Was Ukraine a threat to Russia before start of Russian military operation?

[zaangalewa]

And Russia has never really been part of Europe. They're Europe's neighbor more than a member of Europe.

Oh by the way. The USA is also a part of Europe. You are a child of the European enlightenment. And Russia is a Christian child of East-Rome. And now Europe, Russia and the USA need a good solution for the current confusion of man made conflicts ... which are far from to be only a military conflict in the Ukraine.

 

[krichton]

No such policies exist, except in the deranged mind of your typical Putin apologist. This was a land grab pure and simple.

 

[alexa]

No such policies exist, except in the deranged mind of your typical Putin apologist. This was a land grab pure and simple.

Russia has two main interests in this. It's safety and its financial security.

Russia had an agreement with the US that if it allowed the reunification of Germany the US would expand NATO no further. The US agreed to this but despite pleas again and again it has just moved further and further up to Russia's borders and in 2008 it announced that it would soon be taking Georgia and Ukraine into NATO as well. Lavrov warned the US that if it did not stop Russia would have to move into those areas. The US did not stop. Russia is a very large country and it seems that Ukraine being in NATO would mean Russia would be very vulnerable to attack by NATO at any time.

By 2014 the US was deeply involved in the politics in Ukraine and the differences in the desire to be close to Russia the East or the EU the West. They taught the Ukrainians to act in an undemocratic way against those in the East and we had an 8 year war here. Ukraine only being able to do this due to US weapons and US and UK military training. All of this is about Russia being concerned about its security and to be frank I see their point.

Now when this fighting broke out in 2014 after the President had been ousted by the West of Ukraine because of his choice over who he thought could help Ukraine best, Russia thought it might as well take Crimea while it was there. Crimea having for some reason being given to Ukraine in 54 - something Russia expected to make no difference as they were both in the Soviet Union. Something which did make a big difference now they were no longer working together. Russia wanted Crimea because of its strategic position and Russia wanted Crimea because gas has been found around it and Russia does not want Ukraine to be competing with them over that. They said it was because of the Russians living in Crimea and that went down well with people at home but given how the US was moving NATO including Ukraine to completely circle it Russia did need Crimea and anything else it could get to protect itself from NATO having the ability to pop in and take what it wanted at any time.

Russia then moved over to the East and tried to get them voting to join Russia. In truth at this time the majority of East Ukrainians strongly wanted to stay in Ukraine. I hear the Donesk region also has oil.

Ukraine has chosen to have bad relations with its neighbour while holding onto the shirt tales of NATO, Russia's biggest rival. The US had previously promised not to do this and had it not, Russia would not have agreed to the reunification of Germany.

The US knew where this would lead. It had been told where it would lead and why and yet it continued working towards it.

Now we are on the verge of nuclear war.

So security is the reason why Russia came into Ukraine. Security and gas (or oil) was the reason it took Crimea.

 

[zaangalewa]

No such policies exist, except in the deranged mind of your typical Putin apologist. This was a land grab pure and simple.

Do you speak with me?

 

[Dissident]

No.

Does it mean that you find it fair and correct that Ukraine wanted to take back Crimea by military force AND to turn the majority of Crimean population into third-grade people?

About Ukrainian legislation please read in the first post of this thread.

 

[zaangalewa]

Does it mean that you find it fair and correct that Ukraine wanted to take back Crimea by military force AND to turn the majority of Crimean population into third-grade people?

About Ukrainian legislation please read in the first post of this thread.

I think when the Russian soldiers and their Russian infra-structure will have left the Crimean peninsula and the Ukrainians will work together with the German or another European tourist industry then this could be a step to earn some money to reduce the 750 billion Euro damages Russia has caused in the Ukraine while Russia is not able to pay for.

 

[Dissident]

I think when the Russian soldiers and their Russian infra-structure will have left the Crimean peninsula and the Ukrainians will work together with the German or another European tourist industry then this could be a step to earn some money to reduce the 750 billion Euro damages Russia has caused in the Ukraine while Russia is not able to pay for.

That is really a SUPER answer to my question to you - the question is repeated below in blue letters.

Does it mean that you find it fair and correct that Ukraine wanted to take back Crimea by military force AND to turn the majority of Crimean population into third-grade people?
About Ukrainian legislation please read in the first post of this thread

 

[AlexanderPK]

Now, when Russia inevitably capitulates and has to return those territories, will it suck to be an ethnic Russia in Crimea or Donbass? You betcha. A good example would be what happened to Ethnic Serbs in Croatia and Kosovo in the 1990's... they had to relocate to Serbia proper.

The good news is Russia has plenty of land to resettle those people.

Is that how you lull yourself into thinking that Russia will lose? By watching CNN, BBC and other bullshitters you have plenty of and bandying about that with your equally delusional assholes of forummites? You know it'll never happen. Ukraine have lost and "progressive" world's help will just prolong its agony a little, nothing more. You better address that part of your brain that's still adjustable and warm it up to the fact so that the final demise of your beloved Banderastan does not hurt that much.

 

[Dissident]

Is that how you lull yourself into thinking that Russia will lose? By watching CNN, BBC and other bullshitters you have plenty of ...?

Yesterday I wrote here that it has no sense to retell news in this thread.
This thread is about more important thing than news.

 

[Dissident]

And nobody of my opponents has answered the question which, in my opinion, is the most important one (see blue question below).

My opponents prefer to write here about "who was shelling whom", "who is winning" etc.

Do you find it fair and correct that Ukraine wanted to take back Crimea by military force AND to turn the majority of Crimean population into third-grade people?
About Ukrainian legislation please read in the first post of this thread

 

[zaangalewa]

That is really a SUPER answer to my question to you

I know. Or do you think Russia will pay the 750 billions directly to the Ukraine and will pay a compensation to all Russians and Ukrainians who lost someone in this totally superflous and senseless war?

- the question is repeated below in blue letters.

Does it mean that you find it fair and correct that Ukraine wanted to take back Crimea by military force AND to turn the majority of Crimean population into third-grade people?
About Ukrainian legislation please read in the first post of this thread

Let me say it in this way: Russia and human rights are always an interesting discussion - but no one thinks in such discussions Russia is a lawyer protecting the human rights of all Russians or anyone else in the world. But this is a discussion about minorities in context of the membership of the Ukraine in the EU. I do not think we Germans will start in this conetxt a discussion about how many German pows Russians and/or Ukrainians had murdered - specially also in this annexed area. I fear if revenge would be a right at all then we had the right to kill everyone there.

 

[SavannahMann]

Is that how you lull yourself into thinking that Russia will lose? By watching CNN, BBC and other bullshitters you have plenty of and bandying about that with your equally delusional assholes of forummites? You know it'll never happen. Ukraine have lost and "progressive" world's help will just prolong its agony a little, nothing more. You better address that part of your brain that's still adjustable and warm it up to the fact so that the final demise of your beloved Banderastan does not hurt that much.

Well the rub is that Russia admits it is losing territory. They fired a General, one of many, to try and turn it around. Russia has activated Reserves who are angry at being sent as cannon fodder. Two of the reservists just opened fire on their fellow troops and killed 11 and wounded 22 according to TASS.

The way Russia is winning is like Wimp Lo in Kung Pow.



I am bleeding. That means I’ve won.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Now we are on the verge of nuclear war. ...

And what will Putin do now? It's clear what someone from the NATO said. If Putin will use a nuke in this totally superflous and senseless war from Russia against the Ukraine then the NATO will not answer with nukes - nevertheless the NATO will answer - and this answer will mean the end of the Russian army.

 

[Dissident]

Let me say it this way: Russia and human rights are always an interesting discussion - but no one thinks in such discussions Russia is a lawyer protecting the human rights of all Russians or anyone else in the world.

But you haven't still answered my question about Ukraine although I had asked you this question twice.
And I believe that Ukraine and human rights is a much more interesting discussion.
And a very interesting discussion is the U.S. attitude to human rights in Ukraine.

For example, the U.S. were deeply concerned about 9 unresolved political murders in Russia – whose population was 143-144 millions – in the period from 2004 to 2012.
But the U.S. are not concerned at all about at least 185 unresolved political murders in Ukraine – whose population is 40-43 millions - in the last 8 years (see here).

 

[Oldestyle]

Russia has two main interests in this. It's safety and its financial security.

Russia had an agreement with the US that if it allowed the reunification of Germany the US would expand NATO no further. The US agreed to this but despite pleas again and again it has just moved further and further up to Russia's borders and in 2008 it announced that it would soon be taking Georgia and Ukraine into NATO as well. Lavrov warned the US that if it did not stop Russia would have to move into those areas. The US did not stop. Russia is a very large country and it seems that Ukraine being in NATO would mean Russia would be very vulnerable to attack by NATO at any time.

By 2014 the US was deeply involved in the politics in Ukraine and the differences in the desire to be close to Russia the East or the EU the West. They taught the Ukrainians to act in an undemocratic way against those in the East and we had an 8 year war here. Ukraine only being able to do this due to US weapons and US and UK military training. All of this is about Russia being concerned about its security and to be frank I see their point.

Now when this fighting broke out in 2014 after the President had been ousted by the West of Ukraine because of his choice over who he thought could help Ukraine best, Russia thought it might as well take Crimea while it was there. Crimea having for some reason being given to Ukraine in 54 - something Russia expected to make no difference as they were both in the Soviet Union. Something which did make a big difference now they were no longer working together. Russia wanted Crimea because of its strategic position and Russia wanted Crimea because gas has been found around it and Russia does not want Ukraine to be competing with them over that. They said it was because of the Russians living in Crimea and that went down well with people at home but given how the US was moving NATO including Ukraine to completely circle it Russia did need Crimea and anything else it could get to protect itself from NATO having the ability to pop in and take what it wanted at any time.

Russia then moved over to the East and tried to get them voting to join Russia. In truth at this time the majority of East Ukrainians strongly wanted to stay in Ukraine. I hear the Donesk region also has oil.

Ukraine has chosen to have bad relations with its neighbour while holding onto the shirt tales of NATO, Russia's biggest rival. The US had previously promised not to do this and had it not, Russia would not have agreed to the reunification of Germany.

The US knew where this would lead. It had been told where it would lead and why and yet it continued working towards it.

Now we are on the verge of nuclear war.

So security is the reason why Russia came into Ukraine. Security and gas (or oil) was the reason it took Crimea.

Care to explain why Finland and Sweden suddenly feel the need to join NATO to protect themselves from Putin? Putin isn't "defending" Russia...he's aggressively trying to reconstitute the old Soviet empire under the Russian flag through military might.

 

[Oldestyle]

And nobody of my opponents has answered the question which, in my opinion, is the most important one (see blue question below).

My opponents prefer to write here about "who was shelling whom", "who is winning" etc.

Do you find it fair and correct that Ukraine wanted to take back Crimea by military force AND to turn the majority of Crimean population into third-grade people?
About Ukrainian legislation please read in the first post of this thread

Nobody is buying your propaganda, Dissident! Ukraine wanting to take back what Russia has seized by force isn't justification for a Russian invasion. Claiming it is borders on farce! You Russians are guilty of war crimes. Under Putin you're the second coming of the Nazis. The only difference is that the Russian people seem to be coming to their senses about how evil their "leader" actually is! More and more of them are refusing to fight for him.

 

[gipper]

Care to explain why Finland and Sweden suddenly feel the need to join NATO to protect themselves from Putin? Putin isn't "defending" Russia...he's aggressively trying to reconstitute the old Soviet empire under the Russian flag through military might.

Laughably absurd.

 

[gipper]

Nobody is buying your propaganda, Dissident! Ukraine wanting to take back what Russia has seized by force isn't justification for a Russian invasion. Claiming it is borders on farce! You Russians are guilty of war crimes. Under Putin you're the second coming of the Nazis. The only difference is that the Russian people seem to be coming to their senses about how evil their "leader" actually is! More and more of them are refusing to fight for him.

Get informed. Don’t allow the criminal state and it’s controlled media to keep you ignorant.

 

[Dissident]

Nobody is buying your propaganda, Dissident!

Nobody of (pro-)Ukrainian users want to answer Yes or Not to the blue question below although I have asked this question many times.

(Pro-)Ukrainian prefer to write here about "who was shelling whom", "who is winning", about "nuclear war": etc.

Do you find it fair and correct that Ukraine wanted to take back Crimea by military force AND to turn the majority of Crimean population into third-grade people?
About Ukrainian legislation please read in the first post of this thread

 

[gipper]

Nobody is buying your propaganda, Dissident! Ukraine wanting to take back what Russia has seized by force isn't justification for a Russian invasion. Claiming it is borders on farce! You Russians are guilty of war crimes. Under Putin you're the second coming of the Nazis. The only difference is that the Russian people seem to be coming to their senses about how evil their "leader" actually is! More and more of them are refusing to fight for him.

Very suspicious no?