Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but that's it. They were left alone.
Nobody was invading them. If anything, most people wanted to leave them alone, but that's not good enough ultimately, as Putin felt slighted.
When this is all over and the dust settles, we will see what he really wanted. Especially if he lops off chunks of Ukraine for himself, if not by strong puppet proxy.
Or, he makes his point and withdraws entirely leaving borders and Ukraine leadership unchanged.
My personal feeling is that the more people/military equipment Russia is losing during these battles, the less likely that it will let go of the territories that it already took over.
It's there to to stay now.
This was NOT the original plan - I don't believe so.
I don't see any peace deal frankly. Not least because Zelenskyy said that any concessions he makes have to be confirmed in a referendum, which will certainly be negative. So why do a ceasefire (it's impossible to do a referendum during a war) when the result is already clear before and the war will continue?
I suppose Zelenskyy wants the referendum in order to get rid of responsibility.
Honestly - I have no idea what you are talking about.
I hear the civilians one after another are WEEPING, CRYING for the ways the UKRAINIAN ARMY treated them, ( not just the Nationalist battalions) - depriving them access to water, and literally SHOOTING at them, when they tried to get to the place where the humanitarian aid was distributed - do you understand this?
And it's not just in Mariupol - the people of Volnovakha and other towns that DNR took over - they say that the retreating Ukrainian army was spraying their houses with bullets, firing from the tanks at the city buildings, trying to impose as much damage as possible, and SHOOTING AT them, at the locals.
As one woman has put it - "they told us back in 2014, that if they will ever have to leave the area, they will destroy everything."
Apparently you don't understand the relations between the Ukrainian government/army and Donbass region as a WHOLE, not just the LDNR territory.
You watch YouTube videos and think you know what the LDNR territory is like much less the Donbass? Try taking a look at United Nations and Amnesty International reports. The lack of human and civil rights in the Russian-controlled separatist region is appalling. The Ukrainian national government justice system is far from perfect with some abuses not investigated. There is, however, some degree of accountability and certainly more transparency.
Note that foreign journalists are not welcomed into the DPR with one who asked too much questions (VICE) kidnapped and treated inhumanely for days.
As for the people? Ethnic Russians were not a majority in any oblast other than Crimea in the 2001 census that looks like the last completed. Not that ethnicity had to be a divider, for many ethnic Ukrainians spoke Russian as their first language with intermarriages common and cultural similarities. Still it became a divider - certainly in the Donbass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Census_(2001)
It was to some entity's advantage to create a civil war in the Donblas, with it highly unlikely that war benefitted the national government, Ukraine as a whole, or the people period. Violence does that. What you are describing is caused by violence. Resulting from the Russian invasion.
This is an excellent and VERY LONG article written at the time of the invasion, worth copying out small portions:
Quote:
Inside Donetsk, the separatist republic that triggered the war in Ukraine
Alexandra Lygina is a 20-year-old student on a mission to fight Nazis.
"We can't live in the same country as the Nazis," she tells me. "We can't forgive all that we experienced through the years. How can I live in one country with those who killed my loved ones?" ...
It's been all but impossible for foreign media to enter the DPR for some time. But as Ukraine counted down to war, Foreign Correspondent gained permission to send a crew from Moscow in the days leading up to the invasion, as this forgotten statelet suddenly changed history. ...
It doesn't take long to see who the real power in the DPR is. Russian flags adorn the city centre, cars have Russian number plates, cinemas show patriotic Russian films.
She says people here are feeling reassured by the build-up of Russian troops on the border. "We have Russian passports, so Russia must protect us," she says. "And Russia is not an aggressive country because Russia doesn't want the invasion that Western media talks about."
Many Russians moved into the area after a devastating famine in the 1930s, when Stalin's disastrous economic policies saw millions of Ukrainians starve to death. Ethnic Russians were resettled into empty towns and villages to replace them.
In Soviet times, being Russian or Ukrainian didn't matter. They were all part of one country, the Soviet Union. But independence and the rise of Ukrainian nationalism made many Russians nervous.
After seizing Crimea, Russia encouraged and armed hard-line separatists in the east to rise up against Ukraine. Eight years of fighting the Ukrainian military has forced people in these regions to choose sides.
"I think some people, maybe, want to join Ukraine," Alexandra tells us. "But it's not very many people because most of such people have moved to Ukraine." ...
Donbas is the term for the mainly Russian-speaking south-east of Ukraine, where the DPR sits alongside another self-declared independent statelet, the People's Republic of Luhansk. Dmitry tells us they share a common fight — against Nazis. ...
That year, ahead of a referendum to join Russia, I saw authorities erect giant billboards across Crimea showing maps of Ukraine covered in swastikas. Other billboards showed a giant Mother Russia pushing back a Nazi stormtrooper. ...
The Azov battalion – mainly drawn from local Russian speakers – threw itself into the fighting with separatists, helping to wrest back the eastern port of Mariupol. Its success endeared it to a new Ukrainian government desperate to not lose more territory.
Politicians ignored or played down Azov's Neo-Nazi ideology and symbols, like the Sonnenrad (sun wheel) displayed on its insignia. Some far-right figures were given senior positions in the civil administration.
Today, Azov is a tiny part of the Ukrainian military with fewer than 1,000 soldiers out of a Defence Force of nearly a quarter of a million. Azov's new commanders deny any links to Nazism. ...
But still, the Kremlin insists, Ukraine is a Nazi state. Russian politicians can barely mention Ukraine without saying the word. Russian state television reports are full of stories of alleged Nazi atrocities. ... "It became a Nazi country. And the Russian world is against such things."
As mentioned earlier, the area was still majority ethnic Ukrainian in 2001 but the Russian invasion of the Donbass that fueled separatism along with Russian-fed Nazi rhetoric spurred conditions leading many to flee. That, in turn, increased Ukrainian nationalism within a larger nation under attack from Russian forces starting in 2014. Some who remained behind to fight became the Azov regiment. The conflict profoundly destabilized Ukraine. Once again, who benefitted?
That is just not the case. Why are you denying something that even Zelenskyy has admitted, namely that the US deliberately tried to make Russia invade by pretending Ukraine would get into Nato in public, while ruling it out privately.
I am not deying anything. Can you link him saying that? It just doesn't track with how he is behaving. Why make that accusation against the US, then turn to Biden to do more to help?
Zel should be in the UN shouting up and down at the US for pulling such a stunt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
From Nato's history it is clear that Nato is an utterly untrustworthy aggressor. Everyone knows that by now.
While I think NATO is almost as useless as the UN, I don't see them as aggressors. Who would?
Russia, since NATO was founded to BE the opposing force to Solviet-Era Russia, afterall. So yeah,..I get that Pro-Russians would see it that way.
I, somehow, doubt, all kids in the video below are staged actors.
The people of Donbass describe what it’s been like to live under Ukraine’s siege (subtitled). Hearing young children talk about serious weapons like Grads—and even know what they are—is surreal .
When I look at all the crimes Brits and Americans commit, I wonder if a nuclear world war is not the only way to stop those anglo psychopaths. Once their own countries get devastated for a change, things will change.
..Because of the course that Ukraine took, joining NATO.
What "fragment is cut," where?
Why are you trying to insert your own interpretation that suits your narrative, instead of accepting things for what they are?
( Sorry I don't want to be rude here.)
No, it has little to do with Donbass and everything to do with Ukraine's drive to join NATO.
I can hear the whole interview, uncut, where he describes his vision of the situation step by step, and the war in Donbass ( in his opinion) is definitely not the culprit of Russia's full-fledged attack on Ukraine.
And if you can't listen to the whole interview, then you can only come up with your own interpretations, which are incorrect in this case.
The video is a clip of a larger discussion that begins with the Donbas. You only wish to speak of NATO. I provided a synopsis of the ENTIRE clip beginning with the Donbas reference, that was very brief. I don't know what you mean about hearing "the whole interview." There is more available on YouTube than the clip?
Regardless I doh't believe Aerstrovych would say Donbass is "the culprit of Russia's full-fledged attack on Ukraine." In fact, he did NOT say that. So you are just confusing things more.
Once again, Aerstrovych said this in the entirety of the clip (my synopsis), not just the portion you "cherry-picked" to falsely claim Ukraine provoked the war.
Quote:
If Ukraine moved to end the separatist war, Russia would then invade, "degrade infrastructure," turn everything into "devastated territory." If Ukraine does nothing, Russia will "absorb" Ukraine within the next 10 to 12 years. Russia would also invade if Ukraine moved to join NATO. Here, interviewer asked how to weigh choices?
Aerstrovych said joining NATO was "the coolest one" - very strange translation by someone unknown into English slang. Then went on to explain presumably for the Ukrainian public what Russians troops pouring over the border would mean. Saying 2020-2022 were the years of greatest danger. //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...l#post63140446
Point 1 - The Russian supported separatist war, endless propaganda, move to ethnically separate the Donbass (fleeing Ukrainians) that was profoundly destabilizing Ukraine [this now is my characterization) could not be ended by Ukraine. Why? Russia would invade.
Point 2 - Russia was going to "absorb" Ukraine during the next 10 to 12 years.
Point 3 - Russian would invade if Ukraine moved to join NATO.
His opinion - Given the alternatives, point 3 was "the coolest one" (that weird translation). What Aerstrovych advocated in terms of immediate policy given these dire options is not clear from that brief clip.
To my knowledge, Ukraine was not working on a NATO Membership Action Plan much less being accepted. I assumed EU membership was the more likely since there it had signed an association agreement.
So what is the story with NATO? Admittedly I did not follow this before the invasion, other than history of the area etc. But did not Putin have TWO demands: (1) Ukraine not join NATO and (2) NATO forces or weapons be removed from all countries not signatory to NATO after 1997. Which includes most if not countries in Eastern Europe, the former Warsaw Bloc.
What happened if Ukraine pacified Putin but other countries did not? Who then was on the invasion-list or Putin naughty-list. Surely not Ukraine at that point?. No idea.
The conflict profoundly destabilized Ukraine. Once again, who benefitted?
Who is benefitting?
1). the USA industrial military complex.
Quote:
The defense industry will profit from war in Ukraine—with your money. In the week after Russia invaded Ukraine, the stock prices of companies that make instruments of war rose significantly.
2). Congressmen with industrial military complex lobbying dollars. Enough said.
Quote:
It was shortly after midnight in Baghdad on Friday, Jan. 3, when a missile strike ordered by President Trump killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
When stock markets opened the next day, dozens of members of Congress saw bumps in their portfolios as their holdings in defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon increased in value on the possibility of war. Over the next three trading days, the leading defense industry stock index would surge 2.4% above Thursday’s close.
Among these members of Congress with personal investments in the defense industry are several who sit on committees that determine major sources of funding for defense companies and weapons contractors.
According to a Sludge review of financial disclosures, 51 members of Congress and their spouses own between $2.3 and $5.8 million worth of stocks in companies that are among the top 30 defense contractors in the world. Members of Congress generally report the values of their investments in ranges, so it’s not possible to know exactly how much their stocks are worth. As Congress debates whether to limit President Trump’s power to take military action against Iran, the complete list of senators and representatives who own defense stocks is displayed below in this article.
Eighteen members of Congress, combined, own as much as $760,000 worth of stock of Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor in terms of overall defense revenues. The value of Lockheed Martin stock surged by 4.3% on the day after Soleimani’s assassination—a day in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average overall traded down.
3). USA Wheat producers. Biden announced today in Europe that the US is the third biggest wheat producer after Russia and Ukraine. He pledged to sell Europe our excess wheat to replace Russia's and Ukraine's wheat.
Quote:
“Both Russia and Ukraine have been the breadbasket of Europe in terms of wheat, for example, just to give one example.” Biden said that the US and Canada will seek to boost wheat production to offset the drop in supplies.
4). The far left of the Democratic Party who never lets a crisis go to waste and now with rising oil prices can refocus on the The Green Deal.
Quote:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have a profound impact on the world’s race to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, climate experts have warned – but it may not all be negative. Vladimir Putin’s attempts to wield his dominance over European energy supplies as a weapon to limit interference in his war appear in danger of backfiring. Europe is embarking on a clean energy push that could reduce Russian gas imports by more than two-thirds, while the UK will set out an energy security strategy within days that will emphasise renewable power. In the US – as well as pumping more fossil fuels – president Joe Biden is renewing efforts to pass his mauled green investment package
5). Money Laundering Businesses get a second chance.
Quote:
Money laundering remains a significant problem in Ukraine. The authorities made little progress in 2019, though the passage of new AML legislation is pending. Corruption is the primary source of laundered funds. Launderers register as ultimate beneficial owners under aliases and integrate laundered money into legal businesses. Ineffective state institutions and an ineffective criminal justice system continue to allow criminal proceeds to go undetected. Although authorities are aware of the seriousness of the problem and are implementing measures to address it, law enforcement rarely targets large-scale corruption related money laundering
Goldman Sachs, the giant New York investment bank, is cashing in on the war in Ukraine by selling Russian debt to U.S. hedge funds — and using a legal loophole in the Biden administration’s sanctions to do it. As the Western world scrambles to defend Ukraine by locking down Russian money, the company is acting as a broker between Moscow’s creditors and U.S. investors, pitching clients on the opportunity to take advantage of Russia’s war-crippled economy by buying its debt securities low now and selling them high later, according to four financial world sources familiar with the strategy.
How Uncle Sam may benefit the most from Russia-Ukraine war. Ukraine needs more arms to save itself from the Russian invasion. The supply of weapons to Ukraine is coming from other channels as well, but the US has to be the principal export source within the Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) bloc.
The US is not the only one to gain if the Russia-Ukraine war intensifies and prolongs. Germany, Italy, Turkey and others are also supplying weapons and defence systems that their state-backed or private companies specialise in manufacturing.
8). Non-western countries - China/India/Africa/Middle East
They are pushing for the end of the petro dollar and American hegemony.
I'll list more as I think of them
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
