[flagged]
However, this is an extraordinarily hypocritical claim, because this has followed a time when for various durations, between a half of century and two centuries the Russians have mistreated the minorities of those places in a much more ferocious way, inclusively by robbing them, murdering them or sending them to forced labor in Siberia.
In Ukraine, there are many places with Russian colonists who have been installed after WWII in the houses that before the war belonged to various other nationalities, which were then killed or dispersed to Siberia by the Russians.
Yes, Russians have been mistreated after the separation of the Soviet Republics, but this is much, much less than what their fathers have done around WWII and before it, and many of them have still inherited what their fathers have stolen from the other nationalities.
Had the Russians treated better the others when they had the power, they would have not been so hated, so they would have been much more likely to be treated correctly.
The fuck you're talking about?! Mistreated how?!
Give a specific example
When a toddler does something inappropriate, "but he did it to me" is not an excuse. If both kids did something bad, I want both to apologize, and both to move on. It's also not a contest for who did something worse. I want Ukraine to apologize to Poland. I want Poland to apologize to Ukraine. I want both nations to move on.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Indeed, that's doubly the case when it's nations -- a civilian hit in a retaliatory strike often has nothing to do with an atrocity. I don't know where you are, but I'll pretend the US. If someone whose father died in Guantanamo, or whose child was killed in an airstrike in Afghanistan, killed your mother, would they be "right"? Would it be hypocritical of you to complain?
Or if you want to punish a dictator, does it make sense to starve the people in his nation -- most of whom probably want him out even more?
I am perfectly aware of all of Russia's wrongs. You missed most of the big ones, from holodomor, to about a half-millennium of other torment of people in Ukraine.
You try to do right for your own soul. Apologizing doesn't weaken you.
And you don't punish children for the sins of their fathers.
This seems a trivial detail but I think it's a profound mechanism of the current disinformation climate
There were others as well. Most have at least some basis as well. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/422nd_Unmanned_Systems_Regimen...
And yes, it is still a really shitty set of pretexts.
You see, I've been in Ukraine in 2014, and I've been observing everything from the front seat, so to say.
Generally what ruskies say does not matter. Not a single word.
But specifically, the pretexts they may be stating now (I don't follow what they say), may be different from what they stated in 2014.
It baffles me that after so much bs spewed by russian propaganda, people waste their effort trying to synthesize a coherent story.
The only rock fact: ruskies say whatever gives them tactical advantage at the moment.
Also bad for the world. The lesson, as with Iran and Iraq, is: you’d better have nukes and never give them up. This is the opposite of the lesson we want if we want to contain proliferation.
The global taboo on use remains. If someone breaks that and gets away with it we are into civilization ending danger territory.
Russia claims those assurances ended with the US actively advocating on the ground in Ukraine for the overthrow of their government in 2014, as the assurances included not interfering in domestic politics or using economic coercion. But the US also sanctioned and was working to overthrow Belarus as far back as 2006, so those assurances had been pretty much dead for a long time.
Outside of that I completely agree with everything else you said, especially with people not appreciating how far back these conflicts go. The whole Bandera stuff has no real parallel in the West, so I think most people wouldn't really be able to 'get it' even if they had the facts, which they overwhelmingly do not.
Choosing to not do this to avoid a hypothetical external aggression was a bad choice, because they were invaded anyway.
And Ukraine's where they're at today because of bad decisions. Russia's negotiations to end the war started on literally day 2. And they involved absolutely no land concessions or anything like that - the big issue was not joining NATO. Such offer would now be labeled a crushing to defeat for Russia, given how the war is going.
You've been there, right?
And do you know the meaning of the word "literally"?
Jeez, you russian clowns.
There's a somewhat reasonable timeline of the talks themselves, til their end here. [1] But the NYTimes is being a bit disingenuous. The early talks called for the recognition of the independence of Donbas, but under Ukraine. The contested regions were to be given a special status, probably akin to something like Chechnya under Russia or perhaps Puerto Rico under the US. So Ukraine would control these regions, but simultaneously they'd have a significant degree of autonomy and independence. In any case, by March even this issue had been withdrawn.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/...
> Then Ukraine chose to abruptly end the talks following the intervention of the West, allegedly Boris John in particular.
David Arkhamia said that after the Bucha massacre was uncovered, western governments stopped pressuring Ukraine into halting the war at any cost (including surrender). This was Boris Johnson's message too.
Russian propaganda put a spin on it, misrepresenting the "reduction of western pressure on Ukraine to surrender" as "western pressure on Ukraine to fight". This supports the overall propaganda narrative that Ukraine is resisting the Russian invasion only because they are forced to by foreign governments, and not because they want to be free, independent and, not live under the Russian boot.
That's all the substance there is behind this "Boris Johnson forced Ukraine to fight" story.
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary/...
From the Guardian (12 days ago): "Kyiv’s decision to honour second world war fighters who killed about 100,000 Poles has revived simmering tensions". Bandera was a Nazi collaborator and today's Ukraine politics worships Bandera. Lots of streets are renamed to honor him. Eastern Ukrainians are considered second class - or as some politicians said: "There are 2 million people too many".
The US (look up Nuland and her quote about 'fuck the EU') fueled with $5B the nationalism in Ukraine. Now imagine, the US would fuel with $50B the nationalism in Belgium and the the flemish would attack wallonie. You know what would happen? France would support the wallonie. Nothing to see here.