Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Was this before or after Putin annexed Crimea and the Donbas?
I don't know how secret it was, but he definitely did it to garner Uke support in the politburo following Stalin's death.Putin was more than justified.
First of all, Khrushchev should never have given the Crimea and Donbas to the Ukraine in 1954.
He only did it because he was secretly a Ukrainian.
Second is that the western Ukraine are descendants of Polish invaders and are traitors.
Third is that the US bribed takeover in 2014 was not only illegal, but committed treaty violations amounting to acts of war.
Depends on whether Biden's war on fossil fuels continues to make Putin rich enough to wage war on people.Will Putin "Stop after Ukraine"?
Just before Feb24 , 2022 , UAF shelling of Donbas went up from ca . 200 to nearly 2000 per day .
As we say , a huge hint .
You don't get 'eternal' rights to territory you conquer. What you take by force you lose by force.Wrong.
In the late 17th century, Russia won the Ukraine BACK from the Mongol Khaganate.
Russia has eternal right to it because Kyiv used to be the capital of Russia and was only forced to move to Moscow by the Mongol invasion of 1250 AD.
You mean the Bar, Poles that fought Russian domination of their country? I think when Poland ceased to exist as a country and much of its territory became part of Russia, the term 'conquered' is correct.Russia never "conquered" Poland.
Russia was part of the forces who defeated the evil Polish Empire around 1700, and later defeated the evil German invaders in 1943.
It was Russia that abandoned those treaties, not the Ukraine.In 2014 the US illegally bribed the ethnic Polish into an illegal coup that violated treaties with acts of war, like trying to prevent use of Sevastopol, murdering ethnic Russians, trying to join NATO, cutting off negotiations with Moscow, etc.
This is all on Kyiv, not Moscow.
No, Ukraine was a collection of many different peoples. Only when salt was discovered did Russia have any interest there.Wrong.
The Ukraine was traditionally ALL Russian.
The Polish did not invade until around 1600.
A very Russian view of history. Sorry but Khrushchev was the legitimate head of a legitimate government. He had every right to do what he did. Will Putin demand Alaska be returned since the Tsar had no right to sell it? Your other points are just delusions.Putin was more than justified.
First of all, Khrushchev should never have given the Crimea and Donbas to the Ukraine in 1954.
He only did it because he was secretly a Ukrainian.
Second is that the western Ukraine are descendants of Polish invaders and are traitors.
Third is that the US bribed takeover in 2014 was not only illegal, but committed treaty violations amounting to acts of war.
There were no treaty violations or US backed bribesPutin was more than justified.
First of all, Khrushchev should never have given the Crimea and Donbas to the Ukraine in 1954.
He only did it because he was secretly a Ukrainian.
Second is that the western Ukraine are descendants of Polish invaders and are traitors.
Third is that the US bribed takeover in 2014 was not only illegal, but committed treaty violations amounting to acts of war.
Depends when he's dead.It is a common theme of the Uniparty that when Putin is done with Ukraine, he will invade and attack some other country, then on and on until he re-establishes the old USSR.
In my tiny little mind, there is a major factor in this scenario that has not been given full consideration, and it is this:
Putin wouldn't dare attack a NATO country!
Doing so would unleash a firestorm that would render his pathetic fiefdom into a massive Stone Age village. And he must know that.
As for the dozens of little shit-hole countries that surround the Russian Federation, who really gives a shit if he invades them?
In short, the main threat cited by the Uniparty is nonsense. Our actions w/r/t Ukraine should focus on that situation entirely, and the solution will not be had with more funding, but rather forcing both parties to the bargaining table, knowing that neither one is going to get everything it wants.
There was no such treaty or promiseGo look it up.
The Crimea and Donbas were part of Russia until 1954 when Khrushchev the Ukrainian illegally gave them to the Ukraine.
Also the Ukraine promised Russia use of Sevastopol forever when they wanted to be allowed independence.
So their attempt to prevent Russian use in 2014 was a treaty violation amounting to an act of war.
There qas no US bribe. There were NO treaty violations.Wrong.
In the late 17th century, Russia won the Ukraine BACK from the Mongol Khaganate.
Russia has eternal right to it because Kyiv used to be the capital of Russia and was only forced to move to Moscow by the Mongol invasion of 1250 AD.
Russia never "conquered" Poland.
Russia was part of the forces who defeated the evil Polish Empire around 1700, and later defeated the evil German invaders in 1943.
In 2014 the US illegally bribed the ethnic Polish into an illegal coup that violated treaties with acts of war, like trying to prevent use of Sevastopol, murdering ethnic Russians, trying to join NATO, cutting off negotiations with Moscow, etc.
This is all on Kyiv, not Moscow.
4. Russia is the most wealthy major nation because it is self sufficient from all natural resources .
It has no need for imports unless it chooses .
No other major power can boast that .
Depends on whether Biden's war on fossil fuels continues to make Putin rich enough to wage war on people.
Pure pretextual Kremlin propaganda, there is zero evidence of any increased shelling nor does it make any sense given that Russians were amassing their army on the border for months and America was warning Ukraine of incoming invasion.
There were only a handful of casualties in Ukraine’s conflict since 2019 and it was becoming frozen until Russia started a full scale war.
You don't get 'eternal' rights to territory you conquer. What you take by force you lose by force.
You mean the Bar, Poles that fought Russian domination of their country? I think when Poland ceased to exist as a country and much of its territory became part of Russia, the term 'conquered' is correct.
It was Russia that abandoned those treaties, not the Ukraine.
No, Ukraine was a collection of many different peoples. Only when salt was discovered did Russia have any interest there.
There were no treaty violations or US backed bribes
"Most wealthy"?? Wow idiot. You know nothing at all.
Entire Russia has smaller economy than just the state of Texas, which has 4 times less population.
I think it was the Russians who didn't want to abide by the treaty, not Ukraine. Compared to Ukraine, Russia is a powerful nation, it seems hard to believe it was Ukraine that bullied Russia and not the other way round.The treaties said that Russia was to have use of Sevastopol forever, that the Ukraine was to never join an alliance hostile to Russia, and that native Russians would never be abused.
All 3 of these essential treaty points were violated by the Kyiv, and they essentially declared war by then also cutting off negotiations.
Russian nationalism run amok. That's exactly how we got here.WRONG!
Kyiv was the original capital of Russia for over 400 years.
From 900 to 1250 AD at least.
There are many cultures there, like the Scythians, Cimmerians, Cossacks, Mongols. Turks, etc., but the ethnic Polish who took over Kyiv hate all of them except for pure blood ethnic Polish.
They are the single most racist and fascist group on all of Europe.
They were the ones who ran Hitler's death camps for him.
