Russia May Have Just Given Ukraine Terms for Ending War

[Sargonski]

That is not the same as saying that I think the hack harmed the electoral process. What I think, as I've made clear repeatedly, is that the hack only exploited an existing flaw. The harm was introduced when the original framers of the Constitution formulated a compromise to ensure power sharing between slave states, with fewer voters, and free states, with more voters. Madison himself pointed out that slavery was the big issue when it came to getting slave states to sign on to a federalist system, so electing president with a system where the number of slaves could be figured into the voting power of a state convinced the powerful Virginia delegation and other representatives from slave states to go forward with adopting the Constitution. In modern times, parity between slave states and free states is no longer an issue, as it was for decades after the ratification of the original document. However, we still live with a legacy that allows us to elect presidents that do not win the popular vote. That's fine with Republicans and Russians, both groups having taken advantage of the flawed electoral process.

Yes it is the same regardless of whether or not you realize it .. the existing flaw in the constitution having zero to do with the issue - and you once again having little idea what the words you use mean ..

But matters not .. if you don't think the election was harmed in any way Trump's DNC Russian Collusion then why are you running around parrotting the Blue Propaganda fallacy trope "Russia Russia Russia" -- so you gulped down that Propaganda but now want to pretend that you didn't also buy the Wiki-DNC propaganda .. which is the point here .. that you were duped by Blue Propaganda and drank down the spiked kool-aid not knowing it was spiked .. and have been running around parroting the Blue propaganda like a good Prog Blue adherent.

and one further propaganda trope you repeated . .. one not mentioned previously .. is that Russia did the hack to begin with. In the investigation it was found that we don't actually know who did the DNC hack .. Yet Blue is still going around telling the lie .. and you "unwittingly" repeated that lie .. repeating the Blue Propaganda trope.

In addition .. as stated in previous post .. your ridiculous unsupported claim that Russia is sing the war to meddle in our electoral process is based on the same Prog Blue Propaganda Trope/Fallacy .. once again major dupage .. but also once again not to feel bad .. as it would not be very good propaganda if the adherent knew it was a lie .. and there are huge numbers of people - not just on the Blue but also on the Red side who have been duped by the lie.

 

[Copernicus]

In 2014 there was no Russian invasion.

You must be suffering from severe memory loss, but I can help. Russia invaded and assimilated Crimea, which had been Ukrainian territory for over half a century, in February 2014. It armed, infiltrated, and fully controlled the Donbas insurgents at the same time, amassing roughly 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border in April, providing heavy weapons and some troops pretending to be Ukrainians. Russian flags were already being displayed. In July, Russia delivered a Buk surface-to-air anti-aircraft system to Ukraine, which shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight-17 on the day it was delivered. It was then immediately shipped back to the 53rd Guards Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade (probably along with the Russian clowns who delivered it) the next day. By August, Russia was openly sending men and equipment into Ukraine in order to occupy what Putin was at that time calling "Novorossiya"--the name for the area in the pre-revolutionary Tsarist empire. I could go on, but that should give you the context for that little video clip of a Poroshenko rant in November of that year, while the Donbas territory of Ukraine was under a full invasion and occupation by Russian troops and the local insurgents Russia controlled.

There were Donbas separatists who wanted to become independent and asked for Moscow's military intervention.
Moscow refused telling them that diplomacy is the way: the two Minsk agreements were signed.

You really bought the deception. Hook, line, and sinker. This was no popular uprising like the Euromaidan protests that expelled Yanukovych. It was a well-organized and planned military takeover that used local dissidents as a pretense for invasion. The local population had no say in it, and the Minsk agreements were essentially terms dictated by Russia to call a ceasefire. The terms were impossible for Ukraine to implement, but neither side stuck to the agreement. Russia never lifted a finger to comply with its own promises--for example, demilitarizing the area and withdrawing troops. None of the puppet regimes set up by Russia or their territorial claims have been recognized by the EU, the UN, or other international authority. Russia's full scale invasion of 2022 was simply the second phase of Putin's planned takeover of the entire country, except that it was stopped dead by a better trained Ukrainian defense force.

Please don't elude this question: did Ukraine respect the Minsk agreements they signed?

They respected it to the extent that Russia did. IOW, it was a sham agreement imposed on Poroshenko's fledgling government in Ukraine with impossible conditions. Russia could more easily have begun to implement its side of the agreement, but it never did. So, what the Minsk agreements came down to were temporary ceasefires that gave both sides time to prepare for the second phase of the invasion. If you need more details on why the Minsk agreements failed, see Ambassador Kurt Voker's side of that story (written in 2021):

Don’t Let Russia Fool You About the Minsk Agreements​

 

[Estro Felino]

You must be suffering from severe memory loss, but I can help. Russia invaded and assimilated Crimea,

Do you have a source?
An article from 2014 where it is stated that Russia invaded Crimea?
I believe my eyes only.
Not unsubstantiated claims.
Thank you.

which had been Ukrainian territory for over half a century, in February 2014. It armed, infiltrated, and fully controlled the Donbas insurgents at the same time, amassing roughly 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border in April, providing heavy weapons and some troops pretending to be Ukrainians. Russian flags were already being displayed.

The evidence of that? Where is it?
I need evidence.

In July, Russia delivered a Buk surface-to-air anti-aircraft system to Ukraine, which shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight-17 on the day it was delivered. It was then immediately shipped back to the 53rd Guards Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade (probably along with the Russian clowns who delivered it) the next day. By August, Russia was openly sending men and equipment into Ukraine in order to occupy what Putin was at that time calling "Novorossiya"--the name for the area in the pre-revolutionary Tsarist empire. I could go on, but that should give you the context for that little video clip of a Poroshenko rant in November of that year, while the Donbas territory of Ukraine was under a full invasion and occupation by Russian troops and the local insurgents Russia controlled.

Explain me why they signed the Minsk agreements, then.
And don't elude the question, please.

You really bought the deception. Hook, line, and sinker. This was no popular uprising like the Euromaidan protests that expelled Yanukovych.

Euromaidan was a conspiracy ideated by élites overseas.
What was Nuland doing in Kyiv, supporting the anti-Yanukovich protesters?

The local population had no say in it, and the Minsk agreements were essentially terms dictated by Russia to call a ceasefire.

No. The Minsk agreements had the purpose to give Donbas autonomy, so they could speak Russian.
They were prevented from speaking Russian in public buildings.
And I have evidence.

The terms were impossible for Ukraine to implement, but neither side stuck to the agreement. Russia never lifted a finger to comply with its own promises--for example, demilitarizing the area and withdrawing troops.

It's the evidence that Donbas people wanted to be in the Russian Federation.
And not in a Ukraine colonized by soulless élites.

They respected it to the extent that Russia did. IOW, it was a sham agreement imposed on Ukraine with impossible conditions.

And yet, Macron went to Zelenskyy in February 2022, asking him to comply with the Minsk agreements.
Some days before the invasion.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes it is the same regardless of whether or not you realize it .. the existing flaw in the constitution having zero to do with the issue - and you once again having little idea what the words you use mean ..

More ad nauseam repetition of your same talking points. I gave far more of an answer to your loaded question than it deserved, but there is nothing further for me to say other than to direct you back to my previous responses.

 

[Sargonski]

More ad nauseam repetition of your same talking points. I gave far more of an answer to your loaded question than it deserved, but there is nothing further for me to say other than to direct you back to my previous responses.

You turned around and denied your answer to the "Loaded Question" but that don't matter because you shot your legs out many times.. by running around spewing fallacious Blue propaganda tropes.. aka " Your talking Points" as you say.

Yes .. that you were duped by .. and have been reciting Blue propaganda tropes is exactly the point .. that you are despreate to avoid. Calling folks you disagree with "Russian Apologists" in ad hom fallacy bliss .. believing the War in Russia constitutes some kind of Propaganda that is harming our electoral process.

No need to direct back to previous responses .. as what I posted is how you responded .. you just can't manage to say anything in response to the fact that you were lied to and tricked .. duped into believing falsehood ..

Why so difficult to admit this error .. it is not like there are not millions of others who made the same error .. and who are parroting the propaganda just like you.

 

[Copernicus]

Do you have a source?
An article from 2014 where it is stated that Russia invaded Crimea?
I believe my eyes only.
Not unsubstantiated claims.
Thank you.

This is all in the public record, if you would care to direct your eyes to the vast number of sources available to you online and in libraries. Russia admitted sending in troops in August 2014. Wikipedia is a good place to start. Take you eyeballs to this site:

Russo-Ukrainian War​

Explain me why they signed the Minsk agreements, then.
And don't elude the question, please.

Those agreements were brokered by the EU, which wanted to invasion stopped in its tracks, even though Russia was illegally occupying Ukrainian territory. Russia itself never did anything to implement its side of the agreement, and, if Putin's own words about "Novorossiya" are to be taken seriously, it never intended to. He wanted that territory joined to the Russian Federation, which the Minsk agreements did not allow.

Euromaidan was a conspiracy ideated by élites overseas.
What was Nuland doing in Kyiv, supporting the anti-Yanukovich protesters?

She was an ambassador whose remit included Ukraine. Why do I have to keep answering questions you've asked before and that I've answered? Go back and reread my previous answers to that question the last time you asked it.

No. The Minsk agreements had the purpose to give Donbas autonomy, so they could speak Russian.
They were prevented from speaking Russian in public buildings.
And I have evidence.

Ukraine passed the same kind of law that Russian Federation already had in place for itself--to designate an official government language. Nobody was prevented from using Russian in public buildings or elsewhere, unless it was in carrying out official duties. As I've said in the past, it was a terrible law, but so was Russia's law. Neither country should be depriving large minorities from having their language used in official government documents. Moreover, Russia had no right to use such a law as a pretext for invading another country. That is utterly absurd. You claim to be for peace, but you support such a nonsensical basis for starting a war?

It's the evidence that Donbas people wanted to be in the Russian Federation.
And not in a Ukraine colonized by soulless élites.

Nonsense. Nobody voted for the Minsk agreements, and free elections were never going to be allowed in the Donbas under the Russian-controlled puppet governments. Russia was not going to invade a country and then allow people the choice about whether it should continue to occupy and control them. Nor was it going to allow any stupid international agreement to derail its plan to assimilate another country's territory.

And yet, Macron went to Zelenskyy in February 2022, asking him to comply with the Minsk agreements.
Some days before the invasion.

Yes, because everyone knew that Russia was threatening to invade and Macron thought, like everyone else, that Putin could be talked out of it. The US also was urging the use of the Minsk accord as a framework for stopping the renewal of Russia's invasion, but all of that fell on deaf ears in the Kremlin. Putin humiliated Macron repeatedly, and it appears that Macron has finally accepted the fact that he won't go down in history as the architect of a peace deal. He didn't even get to wave a paper around in public like Chamberlain did after he snookered Hitler into occupying the Sudetenland.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nonsense. Nobody voted for the Minsk agreements, and free elections were never going to be allowed in the Donbas under the Russian-controlled puppet governments. Russia was not going to invade a country and then allow people the choice about whether it should continue to occupy and control them. Nor was it going to allow any stupid international agreement to derail its plan to assimilate another country's territory.

Thank you for your answers.
One last question, and please be as thorough as possible.
Do you want Ukraine to join the EU as soon as possible?

And do not elude the question, thank you.

 

[Copernicus]

Thank you for your answers.
One last question, and please be as thorough as possible.
Do you want Ukraine to join the EU as soon as possible?

And do not elude the question, thank you.

Personally, I would like that. I would also like the UK to rejoin. Brexit did a lot of damage, but more to the UK than to the EU.

 

[Sargonski]

Yes, because everyone knew that Russia was threatening to invade and Macron thought, like everyone else, that Putin could be talked out of it. The US also was urging the use of the Minsk accord as a framework for stopping the renewal of Russia's invasion, but all of that fell on deaf ears in the Kremlin. Putin humiliated Macron repeatedly, and it appears that Macron has finally accepted the fact that he won't go down in history as the architect of a peace deal. He didn't even get to wave a paper around in public like Chamberlain did after he snookered Hitler into occupying the Sudetenland.

Failure to abide by the Minsk accord .. UKraine - US/ NATO was one of the reasons Russia invaded . Those Azov Nazi's -- with state backing - just would not stop persecuting the Ethnic Russians. Right at the start the US was urging Zelensky to continue the war rather than negotiate .. saying US-NATO would give their full support .. "What ever it takes" .. the same lie told to all our Proxies .. in this case ..like the others .. the game was rigged from the start.

 

[Estro Felino]

Personally, I would like that. I would also like the UK to rejoin. Brexit did a lot of damage, but more to the UK than to the EU.

Thank you for answering.
Just to be precise: once Ukraine joins the EU, the warmongers overseas will need to quit the country because the European institutions will take over and impose that the warlike approach is abandoned.
No more conscripts, just voluntaries, in the army. No more intransigence, just diplomacy.

 

[Copernicus]

Failure to abide by the Minsk accord .. UKraine - US/ NATO was one of the reasons Russia invaded .

This is wrong in so many ways. Russia invaded in 2014 just after Putin's ally Yanukovych was overthrown because he reneged on his commitment to sign an agreement for closer ties with Europe and instead signed an agreement with Putin to bring Ukraine back into Russia's orbit. This was the issue that had fomented the earlier Orange Revolution that overturned Yanukovych's previous election victory as tainted by fraud. So Putin was angry at Ukrainian nationalists for rising up and wanting to align more with Europe than with Russia. Hence, he invaded shortly after Yanukovych was sent packing and Ukraine was temporarily without an elected president. The Minsk accords happened after that invasion, so it could not have been a reason for Russia invading. The Minsk accords were brokered by the EU in an effort to establish a ceasefire and stabilize the peace months after Russia had invaded.

Those Azov Nazi's -- with state backing - just would not stop persecuting the Ethnic Russians. Right at the start the US was urging Zelensky to continue the war rather than negotiate .. saying US-NATO would give their full support .. "What ever it takes" .. the same lie told to all our Proxies .. in this case ..like the others .. the game was rigged from the start.

The "Azov Nazis" are an overhyped construct of Russian propaganda. There were right wing nationalist movements in Ukraine and the Azov Assault Brigade did seem to start out as an ultranationalist group with neo-Nazi roots. So there are half truths there on which to build the disinformation campaign that you have fallen victim to. But that has always been the way Soviet propaganda worked--half truths being better than total fabrication.

The reality was that most nationalists were not in any way neo-Nazis or Nazi sympathizers, and the Azov Brigade was later incorporated into the Ukrainian military and depoliticized. Most Ukrainian nationalists favored independence from Russia, and their popularity was an established trend since the Ukrainian SSR voted overwhelmingly in a referendum (Act of Declaration of Independence) to leave the Soviet Union in 1991. Even Ukrainians who spoke Russian as their dominant language tended to favor stronger ties to Western Europe than Russia, although there were also large numbers who preferred closer ties to Russia. Urban areas like Kyiv and Odesa were always largely Russian-speaking areas, but the majority sentiment was pro-Ukraine, not pro-Russia. Rural areas outside those cities tended to have people whose dominant language was Ukrainian. Zelensky himself was a Russian-speaking Ukrainian whose early comedy routines reportedly mocked the use of the Ukrainian language (although I've seen no direct evidence of that). Nevertheless, Zelensky has always been fiercely pro-European and pro-Western AFAICT. The satirical TV series that popularized Zelensky and acted as a vehicle to get him elected, "Servant of the People", was conducted entirely in the Russian language, not Ukrainian. When you hear Zelensky speak today, he either uses English or Ukrainian, almost never Russian unless sending a message intended for Russians.

 

[Sargonski]

This is wrong in so many ways. Russia invaded in 2014 just after Putin's ally Yanukovych was overthrown because he reneged on his commitment to sign an agreement for closer ties with Europe and instead signed an agreement with Putin to bring Ukraine back into Russia's orbit. This was the issue that had fomented the earlier Orange Revolution that overturned Yanukovych's previous election victory as tainted by fraud. So Putin was angry at Ukrainian nationalists for rising up and wanting to align more with Europe than with Russia. Hence, he invaded shortly after Yanukovych was sent packing and Ukraine was temporarily without an elected president. The Minsk accords happened after that invasion, so it could not have been a reason for Russia invading. The Minsk accords were brokered by the EU in an effort to establish a ceasefire and stabilize the peace months after Russia had invaded.

Holy off the page. We are not talking about the 2014 invasion ... good grief. We are talking about the invasion in 2022 which was in part because Ukriane - US-NATO did not abide by Minsk .. making no effort to stop the persecution of the Ethnic Russians.

Your claim that the Azov Nazi is "Propaganda"/ a lie ... is Propaganda. The lie is that the Azov Nazi's are not real.. The lie is that the Azov Nazi was not Persecuting Ethnic Russians -- in conjunction with the Gov't -- which led to civil war in 2014.

 

[JIMMY12345]

Will that be acceptable?

"A top Kremlin official on Saturday suggested Russia could agree to an end to the war in Ukraine if a key condition is met.

During a press conference at the United Nations General Assembly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov indicated Russia would recognize Ukraine's borders prior to Moscow's invasion if Kyiv pledges to not join a military alliance.

Since Russian President Vladimir Putin began the war on February 24, 2022, he and Kremlin officials have cited various justifications for the conflict. But one of the most frequently stated reasons is Putin's opposition to the expansion of NATO on his country's borders, and he is said to be especially against Ukraine becoming a member of the military bloc."

MSN

www.msn.com

Perfectly acceptable.If Russia gives Ukraine all its territory back.It could help with cheap oil to Ukraine for all the people killed buildings blasted to rubble.

 

[Copernicus]

Holy off the page. We are not talking about the 2014 invasion ... good grief. We are talking about the invasion in 2022 which was in part because Ukriane - US-NATO did not abide by Minsk .. making no effort to stop the persecution of the Ethnic Russians.

It's the same invasion, Sargonski, and Russia itself never abided by the agreement. Putin just used the Minsk Accords to take advantage, regroup, and retake some territory that his "Novorossiya confederation" (basically Luhansk and Donetsk so-called "people's republics"). The first Accord was almost immediately violated by the LPR and DPR, when they held elections on Nov 2 in violation of the protocol and then took over the Donetsk airport, causing a collapse of the Accord. All of this was done with Russian connivance and support. Putin never cared anything about the LPR and DPR, because his view was that Ukraine was not even a legitimate country. They were just pretextual props for his invasion, and the ultimate goal of annexation couldn't have been made clearer when he began issuing Russian passports to Ukrainians in occupied territories this year.

The 2022 renewal of the full invasion started in 2014 had obviously been planned and scaled up for over the intervening years. Putin imagined a quick blitzkrieg--3 days--based on his utter miscalculation of Russian offensive and Ukrainian defensive military capabilities. Ukraine was not about to join NATO or the EU. There was no event that justified it, and the military buildup was monitored for weeks prior to its launch. The obvious plan was to take Kyiv, and assassination teams were sent in to decapitate the government. Except the decapitation teams themselves got decapitated, and the military invasion collapsed in utter chaos. What Putin got for his ill-fated invasion was an expansion of NATO with Finland and Sweden plus the near certainty that Ukraine will become a NATO country as part of the final end to this humanitarian disaster. Oh, and don't forget the humiliation of an international arrest warrant against him for war crimes.

(I don't know why I bother explaining any of this history to you. You don't really seem to care.)

Your claim that the Azov Nazi is "Propaganda"/ a lie ... is Propaganda. The lie is that the Azov Nazi's are not real.. The lie is that the Azov Nazi was not Persecuting Ethnic Russians -- in conjunction with the Gov't -- which led to civil war in 2014.

There was no civil war. There were ethnic tensions similar to the ones in a great many countries around the world, no less in Western Europe. The separatist movement in Donbas was built up and armed by Russia and could not have fought the Ukrainian government forces without direct Russian support. Because it was an invasion, not a civil war. People in the Donbas didn't like the language law, but that doesn't mean they wanted to become part of Russia and to have Russian troops involve them in a war with the government in Kyiv.

As for the history of the Azov Brigade, anyone can check the facts online. It is beyond belief that anyone would buy into the Nazi trash put out by Russian troll mills, but here we are. It is actually spread by rightwing sources in the West and often believed by those who take Russia's side in this invasion.

 

[Sargonski]

It's the same invasion, Sargonski, and Russia itself never abided by the agreement. Putin just used the Minsk Accords to take advantage, regroup, and retake some territory that his "Novorossiya confederation" (basically Luhansk and Donetsk so-called "people's republics"). The first Accord was almost immediately violated by the LPR and DPR, when they held elections on Nov 2 in violation of the protocol and then took over the Donetsk airport, causing a collapse of the Accord. All of this was done with Russian connivance and support. Putin never cared anything about the LPR and DPR, because his view was that Ukraine was not even a legitimate country. They were just pretextual props for his invasion, and the ultimate goal of annexation couldn't have been made clearer when he began issuing Russian passports to Ukrainians in occupied territories this year.

The 2022 renewal of the full invasion started in 2014 had obviously been planned and scaled up for over the intervening years. Putin imagined a quick blitzkrieg--3 days--based on his utter miscalculation of Russian offensive and Ukrainian defensive military capabilities. Ukraine was not about to join NATO or the EU. There was no event that justified it, and the military buildup was monitored for weeks prior to its launch. The obvious plan was to take Kyiv, and assassination teams were sent in to decapitate the government. Except the decapitation teams themselves got decapitated, and the military invasion collapsed in utter chaos. What Putin got for his ill-fated invasion was an expansion of NATO with Finland and Sweden plus the near certainty that Ukraine will become a NATO country as part of the final end to this humanitarian disaster. Oh, and don't forget the humiliation of an international arrest warrant against him for war crimes.

(I don't know why I bother explaining any of this history to you. You don't really seem to care.)



There was no civil war. There were ethnic tensions similar to the ones in a great many countries around the world, no less in Western Europe. The separatist movement in Donbas was built up and armed by Russia and could not have fought the Ukrainian government forces without direct Russian support. Because it was an invasion, not a civil war. People in the Donbas didn't like the language law, but that doesn't mean they wanted to become part of Russia and to have Russian troops involve them in a war with the government in Kyiv.

As for the history of the Azov Brigade, anyone can check the facts online. It is beyond belief that anyone would buy into the Nazi trash put out by Russian troll mills, but here we are. It is actually spread by rightwing sources in the West and often believed by those who take Russia's side in this invasion.

It is revisionist history you were supplying .. and just because I put up points that counter your prespective does not mean I don't care friend

The big point that you didn't get was that minsk came before the "Special Operation" not before the start of the civil war. or maybe you did understand but just wish to deflect citing history we both know .. the initial action was a fail .. so what ? Has absolutely zero to do with Minsk and its violation .. the Azov Nazi's continued persecution of the Ethnic Russians .. who started to fight back in 2014 .. after the US backed coup installed a pro-western Gov't .. resulting in the annexation of Crimea .. the "invasion"/ anexation.

Your recent claim that there was not a civil war in Ukraine is more revisionist history .. completey false nonsense injested from some propaganda site .. or just made up thinking it might sound good. Syria was not a civil war .. seems you are confusing the two.

Thats the thing about ingesting the Orwellion ganda doublespeak friend .. everything comes out backward. Show me the equivalent of the war between the Ethnic Russians in the Donbass-Lugansk and the Azov Nazi's and State of Ukraine .. in Syria ? Who was the side the State of Syria was fighting.

Need to learn Copper -- been living in a "necessary illusion bubble" .. some absurd notion that CNN is "The most trusted source in War Reporting" .. You been fed some lies .. that you didn't recognize.. but now it is time to become wise and don't blame me for criticize .. that state propaganda and those lying Blue eyes

"Azov Nazi" - Did you not see Canada applauding an old time Ukrainian Nazi ? So predicably silly your desperate cries that the "Nazi Stories" are all "Russian Propaganda" once again defaulting to that same "Russia Russia" trope you learned from the woke joke.

Except -- there is a teeny weeny problem with your "Russia Russia" cry .. as now you are calling US Congress a "Russian Troll Mill" - for their Azov Nazi propaganda.

This is what we call getting caught in a big web of fallacy and Orwellian lies my friend. Tell me how is it you figure the US Congress is a "Russian Troll Mill" for spouting Azov Nazi Propaganda. It used to be Trump Tulsi and a few others who were Russian Operatives.. Now it is near all of Congress as Congress sanctioned the Azov Nazi's in 2018

You have some explaining to do Brother Copper .. as apparently .. according to your hypothesis ... the Azov Nazi don't exist .. and Congress is a Russian Troll Mill - including the woke members who's ganda you have absorbed .. trained to cry out "Russia Russia" every time something conflicts with hallowed woke western perspective that you ingested.

 

[Ponder This]

No...it's just because they fear that NATO will turn Ukraine into a military base for an Operation meant to attack, conquer and dismember Russia.
Russians are probably a bit paranoiac about this.
But they were invaded by Napoleon in the 19th century and by Nazi Germany in 1940s...so they are afraid of Western Europe.

Now we Western Europe love Russians and Russia...but it seems to me that certain people hate Russia a priori.

Right?

No, I don't think Russia was legitimately worried about NATO. In fact, like Sweden and Finland, Ukraine had little interest in joining NATO prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Think about it. If Russia had not invaded Ukraine, then neither Sweden, nor Finland, nor even Ukraine itself would've applied for NATO membership because their people simply didn't have signficant interest in joining NATO. Russia has driven all three of them towards NATO by engaging in increasingly bold acts of territorial conquest. It's because NATO is, by design, a treaty to deter invasions that Russia does not want Ukraine to join it. By requesting, as part of a peace deal, that Ukraine not join NATO, Russia wants to leave open the possibility of future invasion of Ukraine, to conquer it in its entirety, to annex and rule it.
I don't doubt that "certain people" hate a priori, but I think most people would like to see Russia thrive as a sovereign nation that respects other sovereign nations, their borders, and their people. When will that happen?

 

[Estro Felino]

No, I don't think Russia was legitimately worried about NATO. In fact, like Sweden and Finland, Ukraine had little interest in joining NATO prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Think about it. If Russia had not invaded Ukraine, then neither Sweden, nor Finland, nor even Ukraine itself would've applied for NATO membership because their people simply didn't have signficant interest in joining NATO. Russia has driven all three of them towards NATO by engaging in increasingly bold acts of territorial conquest. It's because NATO is, by design, a treaty to deter invasions that Russia does not want Ukraine to join it. By requesting, as part of a peace deal, that Ukraine not join NATO, Russia wants to leave open the possibility of future invasion of Ukraine, to conquer it in its entirety, to annex and rule it.
I don't doubt that "certain people" hate a priori, but I think most people would like to see Russia thrive as a sovereign nation that respects other sovereign nations, their borders, and their people. When will that happen?

Whom shall I believe?
The US intelligence?

Because there are rumors...rumors that say that the US is behind this proxy war because they want to invade Russia and conquer it.
After dismembering the country, seizing its resources.

And the only way they could do it was to provoke Putin, by ordering the new Kiev government to target the Donbas population, so that Russians would have supported them militarily.
So that Russia would have appeared the perpetrator in the eyes of the world.

Whom shall I believe?

 

[Copernicus]

It is revisionist history you were supplying .. and just because I put up points that counter your prespective does not mean I don't care friend

What you call "revisionist history" is actually well-documented mainstream history, but I haven't seen any evidence from you that you understand Russian or Ukrainian history. Your concept of history seems to be grounded in what you've picked up from acquaintances and on social media.

The big point that you didn't get was that minsk came before the "Special Operation" not before the start of the civil war. or maybe you did understand but just wish to deflect citing history we both know .. the initial action was a fail .. so what ? Has absolutely zero to do with Minsk and its violation .. the Azov Nazi's continued persecution of the Ethnic Russians .. who started to fight back in 2014 .. after the US backed coup installed a pro-western Gov't .. resulting in the annexation of Crimea .. the "invasion"/ anexation.

I pointed you at the actual history of the so-called "Azov brigade" and you ignored it. Oh, well.

Your recent claim that there was not a civil war in Ukraine is more revisionist history .. completey false nonsense injested from some propaganda site .. or just made up thinking it might sound good. Syria was not a civil war .. seems you are confusing the two.

When did we start talking about Syria? I've been focused on Ukraine and the documented history of Russia's 2014 infiltration and occupation of Ukrainian territory--what normal people would call an "invasion", not a civil war.

Thats the thing about ingesting the Orwellion ganda doublespeak friend .. everything comes out backward. Show me the equivalent of the war between the Ethnic Russians in the Donbass-Lugansk and the Azov Nazi's and State of Ukraine .. in Syria ? Who was the side the State of Syria was fighting.

Syria is not relevant to this discussion, although the Russian government's Wagner mercenaries have been active in both.

"Azov Nazi" - Did you not see Canada applauding an old time Ukrainian Nazi ? So predicably silly your desperate cries that the "Nazi Stories" are all "Russian Propaganda" once again defaulting to that same "Russia Russia" trope you learned from the woke joke.

Like a Troll from Olgino, you keep bringing up the false "Nazi" pretense that pro-Kremlin apologists like to dote on, ignoring the (again--documented) history of neo-Nazi groups inside of Russia and also in connection with Putin himself. See, for example, and especially that nice picture of a "Nashi" rally with pro-Putin t-shirts:

Putin’s fascists: the Russian state’s long history of cultivating homegrown neo-Nazis​

​

​

Except -- there is a teeny weeny problem with your "Russia Russia" cry .. as now you are calling US Congress a "Russian Troll Mill" - for their Azov Nazi propaganda.

I did not use that expression or say anything like it about the US Congress. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

This is what we call getting caught in a big web of fallacy and Orwellian lies my friend. Tell me how is it you figure the US Congress is a "Russian Troll Mill" for spouting Azov Nazi Propaganda. It used to be Trump Tulsi and a few others who were Russian Operatives.. Now it is near all of Congress as Congress sanctioned the Azov Nazi's in 2018

This is delusional stuff. I never said anything like this. Where are you getting it from?

You have some explaining to do Brother Copper .. as apparently .. according to your hypothesis ... the Azov Nazi don't exist .. and Congress is a Russian Troll Mill - including the woke members who's ganda you have absorbed .. trained to cry out "Russia Russia" every time something conflicts with hallowed woke western perspective that you ingested.

Well, that was an interesting straw man rant. Is this something that you picked up on social media?

 

[Copernicus]

Whom shall I believe?
The US intelligence?

Because there are rumors...rumors that say that the US is behind this proxy war because they want to invade Russia and conquer it.
After dismembering the country, seizing its resources.

And the only way they could do it was to provoke Putin, by ordering the new Kiev government to target the Donbas population, so that Russians would have supported them militarily.
So that Russia would have appeared the perpetrator in the eyes of the world.

Whom shall I believe?

Estro, my opinion is that you are asking the wrong question. It is not who you should believe, but what you should believe, regardless of who is saying it.

A few years ago, I attended a talk by a former CIA analyst on truth in social media, and he started out by telling the audience that they should be skeptical of claims that contradicted their beliefs. Then he said that they should be twice as skeptical of claims that confirmed their beliefs. His point was that the best kinds of propaganda contained hooks--affirming known biases but adding disinformation or failing to give a complete picture of the truth. Confirmation bias (tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with existing beliefs) is a real problem when it comes down to figuring out what is true or false. We are all biased to believe what we want to believe. The only way to arrive at the truth is not to accept or reject anything out of hand, but to look for corroborating information in more than one source. It is best to be aware of a known bias in one's sources and make allowances of reporting that confirms those biases. Try to find the same story in a source that leans in the opposite direction. Get both sides of a controversy, if that is possible.

The one constant we can be assured of in reporting on the Ukraine war is that both sides bias their reporting on what they want their audiences to believe. So it is more important than ever to get more than one side of information that is released to the public and take everything with a grain of salt. Usually, the truth lies somewhere between what each side claims.

 

[Estro Felino]

Estro, my opinion is that you are asking the wrong question. It is not who you should believe, but what you should believe, regardless of who is saying it.

A few years ago, I attended a talk by a former CIA analyst on truth in social media, and he started out by telling the audience that they should be skeptical of claims that contradicted their beliefs. Then he said that they should be twice as skeptical of claims that confirmed their beliefs. His point was that the best kinds of propaganda contained hooks--affirming known biases but adding disinformation or failing to give a complete picture of the truth. Confirmation bias (tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with existing beliefs) is a real problem when it comes down to figuring out what is true or false. We are all biased to believe what we want to believe. The only way to arrive at the truth is not to accept or reject anything out of hand, but to look for corroborating information in more than one source. It is best to be aware of a known bias in one's sources and make allowances of reporting that confirms those biases. Try to find the same story in a source that leans in the opposite direction. Get both sides of a controversy, if that is possible.

The one constant we can be assured of in reporting on the Ukraine war is that both sides bias their reporting on what they want their audiences to believe. So it is more important than ever to get more than one side of information that is released to the public and take everything with a grain of salt. Usually, the truth lies somewhere between what each side claims.

I give you a practical example.
If the American CIA decides to invade Russia via Estonia, in 5 seconds or less, the Tallinn institutions will warn the EU institutions, since Estonia is in the EU, besides being a NATO country.

That is why when Ukraine joins the EU...the warmongers who desire to invade Russia will have to abandon their plans.