Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Berzerker]

the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990

[Berzerker]

It matters because Russians believed Nato would not expand eastward. I have a bigger problem with my govt, they act in my name and with my $$$.

[Berzerker]

Gorby was cited as a valid source, now he isn't...

[Berzerker]

Keeping the Donbas in Ukraine was the rebuttal to the claim Putin wanted to take it and Ukraine's motive for starving Crimea is irrelevant, thats what they did.

[pchang]

I disagree. I think Berz has his TRUTH and unwilling to let anything disrupt that.

[PLATO]

I suspect that Berz knows the truth but is enthralled that he can keep getting responses from you. (And quite good ones for the most part!)

[PLATO]

No, my friend, there is no target to shoot at...only hot air.

[Geronimo]

How did Russia take advantage of protests? The power comes from the US and Ukrainian right wing, both wanted war. Zelensky beat Poroshenko in a landslide because Ukrainians wanted to end the war. Russia did not instigate Donbas, the people living there rejected the coup. Minsk kept the Donbas in Ukraine so your source's mindreading contradicts reality but claiming Nato negotiated a peace deal is absurd, when there was an early attempt after the war started Boris flew over to nix the deal.

How did neocons make this happen? They toppled the Ukrainian govt and armed Azov to attack Ukrainians who didn't bend the knee leading to a proxy war on Russia's border.

Russia took advantage of the protests to move to conquer Crimea and defeat Ukrainian regular armed forces in the Donbas.

If the Ukrainian right wing and their US benefactors held the power, how did they gain it? How would Ukraine have looked differently if the US had instead remained hands off in Ukraine? Would the unarmed Azov have not reacted to the sudden conquest of Crimea and a secession of the Donbas with reports of Russian troops backing it? The Separatists armed themselves (or maybe Russia did actually) Why not Azov?

When people reject a coup is it typical for a military force to form within a couple of weeks and defeat the regular armed forces? What if some people rejected the coup, some people celebrated it, and most people just wanted law and order?

Minsk kept the Donbas "in Ukraine" eh? There are also Russian brokered agreements that keeps South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova and Republic of Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan. How have those treaties worked out for Georgia, Moldova and Azerbaijan? Isn't also strange how many Russian passports Russian "peacekeepers" have been giving out in Georgia, Moldova and even Ukraine? Minsk would bring peace to the Donbas is the same way Moscow's earlier treaties brought peace to Transnistria and South Ossetia. Moscow would take control and keep its victim out. Also, what did Russia ever do to implement any of the Minsk agreements at all? How can you complain about Ukraine and the evil West not keeping a treaty with Moscow which offered nothing at all to Ukraine? The Donbas never was under the control of the Separatists. Not even half of it. Why are you sure the fighting was all Washington controlled nazi armies and not the standing separatists armies trying to grab the airport and other choice bits from Ukraine? Because that kind of fighting is what is generally looked like.

You claim peace was breaking out and Boris flew in and re-kindled the war. How did this happen? Do you have any evidence at all? How would things have looked different if there was a real conflict there that didn't require a British PM to stage it with secret orders to his helpless Ukrainian puppets? Can you imagine that at all? What makes that less plausible?

If you're right that "neocons toppled the Ukrainian govt and armed Azov to attack Ukrainians who didn't bend the knee leading to a proxy war on Russia's border." What if they had all bent the knee to leading to a proxy war on Russia's border? How would that have played out? Your premise is that there was no real grievance right? All of the fighting was the because the people in the Donbas didn't want to bend the knee and fight a proxy war and the Nazis wanted to bend the knee and fight a proxy war?

[Dinner]

There was never any promise to not expand NATO. We have gone over this. That is just a lie invented by Putin.

Putler is just mad because he can't attack countries he wants to attack. Boo hoo.

[Geronimo]

"In 1990, few gave the possibility of a broader NATO enlargement to the east any serious thought."

Because the deal wouldn't even allow expansion into E Germany

“The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement."

Why does it matter? Countries are free to exit NATO via article 13.

Russia has sought defense treaties with all of its neighbors. Does this force any NATO member to attack/special-military-operate against any other country? Could it even possibly? Why must NATO keep non-treaty promises to anyone at all which exclude anyone else from NATO membership?

Why do you have less problem with Russia attempting to invade its neighbors to discourage NATO expansion than you do with NATO trying to respect its neighbors to discourage Russian invasions?

[BeBMan]

Putin had no other choice, because Russia is encircled by countries not run by him.

[N35t0r]

Gorbachev said Georgia caused the war.

And Putin says Ukraine caused the war, so it's good we're straight on this as well.

We can thus also put the blame of causing WW2 squarely on the Allies.

[N35t0r]

Lost to a candidate who ran on ending the war and Minsk kept the Donbas in Ukraine.

And it was the Ukrainian right wing who wanted the west's help. Yes, if you shut off food and water to a region you're starving it. Gorbachev said Georgia caused the war.

The separatists were free to lay down their arms but also didn't

Heads of state are also generally required by law to preserve the territorial integrity of their countries, so I'm not sure why 'keeping the Donbas in Ukraine' is somehow bad.

A lot of Ukraine wanted the west's help, not only the far right.

The Russians were fine providing food and water to Crimea, there wasnt any famine or anything like that (unlike, say, in Ukraine when it was ruled by Moscow). Ukraine was not obliged to keep supplying cheap water to a country that invaded and annexed part of it's territory, that's dumb. Should the Czechs have also been responsible to feed all the people in the Sudetenland after the Munich conference?

[Berzerker]

Dude, Poroshenko lost because he was turning into a right-wing loony and there was another, more respectable, pro-west candidate.

Even if Ukrainians wanted a swift end to the war, this didn't mean ceding the territory to Russia. Also watching what Russia has been doing in Belarus (where the FSB is actively helping Lukashenko's regime's repression) and Georgia makes it clear that once Russia gets in, they do not go out.

I also find it funny that you accuse Ukraine of starving Crimea. Once Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, it stops being Ukraine's responsibility to do so.

Lost to a candidate who ran on ending the war and Minsk kept the Donbas in Ukraine. And it was the Ukrainian right wing who wanted the west's help. Yes, if you shut off food and water to a region you're starving it. Gorbachev said Georgia caused the war.

[Berzerker]

yer shooting blanks