should be opposed at every step.
Plethorum@reddit
Whataboutism is the only defense they have. They hope to distract you so that tou instead talk about that time someone else did something kinda awful. For some reason they think that means it's ok to be awful
bxzidff@reddit
Would you support that invasion too?
mmmmsmegma@reddit
🫵🤣 you can’t be serious. I means Scots just little brits then
bxzidff@reddit
Meanwhile, the quote in your title:
-Putin, describing the people of the country he calls "artificial"
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
I mean the genocidal intentions of Putin were put pretty transparently in his feb 24 speech
GS300Star@reddit
The EU would be a fool to let Ukraine in the EU while they have to play nice with Russia. Might as well let Russia in at that point.
1DarkStarryNight@reddit (OP)
that is the only thing to truly unite the continent, and save Europe.
GalacticMe99@reddit
If Russians want to unite the continent they can start with getting the fuck out of Ukraine.
GS300Star@reddit
Yeah Europe is constantly arguing over who will take the lead between Germany and France. Adding Russia will surely split it for real. EU isn't going to last because half the countries want war and the other half waste money.
1DarkStarryNight@reddit (OP)
There is no need for a leader — everyone can benefit off each other. This is what was envisioned for the EU, after all. Peace through mutual understanding. Accepting the differences, but working towards a similar goal.
Incorporating Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, would have avoided all this. Instead, the West shunned it whilst antagonising it. Preaching about values whilst praising as well as working w/ some of the worst regimes out there. Ignoring the ‘international law’ they're now citing & that they, themselves, established when convenient to them (Kosovo). Ultimately, fundamentally turning the EU into an anti-Russian institution that serves Nato/US interests, when this did not have to be the case.
The only way for true peace & prosperity, in Europe is to accept Russia as equals, whilst recognising its status.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
EU did not even want to take Turkey in when they seriously started working for the EU membership due to its size. It would make Turkey have too much say in the EU.
They would NEVER allow Russia in.
GS300Star@reddit
So EU/NATO should give U.S reparations on the defense spending since WW2 and we can pull out from Europe and let you guys hold hands with Putin.
Tricky_Weight5865@reddit
Of course, the way to save Europe is to bend over for those who do the most damage to it and let them do more!
Youre never beating the Russian propagandist allegations with these takes.
bxzidff@reddit
The kind of unity seen in 1956 and 1968
cesaroncalves@reddit
The EU defence treaty is stronger than Natos.
One can also argue that the EU defence treaty is the only one that actually deters Russia with the USA being a puppet today.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Absolutely. But it was never about defending Ukraine.
You could defend Ukraine without NATO membership. In fact, it would be easier without it.
It was about using Ukraine as a captured market for American MiC and as a FOB against Russia.
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
How do you figure it would be easier to defend Ukraine without NATO membership? If they'd gotten in when Bush wanted them in back in 2008, an invasion couldn't have happened.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
An invasion could have happened and still would have. Remember Georgia in 2008?
It would be even worse if that happened because whatever you say about the readiness of the Russian military in 2008, it was vastly better than Ukraine.
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
You know Georgia wasn’t in NATO in 2008, right? The Soviet Union has never invaded a NATO country, after it collapsed the Russian Federation has never invaded a NATO country. It’s not winnable for them.
thistimepurple@reddit
This just isn't true, but this could be true in 5-10 years. But most countries in the EU have spent years chronically underfunding their miltaries, they need time to rebuild.
cesaroncalves@reddit
The treaty itself is stronger, not the militaries.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
The militaries are not supposed to be stronger. If they had strong militaries, Europe might start thinking they don’t need America or might stand up to us.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
With what money?
France has 113% debt to GDP and runs at a 5% deficit.
mrgoobster@reddit
Really the thing deterring Russia right now is that it's mired down in Ukraine.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Deterring it from what?
GianfrancoZoey@reddit
It’s very funny to me that people actually believe America is ‘Russia’s puppet’
cesaroncalves@reddit
It's a puppet, not necessarily Russian, or just Russia, and getting obvious strings pulled by Putin.
bollebob5@reddit
Ukraine & Europe is being used to weaken Europe, Ukraine and Russia. Literally the perfect scenario for USA.
I don't know why people are naive and believe NATO is there to 'protect' EU. That's horseshit. NATO's entire existence is to extract value from member countries, with the threat of an imminent Russian invasion.
Like it or not, but Europe is a threat to USA's hegemony, just like China, India, Russia and everyone else with a big economy.
Europe will be in a better place when they realise this simple fact.
moepooo@reddit
Lol, they couldn't even accept the EU trade pact. How many times have they threatened to completely f*ck Ukraine with import tariffs since 2013? They would have never accepted Ukraine in the EU.
GodZ_n_KingZ@reddit
Putin is right, i think NATO should be abolished, it proven nothing but a threat for world stability and peace.
LatterTarget7@reddit
And Russia contributes a lot to stability yes?
Plethorum@reddit
Lol, what an extreme lack of self awareness
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
I think Russia should be abolished, Russia has proven nothing but a threat for world stability and peace.
Monterenbas@reddit
Putin is the greatest NATO salesman, he single handely proved why NATO is a necessecity for Russia’s neighbors.
AntonioVivaldi7@reddit
Russia invaded Ukraine even before NATO existed.
wrigh2uk@reddit
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia
i dunno chief sounds like Russia weren’t feeling it
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.