Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 684

On May 21 2024 05:44 PoulsenB wrote:


I don't have to know what individual russians think, the policy of the russian state regarding eastern and cetral europe has been pretty consistent for the last few hundred years, regardless of who was in charge.

Also, when countries around you think they need a military alliance to protect themselves from you then maybe you should reconsider how you treat your neighbours.

Finally, I also hope this conflict ends without escalation and that russia leaves everyone alone and starts acting like a normal state and not a bully hiding behind a wall of lies and a nuclear arsenal.

On May 21 2024 06:03 a_ch wrote:
There is a number of stories, that go the following way: a small state gets its independence, but cannot sustain economically, - and at some point starts to earn money by doing some dirty tasks aimed against its neighbour.

On May 21 2024 05:29 zeo wrote:

As an example here is a link (in Ukrainian) to a statement from 2020,. rough translation: Direct dialogue of Ukraine with representatives of ORDLO is unacceptable. Statement of NGO's.

https://uacrisis.org/uk/75229-pryamij-dialog-ordlo

As part of his election promise Zelensky's administration supported the forming of a contact group with representatives of the breakaway regions in separatist controlled Donbass. In response to this around two dozen of the most powerful NGO's in Ukraine, all completely funded by NATO member governments and foundations came out with the above statement - any talks with Donbas separatists to implement the Minsk agreements are unacceptable and are red lines the government must not cross.

These are the same NGO's that funded and supported the violent overthrow of Yanukovych at Maidan and their message was read loud and clear by the Zelensky administration, after which he started singing a different tune.

Any and all attempts by post Maidan governments to implement the Minsk agreements and normalize relations with Russia have been undermined and sabotaged either by politicians handpicked at foreign embassies or by powerful non-profits threatening politicians with a fall from grace and an inability to keep all the money they stole while in office.

The Ukrainian government and people were, and still are (to these organizations) nothing more than a tool to pressure Russia with and keep pushing over every line until at some point Feb. 24th happened.

In April of 2022 the war could have been over on much much more favorable terms. Whether you think their arm was twisted by their 'partners' or it was Kiev's sole decision, Ukraine was encouraged to fight to the last Ukrainian. Now it will have to give up far more territory than it would have if it had negotiated with hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded. These western 'partners' could have ended the war at any time but they chose to be enablers, they are complicit. Yes, much has already been said about Russia's policies and how this conflict could have been avoided but dumbing down geopolitics to a preschool level of good guy bad guy helps no one understand why things happen the way that they did.

And how we can avoid these situations in the future.

On May 21 2024 11:15 Manit0u wrote:


What are you even talking about? After the Russian invasion Ukraine signed all of the Minsk agreements but it was Russia who renewed the conflict, invaded again and forced Minsk II (which Ukraine also signed).

"The agreement failed to stop fighting. At the start of January 2015, Russia sent another large batch of its regular military. Following the Russian victory at Donetsk International Airport in defiance of the Protocol, Russia repeated its pattern of August 2014, invaded with fresh forces and attacked Ukrainian forces at Debaltseve, where Ukraine suffered another devastating defeat, and was forced to sign a Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, or Minsk II, which was signed on 12 February 2015"

All this teaches us is that there can never be any form of peace treaty with Russia. Ever. The Minsk agreements basically forced Russian narrative onto Ukraine and despite its compliance it did not prevent Russia from escalating the conflict. Russia plays the role of the bully and the only way it stops is if it loses the war completely and is forced to accept terms not on its own conditions but ones imposed on it by others.

On May 22 2024 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Zeo, I am sorry if you have plainly stated this before, but I am having a hard time digging through the current conversation to get to the core of the disagreement. I know we subscribe to fundamentally different worldviews, but I would still be curious to hear what threat you feel Ukraine posed prior to 2022.

To be more concise: What negative event or dynamic was Russia hoping to prevent or minimize by invading Ukraine in 2022?

On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:

Many things have been stated over and over again in this thread, debunked, ignored then posted again after which the worm Ouroboros cycle begins again. I'll try to give you an answer but a book could be written in response to your question.

What's important to note is that a full week before Russian troops entered Ukraine, from the 16th of February - the Ukrainian army started a massive bombing campaign against both the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics. A multinational organization know as the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) documented this massive spike in activity.

Their reports are highly detailed and contain tallied and documented instances of violations of peace agreements. In the one week period from February 17, 2022 to February 23, 2022 there was a recorded total of 9,895 ceasefire violations and 7,310 explosions accounted for in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Ukraine. The vast majority of explosions happened in the civilian populated areas controlled by 'non-government' forces. All in all over 4000 artillery shells were fired into the D/LNR by the Ukrainian army over a one week period.

Below are the PDF versions of the full OSCE reports for each day in the one week period before Feb. 24th:

OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 37/2022 issued on 17 February 2022
OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 38/2022 issued on 18 February 2022
OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 39/2022 issued on 19 February 2022
OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 40/2022 issued on 21 February 2022
OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 41/2022 issued on 22 February 2022,
OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 42/2022 issued on 23 February 2022

The OSCE findings went under reported in the 'western media' at the time, either mentioned in footnotes or not mentioned at all, while on the other side the sharp rise in the shelling and killing of civilians at a time where both Russia and Ukraine were massing military forces at the borders was seen as a clear provocation to pull Russia into the conflict.

Countries at any time have plans and backup plans for all possible scenarios for anything that might happen. Without doubt ever since 2015 military planners in Russia had been coming up with 'what if?' plans to scenarios where Ukraine attacked the rebel regions first, or NATO entered or, what it came to in the end - Russia attacking first. These plans are always ready to be implemented at short notice, when the actual green light was given to enter Ukraine or the final order was given is unknown but its obvious that Russia was far from prepared on multiple levels and preparations did not last long.

Both Russia and Ukraine gave clear indicators to each other that they would be ready to strike the other side with their buildup. If Ukraine was just bluffing or their massive artillery strikes were a precursor to an imminent invasion of the Donbass Republics we won't know until many years pass from now, and maybe not even then. Article 51 of the UN charter, when invoked by Putin in this case had much more solid ground than the 'humanitarian interventions' it was invoked for before.

I remember watching a report by a Serbian journalist interviewing another Serb working for some state run Chinese news channel, and this guy had been on the Russian side of the border with the Russian army giving reports when it all started. One of the things he talked about was the mood among the Russian soldiers in the first weeks, there was a clear sense of 'February 24th happened so there would never be a 22nd of June again'. The feeling of if we're all fucked anyway better to start it on our terms, and this was a feeling mirrored everywhere except maybe for the Donbass militias which had a more somber take than their Russian colleagues.

A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first,"

On May 22 2024 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:


First of all, thank you very much for the thorough reply. I understand this conflict is extremely deep and a lot of it is because the cold war never really ended. I think the whole end of the war was mostly theatrics. But that's a separate topic. I basically just wanted to understand what the core of the issue that is stated as a justification to walk into Ukraine.

I of course agree striking first is always better if you are certain it’s happening either way. But I want to make sure I clearly understand the exact reason.

Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk?

"During the prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic started a process of mass mobilization of its population in order to build an army for the Russian invasion. As there weren't enough volunteers in the separatist army, and the Russian government wasn't willing to start mobilization of its own population, men from ages 18 until 65 from any background were conscripted to form the separatist army.[26][27] Groups of DPR/LPR officers roamed the streets searching for men at the age range, arresting and sending to conscription offices any they found.[84] In some regions, up to 80% of employees of local enterprises were called up, which led to the shutdown of mines (the main source of employment in the Donbas) and public transport, resulting in the paralysis of city and public services.[85]

Most of the Donbas conscripts are unexperienced, received little-to-no training and were badly equipped, and suffered from morale issues and heavy casualties.[86] The role of Donbas conscripts by Russian forces has been described as "cannon fodder".[29] There were reports of conscipts being issued antiquated equipment such as World War I-era Mosin–Nagant rifles and the early Cold War-era T-62 tanks.[86][30] By November, the DPR ombudsman reported that the DPR militia suffered almost 20,000 casualties (both wounded in action and killed in action), translating into a staggering 50% casualty rate, with outside observers believing it could possibly be higher.[30] The mass conscription has been considered a war crime by some, as the Article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention bans the forceful conscription of soldiers from occupied territory, but Russian authorities claimed they are part of the independent sovereign nations of the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.[87]"

On May 20 2024 10:31 Salazarz wrote:
The problem is, people like you pretend the reason NATO got involved in the conflict in Ukraine because it was the right thing to do, and then continue to pretend like they're doing whatever because they are 'good guys' while Russians are the 'bad guys' which just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all if you consider everything else that's happening in the world.

This doesn't mean that Russian invasion is rightful or justified -- far from it, and honestly I'm sick of repeating that I strongly believe Putin needs to kick the bucket and that invading places is bad in general and definitely bad in this particular case -- but pretending the only reason this invasion has happened is purely because 'Russia bad' and we are supposedly trying to stop it because we are 'good' is just as uselessly reductionist as pretending that WW2 only happened because Hitler.

On May 22 2024 11:05 Turbovolver wrote:

Remember when you got kinda mad I said that you "stan Russia"?
Well, these are the sorts of posts that lead people to believe that of you.

On May 22 2024 11:27 Salazarz wrote:


I'm of the opinion that world politics are very rarely driven by morals; that NATO's involvement in Ukraine has more to do with geopolitical interests than some genuine concern for the wellbeing of Ukrainian people; that Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn't mean the entirety of Russian people are 'evil' any more than, say, IDF actions in Gaza mean that the entirety of Israeli people are 'evil.'

On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:

A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first,"

On May 22 2024 17:37 0x64 wrote:


Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable.

I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3.

We have created a giant Karpman drama triangle with China/India, Russia and the West.

Also another thing that makes obviously us mad is that mutual assured destruction only works when both sides can lose equal amount. But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage (sure we can also count north korea, Serbia (Though would you say the majority of Serbia is prorussia?) and Iran in that group).

But what I'm talking about, I forgot you live in a client state, so well-being of the citizens is of secondary importance.

On May 22 2024 22:56 hexhaven wrote:


I'd love to hear more about this world where Finland is unaffected by a nuclear war just because it doesn't have nukes within its borders.

On May 22 2024 23:14 Velr wrote:


Thats fucking golden from a russian.