Yet, the Russian propaganda machine continues to claim it's the West that wants war.
Can you explain how the West is the aggressor here?
You've still not explained how the West is the aggressor in the face of the continued overt Russian military aggression that we can all see.
Meanwhile, as discussed, Russia, Ukraine and EU have a lot to lose in a devastating and bitter war. At the same time Russia is obliged to keep stability and relative prosperity in the region for its citizens at home and Russian nationals abroad.
The best route for Russia is to defend the status quo as passively as possible while waiting for the Ukrainians to realize that for the "west" Ukraine's destruction is about as good as Russia's. And I think this route is feasible for Putin, so this will happen(not much).
That is obviously quite vague and unrevealing. A very elementary assertion that elides calls for verifiable facts.
Worse, Russia has rolled tanks in the region, annexed territory, and continues to fight a separatist war. The idea that they are somehow not the aggressor completely defies all reason and observable reality.
Likewise, the idea that they are somehow keeping stability and prosperity in the region through their overtly imperialistic military aggression in an otherwise peaceful context is directly contrary to the reality. Ukraine simply wishes to remain a free and sovereign democratic nation. If Russia were not invading and threatening them, there would be no conflict.
Three comments later, and you have still failed to explain how the West is the aggressor.
This is kind of weird given that NATO propaganda right now is justifying the absence of intervention—making the case that despite the illegality of current Russian action and the potential expanded invasion, Ukraine might get aid but essentially must be written off because the alternative is a World War—whereas it is Russian propaganda that is justifying war.
Like, of NATO wanted to send the kids from NATO countries to die to enrich the military-industrial complex, they really ought to get their propagandists to stop working against their own goal.
If you neighbor wants to invade you and has done that already at least one in the past decade you might want a stronger ally than nobody. That is up to the country to decide. Though the cold war has shown that neither party wins in a climate of fear.
Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
And let's not forget Malaysia Airlines Flight 17:
NATO is not just a self defence organisation. It's an offensive tool. NATO has gone into more offensive missions (at least 3) than truly defensive missions (literally zero - I don't count the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a defensive act).
For many members of NATO, the only existing military threat is within NATO itself (see: Turkey and some of its neighbors).
The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.
As a westerner, that does sound pretty great- especially in the face of hostility from a glorified KGB thug like Putin.
"How Russia Got So Big":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1R_ycU_fS4
My ancestry is Slavic. You're going to go have a hard time convincing me not to worry about Russia.
Some Islamic terrorists use terror to try to form a Qoqaz caliphate on Russian territory, and Russia fighting this development within their own borders is "being an aggressor". Meanwhile the US flies to to the other side of the world to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which I suppose was a defensive action by its Department of Defense.
The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.
Russia may not like it (and I'd imagine I wouldn't were I in the same position) but invading countries because of their own sovereign decisions is unlikely to be successful in the long-term.
No, he didn't.
And even if he did promise the USSR that, I don't see a signed international agreement. Any such personal assurance with no formal agreement could not reasonably be viewed by anyone as anything more than a statement of policy of the then-current administration, not an open-ended binding commitment. I do see a signed treaty, signed much later, committing Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, that was in force when it invaded and occupied much of Ukraine.
https://en.topwar.ru/44990-zachem-vms-ssha-sobiralis-remonti...
The link to the official government page is dead now. But I have seen the original with my own eyes back a few years ago. And even saved it as a PDF, but can’t find it now.
By which I mean, historical presence in an area tells us little about the legitimacy of current day activities.
And even then, Crimea was a terrible thing, but it made strategic sense (the russian fleet base is there). I don't see any real strategic benefit for Russia with invading the rest of Ukraine.
The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood.
The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.
Are you from Ireland? Because I am, and this is an absolutely ludicrous reading of the situation.
The British and Irish governments partitioned Ireland, for a bunch of reasons 100 years ago. If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are (which is fine, even if I personally would prefer the island of Ireland to be one nation again).
> The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.
The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998, to ratify the Good Friday agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Northern_Ireland_Good_Fri...
While I'm sure that tensions run high in the Russian/Central/Eastern Europe part of the world with respect to Ukraine, dragging in inflammatory propaganda from other parts of the world (that you clearly know very little about) is incredibly unhelpful, and quite frankly rather offensive to people who have to live with it.
But, I also mentioned India in my comment. By your OP, it appears legitimate for the British to invade India right now. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why or why not?
If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia. Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.
> The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998
The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.
> I also mentioned India
Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military, which is not the case.
So, I presume you're talking about this referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
In general, I tend not to respect referendums that are preceded by invasion of military forces (who I believe were not Russian, according to the Russian government of the time?). But yes, you are correct, the people of Crimea did vote for this.
However, this is massively, massively different from both the original Treaty between the UK and Ireland in 1920, as all UK troops had withdrawn before this occurred. Additionally, the 1998 referendums took place in an environment where most of the violence had stopped for a number of years, which is definitely not the case in Ukraine.
> Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.
So, you'd be fine if the Russians wiped out the native language of the Ukrainian people, cut down their forests and watched as multiple millions of them died? Clearly you wouldn't be (I hope) and only someone with absolutely no context on Irish/UK history would make such a ludicrous claim. Additionally, it was the United Kingdom that this did, not England (which only exists as a nation in sports).
> The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.
I feel like you may have mistaken the 1916 proclamation of independence with the 1998 referendum, which I think speaks to your lack of understanding of the issues (and I cheerfully admit that I know very little about the history of Russia/Crimea/Ukraine). From a Republic of Ireland point of view, the 1998 referendum was actually about giving up a territorial claim on the six counties of Northern ireland, which is very different from what happened in Crimea.
> Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military,
I just cant even, with this statement. Like, every weekend when I was growing up, there were violent deaths in the North of ireland (and Britain) on behalf of terrorists/freedom fighters (delete as appropriate). There was definitely a bunch of terrible things done during this period, but the vast majority was driven by people living on the island of Ireland, not the British government. The British government didn't make it any better, but they didn't mass 130k troops around the North at any point.
> I also mentioned India
I'm going to assume that you have no answer to my question then.
On that note, I'll bow out of this conversation as I'm not sure it's productive for either of us. Hope you have a great morning/afternoon/evening.
Mongolia would like to have a word.
No, it hasn't.
From the creation of Soviet Ukraine in 1919 through 2014, Russia neither controlled nor pretended to control Crimea (except for a 9 year period from 1945-1954), which it acknowledged was its own entity (prior to 1945) or part of Ukraine (after 1954).
(People sometimes equate the USSR, which essentially replaced the Russian Empire with “Russia”, but the modern Russian Federation is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR, just as Ukraine is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.)
The 9 year period it was part of the Russian Federation ended closer to 70 years ago, but I’ve updated the GP to reflect it.
Still, nested within the Russian Federation as an administrative entity. (Also, autonomy throughout the USSR was more or less a formality anyway.)
> The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic[a] was an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic *of the Russian SFSR* (1921–45) and the Ukrainian SSR (1991–92) located on the Crimean Peninsula. The political unit was succeeded by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
[0]
> On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.
> Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:
> To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.
Regarding "...is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR":
> The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, as successor states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the Treaty, shall assume the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty
[1]
Does USA position on this matters?
Especially considering Russia is still repaying USSR's foreign debt.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Decree
[1] https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf