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.
... Zelensky brought this upon himself by ignoing Putin's warnings ...
How exactly? Not following this closely before the invasion it's difficult to now locate some of the charges made on this forum. When did Putin speak to Zelenskyy? Literally, I can find nothing. Poor googling on my part? There is this, from October 2021:
Quote:
Russia cannot negotiate with the “vassal” leadership of Ukraine, former President Dmitry Medvedev said in an expletive-laden article published Monday — pushing back against Ukraine’s attempts to secure a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. ... The former prime minister recommended Moscow wait for “sane” figures to replace Zelenskiy and other Ukrainian leaders before the Kremlin considers opening negotiations. ... The Kremlin said later Monday that Medvedev’s article “runs in unison” with Russia’s view of the current Ukrainian government. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/...ev-says-a75263
Instead Putin appears to have only wanted to talk to the United States and to NATO with responses to Putin demands coming from them. In late January, the US and NATO separately rejected Russian demands NATO retreat from Eastern Europe and legally bar Ukraine from ever entering NATO but proposed compromises. There appear to have been TWO draft treaties, one to the United States and one to NATO. Did a treaty only on the Russian demand that Ukraine not join NATO exist that did not incorporate broader demands involving other former Soviet bloc countries?
During Normandy Format meetings into February before the invasion, Putin continues to made demands of the West. Again the NATO withdrawal and western guarantees that Ukraine and this time Georgia will not join NATO.
At Russia's request, Zelenskyy in February withdraws a bill from the Ukrainian Parliament that covered transitional policies towards occupied Donetsk-Luhansk and Crimea territories. Macron runs back and forth. Putin refuses to accept his assurance NATO is a defensive not offensive organization. Putin still says he has no intention invading of Ukraine.
In early February, Putin responds the the West is ignoring him. In mid-February, he continues saying the same to the Russian public along with apparent attempts to stir war fever (the Nazi rhetoric).
No draft treaties to Ukraine that I could find. Still he invades Ukraine? Without ever having been willing to negotiate with it?:
WHAT AM I MISSING? Clearly, Ukraine was nowhere near joining NATO, not that that gave Putin an inherent right to invade it as it does not, say, for Estonia.
If this is how it played out, it appears Oleksiy Arestovych's intelligence assessment was correct: Russia's longterm intention all along was to reabsorb Ukraine, perhaps with a puppet government since it drove military forces towards Kyiv. The demands to the West that it knew would not be meant a pretense?
YOUR WORDS (above): So yes, I watched the whole interview and it confirmed that they KNEW what the price of joining NATO was the war with Russia, and they took this choice..My bold of your text. As in: should I cut off your left hand or your right hand?
MY WORDS (two posts back): He also predicted a future war should Ukraine move to join NATO.
----------
Did I miss Ukraine joining NATO? Does Ukraine even have a NATO MAP?
Officially - no.
But unofficially - NATO was already training and supplying Ukrainian army and building its bases on Ukrainian territory. And that's what Lavrov pointed at on numerous occasions.
Quote:
Did you miss Arestovych predicting this war now based on Putin actions & comments in 2007-08 (presume he included the invasion of Georgia)?
I repeat again - Arestovich was not only *predicting,* but accepting this war as a price for joining NATO, which was already taking place, even without the official admission of Ukraine into it.
Quote:
Since you appear to be tying an Arestovych conversation in 2019 to Zelenskyy foreign policy in 2022 what did Zelenskyy have to say?.
About what exactly?
Zelensky was adamant in his push for EU and NATO.
Quote:
As I've said previously, Arestovych wasn't even part of the government when Putin invaded.
Arestovich remained Zelensky's advisor and his government spokesperson.
Yesterday he made yet another shocking admission by the way.
Before Russian invasion, Zelensky government (and that includes him personally,) were warning Ukrainians to "not to spread panic of upcoming war with Russia, since this might scare away the investors."
In fact, they were prosecuting people for "spreading false rumors."
But few days before the attack, the government officials quietly moved their families out of the country.
So they were very much aware of the date of the upcoming attack.
Only they didn't want their citizens to know about it.
And yesterday Arestovich admitted that "we didn't want to create panic among the population, because their following mass exodus from the cities would have interfered with the movement of our troops.
It was not the best decision possible of course, but we made it never the less."
Quote:
Not that any of this is directly relevant since Russia has no inherent right to invade the neighboring country and start slaughtering its population under any circumstances.
----------
Note.--There's more to the Arestovych conversation than this ^^^. He also provides an analysis why Ukrainian neutrality cannot be maintained. "That Putin wanted Ukraine in what he called a "Taiga Union."
Ukrainian MILITARY neutrality could have been easily maintained as it was maintained all the previous years.
What COULDN'T be maintained was ECONOMIC neutrality, the way it was up until 2014 - when Ukrainian Western part was trading with Poland/EU, while the Eastern part was trading/keeping close economic ties with Russia.
That's not how the new Nationalist government saw it fit.
What it wanted, the goal it had in mind, was the severance of all economic ties with Russia, and establishment of direct ties with the West and West only.
Except for for the West such "transition" was unaffordable, and Putin knew it all along.
And that's the reason the "gas pipe" war (over NS2) started.
But someone like Arestovich knew it too, that if Ukraine won't jump on financial and military bandwagon of the "collective West" and let the WEST to deal with Russia militarily and financially, then the whole project of "Ukraine as part of the West" would have fell through, and Ukraine would have had to return where it always historically was - dependent on Russia's economy.
And that's why this Nationalist government was pushing for the NATO entrance ( not just economic union with EU,) to keep itself ( and its goals) protected and assured, even knowing that the price to pay for it was the potential war with Russia.
Too bad they never asked the Ukrainian people what THEY thought of those options.
Quote:
With a Putin plan to win the Cold War and destroy EU unity.
And why wouldn't he be doing the same as America was doing, "destroying EU unity," and making for example Poland and Baltic countries with blatant anti-Russian agenda to do America's bidding?
After all, Putin learned each and every trick in his book from the US.
Quote:
That appeared to involve Ukraine inside this union, and various forms of agreements with other former Soviet republics.
You mean including Ukraine in the Russian economic trade block?
Yes, Putin was planning to expand his economy and to have closer economic ties with Ukraine, Belorussia and Kazakhstan.
But apparently it was a no-no thing in Obama's book.
My earlier comment: Ukrainian "attitude" predates the United States having much interest in global affairs. You know those Russian archives I keeping mentioning that began to open in 1991? I'll write something tomorrow to keep posts shorter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brrabbit
True, on Ukrainian "attitude"... Probably from the establishment of Zaporizhska Sich and going all the way. If your history lasts 1000 years, there's plenty of the stuff to hate your neighbors for.
Glad you mentioned those archives, very interesting reading indeed. I hope we could all access them at will one day over the internet. What is especially interesting, that Stalin's evilness was grossly overestimated by the Western scholars and overblown by propaganda. <snip>
Read the remainder of the post, but to attempt for brevity ... increasingly it strikes me that this historical Ukrainian "attitude" even of cultures that share some similarities mean that Ukraine and Russia are two countries that simply do not belong together, however the 'union' or influence may be designed. The archive opening reference was to new material that Anne Applebaum drew on. Really do not want to revisit Holomodor details but what I wrote earlier came from reading the Robert Conquest book written in 1987 many years ago. Anne Applebaum writes Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine in 2017.
Quote:
Applebaum has painstakingly mined a vast array of sources, many of which were not available when the historian Robert Conquest wrote his pioneering history of the famine, “The Harvest of Sorrow,” 30 years ago: oral histories of survivors; national and local archives in Ukraine, including those of the secret police; and archives in Russia, which opened in the 1990s and then partly closed again, but not before various scholars published collections of documents from them. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/b...applebaum.html
She details clashing nationalisms between Ukraine and Russia. In contrast to what I said earlier (we can only know what we are taught or read) Applebaum does see Stalin's policies towards Ukraine as a form of genocide, detailing Ukraine-specific measures. Before this was brought up in the thread within the context of Ukrainian generational memory and historical resentment. That's not the point here, it is more to the why of it and how that may reflect the present. Applebaum's contention:
Quote:
Stalin was afraid of counterrevolution and he was particularly afraid of Ukraine. He remembered that during the Civil War era, there had been a major peasant rebellion in Ukraine. And in 1932, he knew there had been an armed uprising in opposition to collectivization in Ukraine. ... I think that for Stalin, Ukraine represented an idea. The idea of an independent Ukraine was a challenge to central Soviet power that could potentially undermine the Soviet state. ... I think he also believed a sovereign Ukraine would find allies, would ally themselves with Poland or other countries and they might not be loyal to the Soviet system. For him, it was very important to eliminate this Ukrainian idea. He believed it was a challenge to the Soviet idea. https://www.rferl.org/a/historican-a.../28756181.html
Interviewed in 2017, she takes her analysis to the present:
"And I should say that if you step back and look at it, he may have been right because, of course, the revival of the Ukrainian idea that happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s, ultimately leading to an independent Ukraine in 1991, did help undermine the Soviet Union." https://www.rferl.org/a/historican-a.../28756181.html
The Holomodor she writes became part of an underground Ukrainian culture. A symbol of Ukraine's untold history. In the late 1980s, the Chernobyl disaster increased this telling of the Ukrainian past with that happening about the time the Ukrainian independence became politically possible spurring a desire for sovereignty.
What this means for Putin:
Quote:
I think that for Putin, Ukraine represents a challenge a little bit the way Ukrainian sovereignty was a challenge for Stalin. Ukrainian independence represents a challenge for Putin as well, particularly a Ukraine which is pro-European, which is democratic, which believes in freedom of speech and the rule of law. These are all ideals…the kinds of values and ideas that threaten Putinism because Putinism is an oligarchic autocracy that would be in trouble if there was complete freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the rule of law. https://www.rferl.org/a/historican-a.../28756181.html
To continue by expanding on Arestovych's analyses, Putin to reclaim Russian power certainly within the European bloc needs a solid core of Russia and Belarus and Ukraine, with Ukrainian independence itself the threat. Not a military or security threat due to connections to NATO but its essential sovereignty even as a neutral nation thwarting the Russian desire to express itself as a world power. With Putin now turning to ultranationalism and to an offensive ideologies to reclaim Ukraine.
Officially - no.
But unofficially - NATO was already training and supplying Ukrainian army and building its bases on Ukrainian territory. And that's what Lavrov pointed at on numerous occasions.
I repeat again - Arestovich was not only *predicting,* but accepting this war as a price for joining NATO, which was already taking place, even without the official admission of Ukraine into it.
About what exactly?
Zelensky was adamant in his push for EU and NATO.
Arestovich remained Zelensky's advisor and his government spokesperson.
Yesterday he made yet another shocking admission by the way.
Before Russian invasion, Zelensky government (and that includes him personally,) were warning Ukrainians to "not to spread panic of upcoming war with Russia, since this might scare away the investors."
In fact, they were prosecuting people for "spreading false rumors."
But few days before the attack, the government officials quietly moved their families out of the country.
So they were very much aware of the date of the upcoming attack.
Only they didn't want their citizens to know about it.
And yesterday Arestovich admitted that "we didn't want to create panic among the population, because their following mass exodus from the cities would have interfered with the movement of our troops.
It was not the best decision possible of course, but we made it never the less."
Ukrainian MILITARY neutrality could have been easily maintained as it was maintained all the previous years.
What COULDN'T be maintained was ECONOMIC neutrality, the way it was up until 2014 - when Ukrainian Western part was trading with Poland/EU, while the Eastern part was trading/keeping close economic ties with Russia.
That's not how the new Nationalist government saw it fit.
What it wanted, the goal it had in mind, was the severance of all economic ties with Russia, and establishment of direct ties with the West and West only.
Except for for the West such "transition" was unaffordable, and Putin knew it all along.
And that's the reason the "gas pipe" war (over NS2) started.
But someone like Arestovich knew it too, that if Ukraine won't jump on financial and military bandwagon of the "collective West" and let the WEST to deal with Russia militarily and financially, then the whole project of "Ukraine as part of the West" would have fell through, and Ukraine would have had to return where it always historically was - dependent on Russia's economy.
And that's why this Nationalist government was pushing for the NATO entrance ( not just economic union with EU,) to keep itself ( and its goals) protected and assured, even knowing that the price to pay for it was the potential war with Russia.
Too bad they never asked the Ukrainian people what THEY thought of those options.
And why wouldn't he be doing the same as America was doing, "destroying EU unity," and making for example Poland and Baltic countries with blatant anti-Russian agenda to do America's bidding?
After all, Putin learned each and every trick in his book from the US.
You mean including Ukraine in the Russian economic trade block?
Yes, Putin was planning to expand his economy and to have closer economic ties with Ukraine, Belorussia and Kazakhstan.
But apparently it was a no-no thing in Obama's book.
As you can see from what I've just posted again referencing Arestovych, I've now moved on. Interested in his analysis from a larger historical perspective. I'll go ahead and read later what you've written out of courtesy.
Earlier you appeared to be "overanalyzing" inserting your interpretation extracting more from the material than what was there. Since this is only a conversational forum, more rigor of course is not called for. People have the freedom to say whatever in the world they want with no call for accuracy or precision.
If it turns out you've written something that interests me or I think relevant, perhaps I'll comment. If not, won't.
What really matters is WHAT PUTIN WAS THINKING by this invasion, with the surprise of it suggesting a certain element of mystery to many. Personally I don't believe NATO as it relates to Ukraine more than an excuse. NATO the larger bloc, of course, was more relevant since it constrained Russian power.
My earlier comment: Ukrainian "attitude" predates the United States having much interest in global affairs. You know those Russian archives I keeping mentioning that began to open in 1991? I'll write something tomorrow to keep posts shorter.
Read the remainder of the post, but to attempt for brevity ... increasingly it strikes me that this historical Ukrainian "attitude" even of cultures that share some similarities mean that Ukraine and Russia are two countries that simply do not belong together, however the 'union' or influence may be designed. The archive opening reference was to new material that Anne Applebaum drew on. Really do not want to revisit Holomodor details but what I wrote earlier came from reading the Robert Conquest book written in 1987 many years ago. Anne Applebaum writes Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine in 2017.
She details clashing nationalisms between Ukraine and Russia. In contrast to what I said earlier (we can only know what we are taught or read) Applebaum does see Stalin's policies towards Ukraine as a form of genocide, detailing Ukraine-specific measures. Before this was brought up in the thread within the context of Ukrainian generational memory and historical resentment. That's not the point here, it is more to the why of it and how that may reflect the present. Applebaum's contention:
Interviewed in 2017, she takes her analysis to the present:
"And I should say that if you step back and look at it, he may have been right because, of course, the revival of the Ukrainian idea that happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s, ultimately leading to an independent Ukraine in 1991, did help undermine the Soviet Union." https://www.rferl.org/a/historican-a.../28756181.html
The Holomodor she writes became part of an underground Ukrainian culture. A symbol of Ukraine's untold history. In the late 1980s, the Chernobyl disaster increased this telling of the Ukrainian past with that happening about the time the Ukrainian independence became politically possible spurring a desire for sovereignty.
What this means for Putin:
To continue by expanding on Arestovych's analyses, Putin to reclaim Russian power certainly within the European bloc needs a solid core of Russia and Belarus and Ukraine, with Ukrainian independence itself the threat. Not a military or security threat due to connections to NATO but its essential sovereignty even as a neutral nation thwarting the Russian desire to express itself as a world power. With Putin now turning to ultranationalism and to an offensive ideologies to reclaim Ukraine.
If you think about it - Ukraine started from Zaporizhska Sich (Zaporozhye), that is a paramilitary settlements on the border of the Ukrainian Prairie on the river Dnepr. The citizens of the settlement were mostly peasants would would dare to escape servitude from the land lords, cross the Prairie and had to constantly fight Turks and Poles and Russians. Where would they get much love towards Russia from?
Similar border settlements existed on the river Don, and Don Cossack did not consider themselves Russian either. So, one does not need to go too far. The history of Medieval Ukraine is history of changing alliances between Poles, Turks and Russians. That ended in 1650x (give or take) with Ukrainian Chief asking Moscow to protect Ukraine from Poles. Russian Tsar did not want to risk a full scale war with Poles (nor with Turks), but accepted it after several requests... Still, Western and Central Ukraine was never really too loyal to Russia (modern Eastern Ukraine was Russia until 1920is or so).
As far as Holodomor goes, I believe it's a combination of natural, economical, managerial and political disasters. Yet, it wasn't necessarily Stalin's and it was not necessarily targeted at Ukraine (and definitely not towards Ukrainian Nation).
Nationalistic attitudes in Ukraine were never going away. In 30ies and 40ies and 50ies - it would be Bandera and OUN. In 60ies and going forward - Khrushev and Brezhnev allowed Ukrainian authorities big deal of independence and allowed to retain most (if not all) taxes in Ukraine (Russian Federation was paying majority of the budget, with only Belarus and Azerbajan also contributing to it, Georgia, Ukraine and Baltic Republics were the biggest net recipients). So, local attitude was not unfriendly, but with a certain level of "we're smarter than you, and "we're handier than you". When USSR collapsed, Ukrainian local elites wanted independence, fully expecting to achieve economic success, after all - their economy was equal that of Germany. Fast forward 30 years...
I believe Putin had a very good reason to start the invasion. He could easily go to a comfortable retirement in a year. His personal finances would allow him to do anything he wanted. Now, he risked it all for good, and his personal life, as well as that of his children... Oh, yeah, there was a very serious reason. It could be one that he stated in his public speeches, or one we'll never hear. But it existed, and it was so important, that he had to risk it all.
Because Kremlin is clearly losing the propaganda war on this one, if so many Ukrainian fakes are passing for the "real news."
The war started in February, and in this thread, I would conservatively estimate that 50 to 100 posts have been written containing words such as "Russian apologist," "Putin apologist," or "Russian propagandist."
Having a divergent opinion appears not to be allowed around these parts these days.
And people appear to think that one is in Russia to write what I've written.
I go to Antiwar.com for my news most of the time. I check Russian, AND Ukraine news outlets when I get a chance. MSM news outlets don't seem objective. They pump hysteria into the airwaves like dope pushers. It's okay not to like Zelensky. He pops up everywhere like a jack (joke) in the box whining about not having enough weapons, and wanting to be in NATO one day, but has a different story the next day. I think he wants the West to fight his war for him. That would mean more of his countrymen and women getting killed. The media built him up as some kind of "larger than life" character. he gets chastised regularly by other leaders, and why on earth did they need his mug on the academy awards ? Shouldn't he be comforting his people ?
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.
