Russia

[rgh0]

Oh dear Steve, Russia did not invade Ukraine in 2014. Fact.

!

I wonder who were those little green men, clearly martians I guess, as they were not Russian. ?

And a Russian BUK missle did not shoot down the Malaysian airlines plane in the Russian version of reality either.

You can conjure up any sort of justification for the Russian invasion in 2014 or simply deny it occured, but the reality is that Russia has invaded Ukraine ... thats a fact, as you see thme being killed everyday on Ukrainian soil?

[AshleyPark]

You’re just plain wrong Rohan!

There was a coup in 2014, after which the new government banned the Russian language and launched a military onslaught against the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.

The ethnic Russian population fought back and the fighting led to two Minsk agreements tom stop it, the first failed to stop the civil war. The second, Minsk 2, ratified by the UN in 2015, you can read here:

https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacema ... ent_en.pdf

It demanded certain changes to the Ukraine constitution including self-government to parts of the Donbas.

Over the years Ukraine failed to implement the agreement and fighting never fully ceased. So it was in February 2022 that Russia actually invaded Ukraine.

Interestingly, Zelensky was elected with a large majority on the promise that he would fulfill Minsk 2 but that never came about, a lot due to pressure from the US who didn't want it to be carried out.


Indeed, it is believed flight MH17 was shot down by a Russian BUK missile but who fired it is open to question. It’s known that the Ukrainians were in possession of BUK missiles at that time and they unquestionably had far more to gain from such a red flag incident.

[rgh0]

Have it you're way if thats what you want to believe. I think otherwise. I may be wrong

Good luck

[billwill]

There seems to be some crossed wires in this topic:

I presumed that "the Invasion in 2014" referred to the annexing of Crimea, which was definitely part of Ukraine at the time.

The above postees saying there was no invasion seem to be referring to the Donbas region; a somewhat different place, which indeed might not have been a Russian invasion at that time.

[alan.barker]

It was a "little green man" in a MIG-23 who shot down KAL 747 on 1st Sept in 1983.
I suppose not a Russian was it.
I'm sure i'll be corrected again if i've got my Knickers in a twist
Alan

[AshleyPark]

The annexation of Crimea wasn’t an ‘invasion’.

Crimea is where the Black Sea base of the Russian navy is situated, so all that happened in 2014 was that Russian forces already stationed there, supported by local paramilitary, repelled an attempted coup, backed by Kiev and the West, by taking over the 2 airports and some government buildings.

Historically, it has always been Russian and most of its inhabitants are Russian. The result of a referendum held shortly after the annexation, was overwhelmingly in favour of aligning Crimea with Russia.

[rgh0]

The annexation of Crimea wasn’t an ‘invasion’.

Crimea is where the Black Sea base of the Russian navy is situated, so all that happened in 2014 was that Russian forces already stationed there, supported by local paramilitary, repelled an attempted coup, backed by Kiev and the West, by taking over the 2 airports and some government buildings.

Historically, it has always been Russian and most of its inhabitants are Russian. The result of a referendum held shortly after the annexation, was overwhelmingly in favour of aligning Crimea with Russia.

Whether its been historically Russian depends on what point in History you want to pick. Most of Europe can lay claim to Crimea being its at some point in the last 2500 years. Yes the Maidan revolution threw out the Russian installed dictatorship and gave Russia the desire to more directly intervene in the country than it had already. Thus prompting the open invasions in 2014

All of its inhabitants were Ukraine citizens with many being ethnic Russians due to the Tartar and Ukrainian population ethic cleansing engaged on by the USSR and Tsarist Russia in the previous 120 years. I dont think that gives Russia an excuse to invade another country. If having a population of your ethnicity is an excuse for an invasion then Australia could be invaded by every country on earth !

Sevastapol remained a USSR naval base in Crimea after Crimeas transfer to Ukraine SSR by the USSR. When the USSR disintegrated it remained a Russian Naval base in a foreign country but that does not give justifcation to take over that country either

As for referendums in Annexed parts of Ukraine, their fair and free and open nature has to be questioned does it not ?

[AshleyPark]

I don’t know where you’re getting the “Russian installed dictatorship” idea from? Before the Maidan uprising in 2014, the president of Ukraine was Viktor Yanukovych, who came to power in 2010, in an election that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) said was an ‘impressive display’ of democracy!

I think you have to be realistic when it comes to superpower geopolitics and understand that Russia was never going to allow Crimea to not be in their control. Being the location of their only warm water naval base it is of vital strategic importance to them.

It’s very much like Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights, a region of vital strategic importance to them, which they will never surrender.

Whoever does control Crimea, will also control the vast offshore oil and gas fields in the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea, possibly the real reason, like in Syria, that the US is so keen get their hands on Crimea.

Interestingly, that elder statesman, or war criminal, depending on your view of him, Henry Kissinger, implored Zelensky to recognise that Russia would never relinquish Crimea and that negotiations with them should be entered on that basis. Predictably, many people then claimed that Putin had nobbled Kissinger!

As for referenda, yes, of course the validity of a referendum has to be questioned - when you don’t like the outcome!

[rgh0]

I think you need to read and analyse the whole of the history of Yanukovyk rather than be selective. How about the bit in Wikipedia about his creation of a "Controlled Democracy" for example which is just the same story line that Putin and Lukashenko use. The line between "controlled democracy" and dictatorship is just a facade used by dictators to keep their population and more importantly their army supporters under control.

[rgh0]

As for the 2010 Ukraine presedential elections being free and fair. i suggest you read this paper

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bit ... sAllowed=y

There is an uncanny resemblance to how Putin manages elections in his "controlled democracy" in Russia. i guess it could all be just coincidence.

However all of this historical debate is meaningless as no version of "History" gives Russia the right to invade a sovereign country that had no capability to threaten it in any meaningful way and the UN resolutions on this matter confirm that this is the overwhelming view of most countries except a few Russian vassal states

[UAB807F]

However all of this historical debate is meaningless as no version of "History" gives Russia the right to invade a sovereign country that had no capability to threaten it in any meaningful way and the UN resolutions on this matter confirm that this is the overwhelming view of most countries except a few Russian vassal states

Exactly right. If you follow the logic of "I've a base there, therefore I can invade", then get ready for the US to take over the UK, there were plenty of US bases here.

AFAIK only 6 countries officially recognised the Russian annexation of Crimea (might have changed now ?) and even Russia recognised that Crimea belonged to Ukraine in 1954 and again 40yrs later in 1994.

You have North Korea standing by them in the recent annexations. Look at the list and decide if you want to related to that crowd. The other 180+ countries are either neutral or opposed to both Russian activities, I'd prefer to be on that side.

[AshleyPark]

Rohan

Ha ha, that’s quite funny, that you should accept the word of an American ‘journalist’ with a clear anti-Russian bias, regarding the legality of the 2010 elections, over the report of the OSCE.

I suggest you read the OSCE report, it’s substantially more authoritative than the one you linked to.

https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/9/67844.pdf

Now, I’m not for one minute suggesting the outcome of the election was a good one for Ukraine, Yanukovych was a terrible, and corrupt leader. However, the unelected government that followed his ousting wasn’t legitimate by anybody’s standards!

It was primarily shaped by the US, as evidenced by Victoria Nuland in her notorious “fuck the EU” leaked phone conversation and consisted of oligarchs and neofascists, whose first steps were to ban the Russian language!

Ukraine may not be have been a ‘threat in any meaningful way’ to Russia and I don’t believe for one minute Ukrainians want to be at war with their neighbours, however, this is about Nato and the US in particular, that has had Russia in its sights ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. Its continued hegemony depends on keeping Russia from becoming a powerful world leader.


UAB807F

You’ve got to be pretty naive to think the US wouldn’t take over Britain if, all of a sudden, it started supporting Russia or China!!

[alan.barker]

"HOLODOMOR"
Staline Ukraine Famine 1932/33 5 Million starved to death or killed by Stalin's Russia. Ukraine remembers this and that's why they fight to save their homelands. They put rememberance monuments in towns and villages. When the russians arrive they destroy these monuments to hide the evile they did.
5 million dead, that's more than died in the "Gulags".
Go home Russia.
Alan

[rgh0]

Come on mate --- there is no justification current or historic for Russias invasion so just accept that and try not to twist history and logic to try to find a reason. If you truely believe that the invasion of a Ukraine is justified in the circumstances then please list the reasons clearly so your arguements can be addressed logically.

I have no problem with your personal beliefs and support for Russia and Putin, thats a personal matter. But if you want to promote those beliefs then you need some logic to justify the promotion and be prepared to accept the counter arguments rather than just restate your beliefs in different ways

[AshleyPark]

What an odd comment, have you not been paying attention at all?

In case you missed it previously, I clearly stated what the reasoning is behind Russia’s military operation. First and foremost it is a response to the direct threat from Nato’s hostile expansion eastward and the US’s desire for regime change in Moscow.

I’m not a fan of Putin at all but I can fully understand why he has reacted like he has when the very existence of Russia is under threat. You only have to look at what happened to the likes of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria or Yugoslavia to realise those threats are very real.

Time will tell, of course, who is on the right side. I, for one, never believed the bs about Saddam having WMD and their existence being the reason to flatten Iraq, like the vast majority of the brainwashed people believed.

I’m sure many people are happy that the West exerted its authority in overthrowing the Iraqi government, killing hundreds of thousands in the process and are flexing their muscle again in Ukraine.

You may be one of them, but I’m not!