What Offense Did the Ukrainian People Commit That Caused Them to Be Bombed into Oblivion by The Russian Military at the Command of Putin?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s the big question

Not really. Our armed forces have plenty of neo nazis. Doesn't stop us from supporting our armed forces.

 

[TruthNotBS]

To save Ukraine. To defeat the maniac. To deter other maniacs. Tonoet countries know that we stand with democratic nations.

Ukraine is no more democratic than Russia. The Ukrainian government in 2015, banned pro-Russian media outlets, including television channels, news agencies and websites..etc. Ukraine also took significant steps to ban political parties that were seen as pro-Russian or sympathetic to Russian interests. This is going back to late 2014, or early 2015, way before the 2022 invasion. The problem with doing that, obviously is that a significant % of Ukrainians are ethnically Russian and lean towards Russia, politically and otherwise. That's not a democracy.

You're not saving Ukraine, you're destroying it by allowing it to continue with its war.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Not really. Our armed forces have plenty of neo nazis. Doesn't stop us from supporting our armed forces.

Huh?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ukraine is no more democratic than Russia.

I'm not interested in your idiotic lies.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I'm not interested in your idiotic lies.

It's a fact, so you're obviously the idiot. The Ukrainian government banned all media that is even neutral towards Russia, including the following political parties:

• 2014 Banning of the Communist Party of Ukraine:
  
  • In 2015, the Communist Party of Ukraine, which had a pro-Russian stance, was officially banned due to its alleged support for separatism in the Donbas. This was part of a broader "decommunization" effort in Ukraine, which sought to remove Soviet symbols and influences.
  • This was one of the first major bans against a political group seen as sympathetic to Russia, but other pro-Russian parties like the Opposition Bloc and Opposition Platform – For Life (OPFL) were still allowed to operate under restrictions, surveillance, constant harassment and threats, until they were banned too, in 2022.

1. Opposition Platform – For Life (OPFL):
   
   • This was the largest pro-Russian party in Ukraine, advocating for closer ties with Russia.
2. Party of Shariy:
   
   • Led by Anatoliy Shariy, a controversial political commentator, this party was known for its anti-Western and pro-Russian stance. The Ukrainian government accused Shariy of treason, claiming that his party was undermining Ukrainian sovereignty and promoting Russian narratives.
3. Nashi:
   
   • A political party led by Yevhen Murayev, a former MP who also had pro-Russian leanings. Nashi was known for its criticism of Western integration and its more favorable stance toward Russia. Murayev himself was accused of being aligned with Russian interests.
4. Opposition Bloc:
   
   • This party emerged as a successor to the Party of Regions, which was the ruling party under former President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia after the 2014 Maidan uprising. Opposition Bloc members were generally sympathetic to Russian positions, and the party was banned.
5. Left Opposition:
   
   • A far-left party that was sympathetic to Russia and opposed to Ukraine’s pro-Western trajectory. It was banned due to its perceived support for Russian-backed separatism.
6. Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine:
   
   • Led by Nataliya Vitrenko, this small political party had a strong pro-Russian, anti-Western stance. The party had long advocated for closer ties with Russia.
7. Socialist Party of Ukraine:
   
   • This party, which had a pro-Russian faction, was also banned due to allegations of promoting Russian propaganda.
8. Union of Left Forces:
   
   • A minor left-wing party that supported maintaining strong relations with Russia.
9. State:
   
   • Another party led by politicians with pro-Russian views.

These parties were either heavily restricted or banned outright by the Ukrainian government. A significant % of the population is ethnically Russian, hence it's wrong to ostracize Russo-Ukrainians, by banning their pro-Russian political activities and media. That's their stance on the issues and they have every right to advance their point of view in Ukraine but were persecuted for it. That's wrong and it's not democracy.

 

[AntonToo]

The loser foreign policy from the get-go is yours, causing unnecessary instability in the region by insisting NATO be deployed there.

Finalnd joined NATO - instability caused? ZERO.

Russia invades Ukraine, which was at least decade out from NATO? Instability and deaths as far as the eye can see.

Your arguments are Kremlin dog shit.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Finalnd joined NATO - instability caused? ZERO.

Russia invades Ukraine, which was at least decade out from NATO? Instability and deaths as far as the eye can see.

Your arguments are Kremlin dog shit.

Finland just joined NATO in 2023, by surprise, out of the blue, after decades of being neutral towards Russia and NATO, hence to think that the negative repercussions are going to show immediately is quite stupid and naive. The most negative consequence of joining NATO for Finland, is that Russia deployed nukes on its border with Finland, specifically to nuke it if there's a conflict. That's disturbing, a negative development due to Finland's NATO membership, that it avoided for decades. It didn't have to worry about that before.

Russia invaded Ukraine after years of Ukraine seeking membership and allowing NATO to operate within its territory. Why should Russia wait until Ukraine becomes a member before acting? No, Russia is now opening a can of whoop ass on Ukraine, it's not going to wait for it to become an official member of NATO or allow NATO to continue operating, training, and building facilities in Ukraine.

 

[AntonToo]

Finland just joined NATO in 2023, by surprise, out of the blue, after decades of being neutral towards Russia and NATO, hence to think that the negative repercussions are going to show immediately is quite stupid and naive.

Then has Ukraine been hostile to Russia prior to their invasion?

The hostility to Russia is a RESULT of their invasions, not a credible reason for it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a fact, so you're obviously the idiot. The Ukrainian government banned all media that is even neutral towards Russia, including the following political parties:

• 2014 Banning of the Communist Party of Ukraine:
  
  • In 2015, the Communist Party of Ukraine, which had a pro-Russian stance, was officially banned due to its alleged support for separatism in the Donbas. This was part of a broader "decommunization" effort in Ukraine, which sought to remove Soviet symbols and influences.
  • This was one of the first major bans against a political group seen as sympathetic to Russia, but other pro-Russian parties like the Opposition Bloc and Opposition Platform – For Life (OPFL) were still allowed to operate under restrictions, surveillance, constant harassment and threats, until they were banned too, in 2022.

1. Opposition Platform – For Life (OPFL):
   
   • This was the largest pro-Russian party in Ukraine, advocating for closer ties with Russia.
2. Party of Shariy:
   
   • Led by Anatoliy Shariy, a controversial political commentator, this party was known for its anti-Western and pro-Russian stance. The Ukrainian government accused Shariy of treason, claiming that his party was undermining Ukrainian sovereignty and promoting Russian narratives.
3. Nashi:
   
   • A political party led by Yevhen Murayev, a former MP who also had pro-Russian leanings. Nashi was known for its criticism of Western integration and its more favorable stance toward Russia. Murayev himself was accused of being aligned with Russian interests.
4. Opposition Bloc:
   
   • This party emerged as a successor to the Party of Regions, which was the ruling party under former President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia after the 2014 Maidan uprising. Opposition Bloc members were generally sympathetic to Russian positions, and the party was banned.
5. Left Opposition:
   
   • A far-left party that was sympathetic to Russia and opposed to Ukraine’s pro-Western trajectory. It was banned due to its perceived support for Russian-backed separatism.
6. Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine:
   
   • Led by Nataliya Vitrenko, this small political party had a strong pro-Russian, anti-Western stance. The party had long advocated for closer ties with Russia.
7. Socialist Party of Ukraine:
   
   • This party, which had a pro-Russian faction, was also banned due to allegations of promoting Russian propaganda.
8. Union of Left Forces:
   
   • A minor left-wing party that supported maintaining strong relations with Russia.
9. State:
   
   • Another party led by politicians with pro-Russian views.

These parties were either heavily restricted or banned outright by the Ukrainian government. A significant % of the population is ethnically Russian, hence it's wrong to ostracize Russo-Ukrainians, by banning their pro-Russian political activities and media. That's their stance on the issues and they have every right to advance their point of view in Ukraine but were persecuted for it. That's wrong and it's not democracy.

It's a lie, and you're a paid liar who is embarrassing himself.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Then has Ukraine been hostile to Russia prior to their invasion?

The hostility to Russia is a RESULT of their invasions, not a credible reason for it.

First off, Ukraine’s been courting NATO since the 90s, and NATO has had its claws in Ukraine for years now. Even before the 2014 coup, Ukraine was already letting NATO run military exercises on its soil. And yeah, Ukraine’s dream of joining NATO is no secret. Why does that matter? Because Russia’s been very clear: NATO is a threat. You and I may disagree but that's how Russia sees it, hence it behooves us not to deploy NATO near Russia unless it's necessary and clearly, it's not. There's no necessity for NATO being on Russia's border.

Other defense treaties and organizations could've been formed, completely avoiding all of the Russia vs NATO drama/bullshit, but Anton and his ilk insist on NATO being there poking the bear.

1. Ukraine's Push for NATO Membership and Western Alignment​

• Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine has been divided between its pro-Western and pro-Russian populations. The pro-Western factions have consistently pushed for NATO membership, which is perceived by Russia as a direct threat to its sphere of influence and national security.
• Ukraine signed the NATO-Ukraine Charter in 1997, establishing cooperation with NATO.
• Under President Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010), Ukraine made its first serious push toward NATO membership, particularly after the 2004 Orange Revolution, a Western-backed political upheaval against Russian influence and interests.
• U.S. and NATO military training exercises on Ukrainian soil started long before 2022. By allowing NATO to operate within Ukraine in various capacities, through joint exercises, training missions, and providing weapons and military aid.

2. The Ousting of Pro-Russian President Yanukovych in 2014​

• The 2014 Maidan Revolution was a key turning point in Ukrainian-Russian relations. Protests led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, who was seen as a Russia-friendly leader. He had refused to sign an association agreement with the EU, sparking widespread protests by pro-Western Ukrainians. Anton. Let’s not pretend that the 2014 Maidan coup was some organic, grassroots uprising. It was fueled and funded by U.S.-backed NGOs, like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). These groups poured millions into Ukraine to destabilize the government and push their pro-Western agenda. And it wasn’t just NED; NGOs funded by people like George Soros, particularly through his Open Society Foundations, were deeply involved, supporting both the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the 2014 coup. This wasn’t about democracy or freedom, it was about installing a puppet regime that would do the West’s bidding and push NATO's expansion.

US Senator Lindsey Graham: Ukraine sits on 'trillion dollars worth of minerals that could be good for our economy' - Geopolitical Economy Report

Next to Zelensky in Kiev, US Senator Lindsey Graham said West must give Ukraine arms: "They're sitting on a trillion dollars worth of minerals that could be good to our economy".

geopoliticaleconomy.com

​

In a recent interview, Graham stated that Ukraine is "sitting on $10 to $12 trillion of critical minerals" and expressed concern about these resources falling into Russian hands, which he feared could then be shared with China. He made it clear that the U.S. aims to ensure American corporations, not Russia, gain access to these valuable resources. Russia has never tried to take Ukrain's natural resources or force them to hand control of their national wealth to Russian companies. So Graham is simply a tool of the American capitalist elites who see dollar signs in Ukraine, and want to control and cash-in on Ukraine's natural wealth, even if it means killing millions of Ukrainians, using them as canon fodder.

• The 2014 coup was Western-backed, orchestrated by the U.S. and EU to install a pro-Western government. This regime change marked a significant deterioration in relations between Ukraine and Russia, especially since Yanukovych had strong support in the Russian-speaking eastern regions of Ukraine, such as Donbas.
• The post-Maidan government included elements that Russia saw as hostile, including the rise of right-wing nationalist groups like Right Sector and Svoboda, which had participated in the protests and were openly anti-Russian. For many in Russia, and for the Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine, this marked the emergence of a Russophobic government that actively sought to marginalize the country’s Russian-speaking citizens.

3. Ukraine's Political Shift Toward Russophobia​

• After 2014, Ukraine moved rapidly toward a pro-Western, anti-Russian political alignment, with Petro Poroshenko, and later Volodymyr Zelenskyy, adopting more overtly pro-NATO, pro-EU stances. Poroshenko's government banned Russian media, cracked down on Russian language use in public life, and promoted Ukrainian nationalism at the expense of the Russo-Ukrainian identity.
• Many Ukrainian politicians in the post-2014 governments were staunchly anti-Russian, viewing Russia as an existential threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty. This sentiment was particularly strong in Western Ukraine, where nationalism and anti-Russian views were historically more prevalent. These policies were viewed as alienating and oppressive by the Russian-speaking populations in the east and south of Ukraine.

4. Persecution and Discrimination Against Russo-Ukrainians​

• The language issue has been a significant flashpoint. Post-2014 governments introduced policies to heavily restrict the use of the Russian language, making Ukrainian the only language in education, media, and government institutions. This alienated millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, particularly in eastern and southern Ukraine, where Russian is the dominant language.
• Pro-Russian political parties and media outlets were systematically targeted and repressed long before the 2022 invasion. Major pro-Russian political figures, like Viktor Medvedchuk, were accused of treason, and pro-Russian media outlets were banned or sanctioned. This clampdown on Russian cultural and political expression was viewed as a form of persecution by the Russo-Ukrainian population.

5. Kiev's Military Actions Against Russian Separatists in Donbas (2014-2022)​

• After the 2014 anti-Russian coup in Kyiv, Russian-speaking separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence, refusing to recognize the new government. The Kiev government responded with military force, launching what it called an "anti-terrorist operation" to regain control of the separatist regions.
• For eight years, the Ukrainian military and volunteer battalions fought against the separatists in the Donbas, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties.
• The Ukrainian government working with rightwing paramilitary groups and nationalist elements in its military, was rightly condemned for indiscriminate shelling of civilians and mistreatment of civilians in the Donbas, contributing to widespread suffering and displacement. This conflict further solidified the perception that Ukraine was hostile toward its own Russian-speaking population, aligning with Russia's argument that it needed to defend the rights of Russo-Ukrainians.

6. Ukraine's Nazi Collaboration Legacy and Historical Divisions​

• Ukraine has a complex and divided history, especially during World War II, when parts of the population collaborated with Nazi Germany. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), led by Stepan Bandera, actively fought against Soviet forces and aligned with the Nazis. This collaboration is still a point of contention, as some in Western Ukraine regard Bandera as a national hero, while others, particularly Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Russians, view him as a Nazi collaborator and a symbol of Russophobia.
• This historical division between the pro-Russian and pro-Western populations of Ukraine made it a borderland in more than just a geographical sense. The tensions between these groups have been exacerbated since 1991, and particularly since 2014. The Donbas, historically part of Russia and gifted to Ukraine during the Soviet era, has long been a region with a strong Russian identity, making its eventual breakaway almost inevitable after Kyiv's hostile turn against Russia.

7. Post-Soviet History of Russo-Ukrainians Seeking to Reunite with Russia​

• After the collapse of the USSR, the Donbas and Crimea, both of which have significant Russian populations, retained strong cultural and political ties to Russia. These regions never fully integrated into the new Ukrainian national identity being promoted by Kyiv.
• Crimea’s 2014 annexation by Russia can be seen as the first step in the process of Russian-aligned regions seeking to reunite with Russia, a process accelerated by Kyiv's post-Maidan anti-Russian policies. The Donbas followed suit by declaring independence, with local populations rejecting Kyiv's authority, especially after the 2014 anti-Russian coup.

Ukraine's trajectory over the last 32 years has clearly shifted away from Russia and toward the West, marked by its increasing integration with NATO, its ousting of pro-Russian leadership in 2014, its persecution of Russian-friendly media and political figures, and its military actions against Russo-Ukrainian separatists. The historical and cultural divisions within Ukraine, compounded by its post-Maidan political shifts, made hostility between Kyiv and Moscow almost inevitable.

For Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea, Ukraine’s embrace of the West and rejection of its Soviet past left them feeling marginalized and eventually seeking to reunite with Russia, especially as they faced military action and political repression from Kyiv.

So Anton, your claim that Kyiv didn't become hostile towards Russia until the 2022 invasion is laughable. There was a history of hostility and serious friction between Western Ukraine and Russia for many decades before 2022.

 

[TruthNotBS]

It's a lie, and you're a paid liar who is embarrassing himself.

Your obvious inability to debunk anything I've said is what's embarrassing. Resorting to a cheap ad hominem doesn't help your case, assuming you even have one.

 

[AntonToo]

First off, Ukraine’s been courting NATO since the 90s, and NATO has had its claws in Ukraine for years now. Even before the 2014 coup, Ukraine was already letting NATO run military exercises on its soil. And yeah, Ukraine’s dream of joining NATO is no secret. Why does that matter? Because Russia’s been very clear: NATO is a threat. You and I may disagree but that's how Russia sees it, hence it behooves us not to deploy NATO near Russia unless it's necessary and clearly, it's not. There's no necessity for NATO being on Russia's border.

Other defense treaties and organizations could've been formed, completely avoiding all of the Russia vs NATO drama/bullshit, but Anton and his ilk insist on NATO being there poking the bear.

1. Ukraine's Push for NATO Membership and Western Alignment​

• Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine has been divided between its pro-Western and pro-Russian populations. The pro-Western factions have consistently pushed for NATO membership, which is perceived by Russia as a direct threat to its sphere of influence and national security.
• Ukraine signed the NATO-Ukraine Charter in 1997, establishing cooperation with NATO.
• Under President Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010), Ukraine made its first serious push toward NATO membership, particularly after the 2004 Orange Revolution, a Western-backed political upheaval against Russian influence and interests.
• U.S. and NATO military training exercises on Ukrainian soil started long before 2022. By allowing NATO to operate within Ukraine in various capacities, through joint exercises, training missions, and providing weapons and military aid.

2. The Ousting of Pro-Russian President Yanukovych in 2014​

• The 2014 Maidan Revolution was a key turning point in Ukrainian-Russian relations. Protests led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, who was seen as a Russia-friendly leader. He had refused to sign an association agreement with the EU, sparking widespread protests by pro-Western Ukrainians. Anton. Let’s not pretend that the 2014 Maidan coup was some organic, grassroots uprising. It was fueled and funded by U.S.-backed NGOs, like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). These groups poured millions into Ukraine to destabilize the government and push their pro-Western agenda. And it wasn’t just NED; NGOs funded by people like George Soros, particularly through his Open Society Foundations, were deeply involved, supporting both the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the 2014 coup. This wasn’t about democracy or freedom, it was about installing a puppet regime that would do the West’s bidding and push NATO's expansion.

US Senator Lindsey Graham: Ukraine sits on 'trillion dollars worth of minerals that could be good for our economy' - Geopolitical Economy Report

Next to Zelensky in Kiev, US Senator Lindsey Graham said West must give Ukraine arms: "They're sitting on a trillion dollars worth of minerals that could be good to our economy".

geopoliticaleconomy.com

​

In a recent interview, Graham stated that Ukraine is "sitting on $10 to $12 trillion of critical minerals" and expressed concern about these resources falling into Russian hands, which he feared could then be shared with China. He made it clear that the U.S. aims to ensure American corporations, not Russia, gain access to these valuable resources. Russia has never tried to take Ukrain's natural resources or force them to hand control of their national wealth to Russian companies. So Graham is simply a tool of the American capitalist elites who see dollar signs in Ukraine, and want to control and cash-in on Ukraine's natural wealth, even if it means killing millions of Ukrainians, using them as canon fodder.

• The 2014 coup was Western-backed, orchestrated by the U.S. and EU to install a pro-Western government. This regime change marked a significant deterioration in relations between Ukraine and Russia, especially since Yanukovych had strong support in the Russian-speaking eastern regions of Ukraine, such as Donbas.
• The post-Maidan government included elements that Russia saw as hostile, including the rise of right-wing nationalist groups like Right Sector and Svoboda, which had participated in the protests and were openly anti-Russian. For many in Russia, and for the Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine, this marked the emergence of a Russophobic government that actively sought to marginalize the country’s Russian-speaking citizens.

3. Ukraine's Political Shift Toward Russophobia​

• After 2014, Ukraine moved rapidly toward a pro-Western, anti-Russian political alignment, with Petro Poroshenko, and later Volodymyr Zelenskyy, adopting more overtly pro-NATO, pro-EU stances. Poroshenko's government banned Russian media, cracked down on Russian language use in public life, and promoted Ukrainian nationalism at the expense of the Russo-Ukrainian identity.
• Many Ukrainian politicians in the post-2014 governments were staunchly anti-Russian, viewing Russia as an existential threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty. This sentiment was particularly strong in Western Ukraine, where nationalism and anti-Russian views were historically more prevalent. These policies were viewed as alienating and oppressive by the Russian-speaking populations in the east and south of Ukraine.

4. Persecution and Discrimination Against Russo-Ukrainians​

• The language issue has been a significant flashpoint. Post-2014 governments introduced policies to heavily restrict the use of the Russian language, making Ukrainian the only language in education, media, and government institutions. This alienated millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, particularly in eastern and southern Ukraine, where Russian is the dominant language.
• Pro-Russian political parties and media outlets were systematically targeted and repressed long before the 2022 invasion. Major pro-Russian political figures, like Viktor Medvedchuk, were accused of treason, and pro-Russian media outlets were banned or sanctioned. This clampdown on Russian cultural and political expression was viewed as a form of persecution by the Russo-Ukrainian population.

5. Kiev's Military Actions Against Russian Separatists in Donbas (2014-2022)​

• After the 2014 anti-Russian coup in Kyiv, Russian-speaking separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence, refusing to recognize the new government. The Kiev government responded with military force, launching what it called an "anti-terrorist operation" to regain control of the separatist regions.
• For eight years, the Ukrainian military and volunteer battalions fought against the separatists in the Donbas, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties.
• The Ukrainian government working with rightwing paramilitary groups and nationalist elements in its military, was rightly condemned for indiscriminate shelling of civilians and mistreatment of civilians in the Donbas, contributing to widespread suffering and displacement. This conflict further solidified the perception that Ukraine was hostile toward its own Russian-speaking population, aligning with Russia's argument that it needed to defend the rights of Russo-Ukrainians.

6. Ukraine's Nazi Collaboration Legacy and Historical Divisions​

• Ukraine has a complex and divided history, especially during World War II, when parts of the population collaborated with Nazi Germany. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), led by Stepan Bandera, actively fought against Soviet forces and aligned with the Nazis. This collaboration is still a point of contention, as some in Western Ukraine regard Bandera as a national hero, while others, particularly Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Russians, view him as a Nazi collaborator and a symbol of Russophobia.
• This historical division between the pro-Russian and pro-Western populations of Ukraine made it a borderland in more than just a geographical sense. The tensions between these groups have been exacerbated since 1991, and particularly since 2014. The Donbas, historically part of Russia and gifted to Ukraine during the Soviet era, has long been a region with a strong Russian identity, making its eventual breakaway almost inevitable after Kyiv's hostile turn against Russia.

7. Post-Soviet History of Russo-Ukrainians Seeking to Reunite with Russia​

• After the collapse of the USSR, the Donbas and Crimea, both of which have significant Russian populations, retained strong cultural and political ties to Russia. These regions never fully integrated into the new Ukrainian national identity being promoted by Kyiv.
• Crimea’s 2014 annexation by Russia can be seen as the first step in the process of Russian-aligned regions seeking to reunite with Russia, a process accelerated by Kyiv's post-Maidan anti-Russian policies. The Donbas followed suit by declaring independence, with local populations rejecting Kyiv's authority, especially after the 2014 anti-Russian coup.

Ukraine's trajectory over the last 32 years has clearly shifted away from Russia and toward the West, marked by its increasing integration with NATO, its ousting of pro-Russian leadership in 2014, its persecution of Russian-friendly media and political figures, and its military actions against Russo-Ukrainian separatists. The historical and cultural divisions within Ukraine, compounded by its post-Maidan political shifts, made hostility between Kyiv and Moscow almost inevitable.

For Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea, Ukraine’s embrace of the West and rejection of its Soviet past left them feeling marginalized and eventually seeking to reunite with Russia, especially as they faced military action and political repression from Kyiv.

So Anton, your claim that Kyiv didn't become hostile towards Russia until the 2022 invasion is laughable. There was a history of hostility and serious friction between Western Ukraine and Russia for many decades before 2022.

Holy shit, that is alot to type to not refute a single fucking thing you've quoted.

Ukraine had no interest in joining NATO under Yanukovich at the time of Russian invasion and they were at least 10 years away from joining after they were invaded.

There was no imminent threat and what you are posting is bunch of stupid excuses that don't ammount any sort of serious justification for the war.

Ukraine today is armed in accordance with NATO standards and is few years away from NATO membership. All Russia's lawless agression did is convince Ukranians that their sovereignty can only be had with NATO's security guarantees, fast-track that process, isolate Russia form the world, deplete Russian military potential, make Russia many more enemies, enlarge NATO, re-inforced it's mission and budgets.

"Russophobes" couldn't make up a bigger clusterfuck for Russians if they tried.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Holy shit, that is alot to type to not refute a single fucking thing you've quoted.

Ukraine had no interest in joining NATO under Yanukovich at the time of Russian invasion and they were at least 10 years away from joining after they were invaded.

There was no imminent threat and what you are posting is bunch of stupid excuses that don't ammount any sort of serious justification for the war.

Ukraine today is armed in accordance with NATO standards and is few years away from NATO membership. All Russia's lawless agression did is convince Ukranians that their sovereignty can only be had with NATO's security guarantees, fast-track that process, isolate Russia form the world, deplete Russian military potential, make Russia many more enemies, enlarge NATO, re-inforced it's mission and budgets.

"Russophobes" couldn't make up a bigger clusterfuck for Russians if they tried.

You're conveniently ignoring many of the points I made, which address your current bullshit, fuzzy logic. Russia will not stop at Odesa or Kyiv, it will go on until the existential threat of NATO expansion on Ukrainian soil ceases to exist. Ukraine had the opportunity at the beginning of the war in 2022, to make peace with Russia and keep all of its territory but it decided to listen to Washington and London, to end peace talks and here we are now, on the edge of WW3.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ukraine's trajectory over the last 32 years has clearly shifted away from Russia and toward the West, marked by its increasing integration with NATO, its ousting of pro-Russian leadership in 2014, its persecution of Russian-friendly media and political figures, and its military actions against Russo-Ukrainian separatists.

So, what's the downside?

 

[AntonToo]

You're conveniently ignoring many of the points I made, which address your current bullshit, fuzzy logic. Russia will not stop at Odesa or Kyiv, it will go on until the existential threat of NATO expansion on Ukrainian soil ceases to exist. Ukraine had the opportunity at the beginning of the war in 2022, to make peace with Russia and keep all of its territory but it decided to listen to Washington and London, to end peace talks and here we are now, on the edge of WW3.

That’s just your half baked bullshit. At the rate Russia is going it will be another decade to get to Odessa and there is no way in hell Putler will last that long.

 

[TruthNotBS]

That’s just your half baked bullshit. At the rate Russia is going it will be another decade to get to Odessa and there is no way in hell Putler will last that long.

The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because Russia's operation didn't include Odesa and all of Ukraine as an objective. The objective was to secure the safety of the Russo-Ukrainians of the Donbas. The crap Kyiv government could've kept all of the territory now taken by Russia if it had accepted the terms of peace discussed in Turkey, which Zelensky was ready to accept until Washington and London interfered and dragged Ukraine back into the conflict.

So you scumbags deserve whatever you get now, at the hands of Russia. They will most likely continue expanding their territory in Ukraine until there's no more Ukraine and assholes like you are living in Poland or in some other country.

 

[AntonToo]

The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because Russia's operation didn't include Odesa and all of Ukraine as an objective.

Can you stop making up stupid bullshit already?

Objective was the entire Ukraine, including plans to invade Odessa from the sea. Russian navy was angling for their ports untill it became clear that there was no way for them to storm the beach.

It hasn't happened because Russian military, intelligence and leadership is not even half as capable as they imagined themselves to be. They've made the big mistake of beliving their own propaganda, while reality is that their millitary was rotting from corruption and incompetence.

Russia was retreating and now advancing back at snail pace because thats all they've got, not because after 3 years they haven't started trying.

 

[AntonToo]

So you scumbags deserve whatever you get now, at the hands of Russia. They will most likely continue expanding their territory in Ukraine until there's no more Ukraine and assholes like you are living in Poland or in some other country.

Thats just your degenerate fantasy.

Quoted to be made fun of later.

 

[Lesh]

The us is you, me, and every other American, being nuked by Russia, due to your shit-foreign policy.

Problem being… you ain’t American

 

[Lesh]

You're conveniently ignoring many of the points I made, which address your current bullshit, fuzzy logic. Russia will not stop at Odesa or Kyiv, it will go on until the existential threat of NATO expansion on Ukrainian soil ceases to exist. Ukraine had the opportunity at the beginning of the war in 2022, to make peace with Russia and keep all of its territory but it decided to listen to Washington and London, to end peace talks and here we are now, on the edge of WW3.

Russian troll working overtime