It's stupid to even think that Ukraine has a chance against Russia

322 views • 11 upvotes • Made by Russian_Tsarist_8 7 months ago in History_Memes
92 Comments
[deleted]
3 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
People mock Russia for initially failing in Ukraine but I just remind them this. "Ukraine, has all of NATO supporting it. Why is the war still going?" One of the strongest, if not the most strong alliance in history focusing tons of resources in one region and yet Russia is still pushing and slowly winning, mile by mile.
[deleted] M
1 up, 7mo, 4 replies
We're not mocking Russia for not being able to compete with the resources that NATO provides. We're mocking Russia for not being able to deal with the country whose population is significantly smaller than Russia, and is only receiving reinforcements who volunteer. Meanwhile, Russia is facing repeated reports of diaspora, entire units joining the Ukrainian war effort. Ukraine while conscripting isn't having any where near the same levels of defection.
Russian_Tsarist_8
2 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
If NATO kept themselves out of the conflict, the war would have ended within a month and Ukraine would have fallen within a couple weeks.
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo, 3 replies
Russian_Tsarist_8
2 ups, 7mo
Poland is only helping Ukraine because of a common enemy. For pretty much their entire history, Ukrainians and Poles hated each other and committed atrocities against each other, even while Ukraine was still part of the USSR. NATO does not care about Ukraine; they just care about making Russia lose (which it won't). And NATO has been pressuring its members to give more aid and sending more soldiers to fight. Canada even took a bunch of airplanes from Serbia, Russia's ally, and sold them to Ukraine.
AnotherWorldViewM
2 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
The Russian troop build-up was in parallel to the buildup of the NATO-proxy forces in the East and South of Ukraine - and on Russia's border.

The Russians waited 8 years from the Coup - and several years since Ukraine had RENEGED on their signature on the Minsk Accords, before acting. They issued a final attempt at a Diplomatic Resolution in December of 2021. The aggressive expansionists in NATO just laughed and rejected it without a counteroffer. And then the OSCE reported a huge increase in attacks against the ethnic Russians in the Donbass. There was a team of Mercs caught attempting some kind of false flag chemical gas event, too...but who's counting. 

CIA documents from the 50's and going forward identify the different areas of Ukraine, and where the sympathies of the population lie. All of the Ethnically Russian areas in the East and South WERE Russia - until the USSR decided to create a Ukrainian Socialist Republic. The lines crossed them. The Republic was an amalgam of at a minimum two different cultures. The West of Ukraine are largely Ukrainian (a dialect of Russian) -speaking Greek Uniate Catholics. There's also abused populations of Roma and Romanians and Poles and Hungarians, as well - to the extent thar the Banderites weren't successful in murdering them all, with the approval and assistance of the Nazis. The East are mostly Russian-speaking Russian Orthodox - whom Uniates have believed in massacring as some kind of religious duty, for several centuries. So it was an uneasy marriage since long before the October Revolution. 

The Sovereignty of Ukraine died when the west began their meddling, and conducting TWO color revolutions (the first one didn't take). Nuland said Yays was the guy - and sure enough, Nuland was Sovereign. 

It feels to me that you're HARASSING this kid - and lying to do so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

This may be how you act over at PolToo... But I think you should clean up your act, here.
AnotherWorldViewM
2 ups, 7mo
*"Yats" was the guy.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
Throughout all of its history, Ukraine has always been part of Russia except for now since 1991 and also in 1917, when the chaos of the Russian Revolution was happening during WW1 and the Germans made Ukraine be independent as a member of the Central Powers, who were the bad side of WW1.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
The idea that Ukraine has always been part of Russia doesn't hold up when we look at the facts. For a long time, the areas we talk about had their own stories, separate from Russia's control. Let's break this down simply.

First, let's talk about The Treaty of Perpetual Peace, building on the Truce of Andrusovo from 1667, was a big deal with 33 parts. It made sure Russia kept control of an area called Left-bank Ukraine and even got the city of Kiev, which was on the right bank. Poland was supposed to get 146,000 rubles from Russia because they lost Left-bank Ukraine. Russia also gained control over places like the Zaporizhian Sich, Siverian lands, and cities including Chernihiv, Starodub, and Smolensk, while Poland kept Right-bank Ukraine. Both countries promised they wouldn't make their own deals with the Ottoman Empire. With this treaty, Russia joined a group against the Ottoman Empire, which included Poland–Lithuania, the Holy Roman Empire, and Venice. Russia agreed to fight against the Crimean Khanate, leading to a war with Turkey that lasted from 1686 to 1700.

Although this treaty was a big win for Russia, many people in Poland-Lithuania didn't like it. It took a long time, until 1710, for their parliament to officially agree to it, and some people still question if that agreement was legally okay. A historian named Jacek Staszewski said it wasn't fully approved by their parliament until much later, in 1764.

Late 1700s: When Poland-Lithuania, a big player in Europe, started losing its power. Russia was calling the shots, even picking who would rule Poland-Lithuania. It was kind of like Russia was the boss, and Poland-Lithuania was following orders.

Then things really changed with the First Partition of Poland in 1772. This happened because Europe's big countries were moving around, trying to grab more power. Russia was getting stronger from fights with the Ottoman Empire, which scared some of the other big countries like Austria.

France, trying to keep things balanced, suggested that everyone just move some borders around without hurting the Ottoman Empire too much. But then, Frederick II of Prussia didn't want to give up his new lands but also didn't want to fight everyone. So, he came up with a plan to share parts of Poland-Lithuania between Prussia, Russia, and Austria instead of fighting over other places.

(more)
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo, 2 replies
2/ Poland-Lithuania was already in a tough spot, with internal fights and uprisings, making it weaker. Russia, which had been acting like Poland-Lithuania's big brother, decided Poland wasn't useful anymore. So, they all agreed to split it up.

This whole story shows that Ukraine and the areas around it weren't just Russia's backyard. They were part of complex moves by big countries trying to get more power. Saying Ukraine was always just part of Russia misses all this history of struggle, power plays, and the fight to be independent.

So, when we hear that Ukraine has always been under Russia, it's not really true. History shows us a tapestry of battles, alliances, and politics that tell a different story. It's important to look at the whole picture and understand the real stories of these places.
Russian_Tsarist_8
2 ups, 7mo
Ukraine might not have been part of only Russia, it was also a part of several other nations in history. However, it has only been independent for two times in its entire existence.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
IN the 1600's when Russia was suffering from a succession crisis, Poland-Lithuania was sending impostors to the throne who would favor them, and even invaded Russia during this time. They captured Moscow for a short time, and fought against people from all areas. This was the main thing that showed eminity between the two nations, and why Russia later decided to carve up Poland-Lithuania.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo, 13 replies
If Russia believed that Ukraine was not a sovereign state, that it was part of Russia, they shouldn't have signed the agreements. Violating those treaties because of a perceived threat does not give justification. Just like in USA, You can't murder your neighbors because they glare at you. You can't murder your neighbors if they're holding guns. Thing is, in this metaphor, the neighbors are NATO. Russia is (in this metaphor) killing the kid next door who can't look out for themselves against some guy who's far more experienced, and better equipped. 

Bottom line is, Russia f**ked up. They've broken agreements, and that's on them. They have no legitimate claim after having signed the treaties they did. 

Russia shot first. Here's a more detailed comment where I go over this with Anotherworldview: https://imgflip.com/i/8lvh1h?nerp=1712833085#com30953171
Russian_Tsarist_8
2 ups, 7mo
Yeah, I think that it's good when two sides get to share their views, even if it means arguing.

It was nice to be able to share each other's opinions, though there was a lot of disagreement.

Anyways, have a good day
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 2 replies
If the UN actually worked, then there wouldn't be any conflicts today. There is still the Syrian Civil War, the Israel-Hamas War, and also several conflicts and violent disputes in Haiti, the Middle East, and Africa. While the UN wishes to maintain peace, many nations still prefer to settle things through violence, and little can be done when that is the case. When Russia invaded, Zelensky made it illegal to negotiate with Russia, and openly rejected all proposed peace talks and ceasefires. 

And as for historical claims, several nations have claimed parts of others for historical reasons. For example, Israel claims the area which the Palestinians claim is their own land, and even the USA maintains a very strong presence in all the territories that they used to own.

A while ago, if two countries were hostile they just went to war with each other, and it stayed as a small dispute unless it was two major powers. Nowadays, as soon as a war starts a ton of foreign countries start to intervene, which usually makes the war last longer and kill more people. In almost every war that has happened since WW2, the USA has intervened, and usually just made the conflict last much longer than it was supposed to be. If the USA were to hypothetically attach Canada and Russia intervened to help Canada, they would be called war criminals by the USA. But when they themselves stick their faces into foreign conflicts, it's all fine according to their logic. 

And while you condemn invasion, remember that the USA also has done several invasions in its past. Notable examples include the Mexican-American War and the Iraq War.

And there are also several other regions in the world which feel that they should be in another nation. Nagorno-Karabkh was in Azerbaijan but tried to join Armenia, which lead to several wars until it was dissolved. Many people also want Ireland reunified. Places like South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria all want to join Russia.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
you've brought up some good points about the complexities in international relations. The UN does struggle to stop all conflicts, mainly because it's influenced by powerful countries. Its main role is to lessen violence, help solve disagreements, and facilitate discussions, which are crucial even if they're not always perfectly successful.

When nations use historical claims to justify territorial demands, the outcomes vary. It’s important that these claims are handled through recognized global channels, which is seen as more legitimate and less likely to cause major conflicts than just taking action on one's own.

Regarding U.S. interventions, they're a complicated matter. Sometimes, these actions can make conflicts worse instead of solving them. Every conflict needs to be looked at individually because each one has different factors at play.

Concerning invasions and territorial disputes, our current international system, established after World War II, aims to discourage such actions and encourages solving issues through negotiation. This rule is supposed to be followed by all countries, including the USA.

In regions like Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, where people might feel a strong connection to a neighboring country, there needs to be effective international methods to resolve these disputes peacefully. These regions show why respecting international laws and everyone's rights is crucial.

Now, despite claims to the contrary, Russia's actions in Ukraine show qualities often associated with fascism, such as using force to assert control and ignoring international norms. This approach of using military power to fulfill political goals, especially in a way that disregards the sovereignty of another nation, aligns with authoritarian and ultranationalist tactics. These actions not only break international laws but also set a dangerous example for other countries, potentially leading to a more unstable and divided world.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
I am going to humor you, knowing that USA is not the subject of discussion (Russia is) I agree that USA should also be held accountable on all fronts where violations have occurred. I believe in the UN and the stability it provides along with its mission. Russia has made it clear to me in which the degree of their mission is so vital. If Russia is pointing the finger at USA for their violations, that makes Russia the hypocrite for grandstanding their position @ USA, then doing the same thing.

I digress.

The United States has been accused of violating international law on several occasions in recent history. Some of the most prominent examples include:

Iraq War (2003): The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was widely criticized and considered by many as a violation of international law. The invasion was initiated without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council, which led many to view it as an illegal act of aggression.

Drone Strikes: The U.S. drone warfare program, particularly in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, has raised significant international legal concerns. Critics argue that the drone strikes often violate the sovereignty of other nations and the legal principles governing the use of force, particularly concerning the targeting and killing of individuals without a transparent legal process.

Treatment of Detainees: The treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and other secret detention facilities has been another significant area of concern. Practices such as waterboarding, indefinite detention without trial, and the denial of habeas corpus rights have been criticized as violations of international human rights law.

Surveillance Programs: Extensive global surveillance programs, as revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013, have raised concerns about violations of the privacy rights of individuals and the sovereignty of other nations.

Withdrawal from International Agreements: The U.S. has also faced criticism for withdrawing from various international agreements and organizations, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the United Nations Human Rights Council, which some view as undermining international cooperation and legal commitments.

These actions have often been debated both within the U.S. and internationally, with various entities arguing whether these constitute violations of international law and what the implications of such actions are for global governance and international norms.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
Russia only invaded Ukraine in response to Donetsk and Luhansk. They were fighting the Ukrainian army since 2014, and they asked Russia to come in and help them.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
If Donetsk and Luhansk really needed help, they could have asked the UN instead of Russia, because the UN deals with such issues in ways that follow international rules and aim to keep peace; many countries think Russia's move was more like an invasion, which isn't the way to handle conflicts according to global standards. Instead, Russia took the fascist, authoritarian route we've been talking about.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 2 replies
Crimea voted to join Russia themselves. They actually had one day of formal independence, but they decided to join Russia. Just because they favored Russia, the West accuses the votes of being rigged. But if the anti-Russian side won even by 99%, the USA would claim that it was legitimate. As soon as another nation's voting results slightly different from the USA's ideal, it is considered rigged. Ukraine's minister of defense is severely anti-Russia, so it is not a surprise that he accused Russia of brutality.

While the entire Western world was hating Russia, Yanukovych actually tried to improve and normalize relations with Russia. However, fascist radicals who hate Russia opposed him and tried to remove him from power several times. 

Ukraine has a Gestapo group called the Banderites. They are hell-bent on removing all non-Ukrainians from Ukraine and exterminating ethnic minorities. 

I keep giving you answers, and you ignore them and ask the same questions. If you were any intelligent or had any regard for history, you would actually do your research and ask logical questions. there are plenty of answers to your questions on here, and I won't be bothering to reply if it is the same stuff over and over.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
Oh, I almost forgot..

It's interesting to see the double standards in how you frame the situation with Crimea and Ukraine. You claim the Crimean referendum, which occurred under highly questionable circumstances and significant military presence, was a legitimate expression of will. At the same time, you quickly label Ukrainians who opposed Yanukovych as "fascist radicals." This approach highlights a bias, where actions favoring Russia are viewed as legitimate, while those opposing it are considered radical. You're picking and choosing what to believe based on favoritism, not consistent principles. Consistency in evaluating legitimacy and representation is crucial, but it seems lacking in your argument. 

And here you are, accusing the US of doublestandards. Lol.

I think we're done here. I'm tired of your double standards, revisionist history, reductionist arguments. Russia can't backpedal their way out of this one.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
1) The claim that the U.S. was hypocritical in asserting that the Crimea vote to join Russia was rigged because of its own election fraud issues in LATER years is a form of post hoc reasoning, or using events that happened later to reinterpret or judge past events. Or, if you want a simpler term: Revisionist History.

Gonna say this louder for the people in the back:

________________________________________

The vote in Crimea occurred under heavy military presence after Russia's military intervention, and was organized hastily, which many international observers criticized as not meeting international standards for free and fair elections. These concerns were grounded in principles of international law and election monitoring practices rather than internal U.S. politics.

_________________________________________

For Yanukovych and the claims about fascist radicals..? The people who didn't like him weren't just random haters; they were seriously upset about corruption and how close he was with Russia instead of integrating more with the European Union. It wasn’t just about being anti-Russia; it was about wanting different things for Ukraine.

Lastly, about the Banderites, that’s a super loaded term. Stepan Bandera was a controversial Ukrainian figure during World War II, and calling modern groups "Banderites" is like throwing a match into a pile of old newspapers. It’s complicated, and while there are definitely nationalist groups in Ukraine, it’s way oversimplified (and pretty unfair) to say they all want to hurt people who aren’t like them.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
I don't think that Russia would exactly want to ask the UN to settle the conflict, because they have been sending help to Ukraine.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
I think there's a bit of confusion here about the UN and NATO. The UN works to keep peace and help countries talk out their problems without fighting; it doesn’t send military help like NATO does. NATO, which is a military group that includes countries like the USA and many in Europe, has given some help to Ukraine, but that's different from what the UN does. So, when talking about Russia asking for help, the UN would be about trying to find a peaceful solution through talks, not about military support.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
Ukraine was the one who withdrew from the Minsk agreements, not Russia. Also, they refused to join CSTO, which was a post-Soviet military alliance that was supposed to consist of the former republics. When Crimea decided to join Russia, the Ukrainians used violence against the ethnic Russians in their nation. When the USSR first collapsed, Russia and Ukraine were friendly until Poroshenko and Zelensky came along and ruined it. If someone's in the wrong, it's Ukraine , not Russia
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
By close I meant both location and relations. And while it is true that they could've asked for help from the UN, they wanted to be annexed by Russia so they chose to ask them instead.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
Being geographically and culturally close makes the feelings of Donbass understandable, but wanting to join another country doesn't really change the rules of international conduct. Even if Donbass preferred Russian help, the proper legal steps through international bodies like the UN are crucial for maintaining global order and respecting all countries' sovereignty. Skipping these steps can lead to bigger conflicts and problems, not just for Ukraine and Russia but for the whole international community.

Skipping the proper legal and diplomatic channels sets a dangerous precedent because it undermines the international system designed to manage conflicts and protect national sovereignty. When a region or group bypasses the UN and international law to seek annexation or intervention directly from a neighboring country, it can encourage other regions around the world to follow suit, potentially leading to increased instability and conflict. This undermines the rule of law and can lead to a world where might makes right, reducing security for all nations, including those that might currently benefit from disregarding these international norms. Such actions can erode trust between nations, making international cooperation more difficult and leading to a more fragmented and contentious global landscape.

Such an atmosphere among the nations of the world is not sustainable for its people. You'd be a fool to think otherwise.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
Donbass was a part of Russia since the days of the Tsardom of Russia. When the Communist revolution happened, the Ukrainian SSR was created, and the Donbass region was given to it. They also cut up several other areas in ways in which they didn't consent, like Transnistria. In the days of the Russian Empire, all of the former Soviet republics (and also Finland, parts of Iran and Mongolia, and for a small time Alaska and Manchuria) were directly administered by Russia. While WW2, Nazis, and the USSR dissolution definitely played a part in setting the scene for today, it could have been easily avoided if either the revolution never happened, or if Crimea and Donbass were not given to the Ukrainian SSR.

Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk consist mostly of ethnic Russians, and they all wanted reunification with Russia. Those regions were unhappy that they were part of Ukraine, where they were attacked and massacred several times by fascists groups. So when the Ukrainian Civil War started, it would be natural for them to not ask for help from the UN, which would've probably done things not in their favor, but instead from Russia, which they consider themselves a legal part of.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
I get your point about historical connections and ethnic ties, but the way borders and territories were managed historically doesn't automatically justify today's actions under international law. The reshaping of borders and the assignment of territories that occurred during and after the Russian Empire and the Soviet era were complex and often contentious, but the modern international system is built on the premise of respecting existing borders and handling disputes through negotiation and legal processes, not unilateral actions based on historical claims or ethnic majorities.

Furthermore, the feeling of an ethnic group within a country that it belongs more to a neighboring country does not negate the need to adhere to international laws and norms. While the desire of people in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk to join Russia is significant, overriding the established legal frameworks and bypassing international institutions like the UN can lead to more instability and conflict. It sets a precedent where might becomes right, potentially leading to more disputes and conflicts worldwide as other regions might claim similar historical or ethnic justifications to secede or join other nations without international consensus or legal justification. This approach undermines the efforts to maintain global peace and stability, which are the very core of the UN's mission and the international order post-World War II.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
I guess that's true. The UN sends civilian help, not military help.

I think we should just stop this argument, it just takes up time. The only purpose of this meme was to show that Russia is winning the war, not Ukraine. This argument has strayed off this point a while ago, and now we're arguing about things off topic, like the UN.
[deleted] M
1 up, 7mo
I didn't mean to turn our chat into an argument, and I'm sorry if it felt that way - I was just trying to respond to the points and clear up any confusion, not to argue. You’re right that our discussion has moved away from the original topic about the war's progress. I appreciate the chance to exchange views and learn from each other, and I’m here to keep things on track and focus on understanding each other better.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
The Donbass region is very close to Russia, and so it would make sense for them to ask help from the area which they consider their homeland.

And the UN has been pretty useless in most former conflicts. They may send troops, but they are not allowed to fight. Most UN peacekeeping missions in the past have either been done poorly or failed altogether.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
I'm not sure whether you're referring to "close" as either a neighborly close, or a close relationship to Russia, but international rules are there to keep peace; asking the UN for help is the proper way to handle conflicts so that things are fair and legal. While it's true that some UN missions haven't always worked out, they are designed to prevent fighting and protect people, and using official channels helps keep everything above board and respectful to all countries involved.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
Ukraine has all of those checks with fascism that you directed at Russia. They also have secret police and they massacre ethnic groups (specifically Russians) that they do not approve of.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
I see what you're saying, but throwing around the word "fascism" so easily might miss the bigger picture. Let's clear something up: just because Ukraine has issues - like any country doesn't mean they match the full scale of what fascism truly represents. Secret police and alleged actions against ethnic groups are serious accusations and should definitely be investigated, but they don't automatically equate to a fascist state. On the other hand, Russia's actions - invading another country, that's a huge deal and pretty clearly fits into the authoritarian and aggressive playbook we talked about.

Also, if we're talking about persecuting political enemies or ethnic groups, we've seen plenty of evidence pointing back at Russia itself. It’s important to look at all sides critically, not just the one opposing your view.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 3 replies
If you want to believe that Russia is losing, go on ahead. But research and maps show otherwise. 

You can support Ukraine all you want. All I'm saying is that they are the wrong side. If you want to support fascists and their regime, I'm not stopping you. 

The only way to find out what the outcome of this will be is to wait it out until the Russo-Ukrainian ends.
AnotherWorldViewM
2 ups, 7mo
Weird how Cerebrophage can see Fascism where it isn't - but not where it clearly is. Let's see - Russia: Free and Fair Elections ✔️ 

Ukraine: No elections. Coup to overthrow the lawful Government in 2014, orchestrated by the CIA, using followers of ACTUAL NAZI Stepan Bandera ✔️

Militarism and UltraNationalism - Russia: Not Particularly

Ukraine: Most definitely

Fascist regimes are revolutionary and advocate for the overthrow of existing governments - Russia: No evidence of this.

Ukraine: As recently as 2014. 

Yes - Russia entered the Donbass Republics - at their request, and to defend them in the Ukrainian Civil War, against the Coup Regime in Kiev, which was happily slaughtering Ethnic Russians, fir thf purposes of Ethnic Cleansing, to enforce obedience to the illegitimate authority of thd puppet Regime in Kiev. This happened after 8 long years of attempts at achieving a diplomatic solution.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
Hey AnotherWorldView, It looks like we're seeing things differently, and that's okay, but let's make sure we're clear on the facts.

First, saying the 2014 change in Ukraine's government was just a "coup by the CIA" simplifies a complex event. Lots of Ukrainians were really unhappy with their president because he suddenly decided not to join the EU. It wasn't just about the CIA; it was about what many people in Ukraine wanted.

About Russia's elections being "free and fair," many experts and observers have pointed out problems. They've noted issues like the government controlling the media and making it tough for opponents. This doesn't really fit with the idea of truly free and fair elections.

When we talk about militarism and nationalism, Russia's actions in Ukraine since 2014, like sending troops and saying they're protecting ethnic Russians, definitely show signs of these traits.

The idea that Russia only went into Donbass because they were asked and to protect people simplifies things too much. The whole international community thinks this was against the law and broke Ukraine's sovereignty.

Lastly, calling what the Ukrainian government did "ethnic cleansing" is a very big and serious claim that isn't widely supported by evidence. It's important to be careful with such serious accusations.

It's good to keep questioning and discussing, but let's base our talk on solid information and not oversimplify big issues. Let's keep digging into the facts.
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
I also believe that it would have been much better for both sides if the problems between Russia and Ukraine were resolved peacefully. However, Russia tried to warn Ukraine several times, but they ignored and once again did those same things that Russia was against. When a country has a president as stubborn and anti-Russian as Zelensky, it's hard to settle things peacefully.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
It's better when countries can fix their problems without fighting, but we just don't see all legal options explored here. If Russia had explored every legal option and presented its case, that would be different. Just because Ukraine didn’t listen to Russia’s warnings, it doesn’t give Russia the right to attack; even though Zelensky might seem stubborn to you, there are peaceful ways to handle disagreements, like more discussions or getting help from other countries to mediate.

Also, Russia didn't ask the UN for help or mediation in this situation, which makes their military actions in Ukraine look even more questionable; if Russia wanted to solve things peacefully, they could have sought international help through the UN, but they chose not to, and that makes it hard to see their attack as legitimate.
AnotherWorldViewM
2 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Dude - is this the LYING_Stream - or the History_Memes stream?

Who's "We"? You got a mouse in your pocket - or did you call in backup from DNCIA Disinformation HQ?

There's PLENTY of NATO troops fighting on the frontlines of Ukraine - "sheep-dipped" into Ukrainian uniforms, speaking Polish, and German and English and French and who knows what else - there's a lot of Nazi sympathizers that hate Russia, in what you NeoCons call "New Europe" - the Baltic States. 

There's also Mercenaries, ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters from Syria, and whole slew of Foreign Legion-types (I forget the term that the Kokhols use for them, something like that). So this isn't JUST Ukraine fighting. They're getting satellite, targeting and Intelligence from NATO, undeniably. Patriot batteries are labor and skill-intensive. Those are being operated by NATO troops - probably Americans.

Russia isn't facing any "Diaspora", or problems with units of their military switching sides...But Ukraine actually has had many documented cases of this - from the beginning of their Civil War - that's where the DPR and LPR got most of their fighters and equipment, initially. There's a lot of tech workers looking to escape the illegal sanctions regime of the west, and now staying in France and Spain - just like the UK and EU are flush with fighting-aged Ukrainian male "refugees". People who lack patriotism, or who can avoid hardships flee. But I'd love to see what you think that number is relative to Russia. Cite your sources. It's a diminimus number. The vast majority of Russians support the defense of their vital National Security interests (keeping NATO off of their borders, and Nuclear weapons far enough from Moscow, to prevent an accidental Armageddon, if a flock of geese gets misread on their radars.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Yeah, I don't think you and I can continue this discussion with your attacks like this. You clearly aren't interested in just having a discussion. G'day.
AnotherWorldViewM
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
https://raymcgovern.com/2024/04/09/whoever-lies-first-wins/

https://raymcgovern.com/2022/03/11/robert-scheer-ray-on-ukraine-russia-us/

https://raymcgovern.com/2019/08/05/russia-gate-as-organized-distraction/
[deleted] M
1 up, 7mo
I guess that makes you the winner.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
First of all, Russia does not have a mandatory conscription, so your claim is false. After the Ukrainian initiated Crocus City Hall terrorist attack, Russians have volunteered for the army by the thousands to avenge the deaths caused by the attack. 

Second, Ukraine has lowered its conscription age again, and yet faces shortages in the army because barely any Ukrainian citizens are willing to risk death at the front lines. And the protesters who protested against Ukraine, they all disappeared because of the Ukrainian Gestapo.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
"Putin signs a tough new military draft law, banning conscripts from fleeing Russia"

2023, April 13th

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/13/1169464889/russia-military-draft-ukraine-war

What you say about Ukraine has some truth to it. You would be short-sighted to see that fervor for their country has persisted much longer than Russia's with some soldiers expressing their frustrations over the lack of transparency with the war and what it is for. 

In spite of the extreme level of support, I do agree that given available data, Russia is on a path to a pyrrhic victory that has cost them more money that the country (I think) is ready to endure for the next few decades. 

Of the 360,000 troops that made up Russia’s pre-invasion ground force, including contract and conscript personnel, Russia has lost 315,000 on the battlefield, according to the assessment. 2,200 of 3,500 tanks have been lost, according to the assessment. 4,400 of 13,600 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers have also been destroyed, a 32 percent loss rate.

As a superpower, this was a foolish move. Russia was economically fine beforehand. THey should've just kept to what they do best, political manipulation. I suppose that they saw their manipulation as effective enough to paralyze the legislature of as many western powers as Russia could get their hands on, and made their move. Yet, they didn't expect the resilience of the American Voters. If USA had been like Russia with censorship laws, Trump would've had another term. Putin would then have had carte blanch knowing Trump wouldn't have signed a bill allowing payments to Ukraine. This is why the House of Representatives has been blocking every bill that mentions anything about payments to Ukraine despite our long history of trading with Ukraine.

Let's be real, this isn't about the country or its people It's about the Nuclear power plant that Ukraine had. Also, IIRC Ukraine is one of the biggest grain producers in the world. Not sure on that though.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo
And Russia's troops are loyal to them. Ukraine has whole regiments and detachments that have joined Russia since the start of the conflict. I'm not completely sure if this is completely true, but there is a thing that I've heard about called the Malorussian Liberation Army, which is a whole army that defected from Kiev to fight for their Russian brothers.
[deleted] M
2 ups, 7mo, 2 replies
Russian_Tsarist_8
2 ups, 7mo, 4 replies
Russia is much stronger than you think and Ukraine is much weaker than you think. Even though Ukraine is constantly being supplied by NATO, they are still losing miserably. Their top officials are even saying that the front line is about to break, and that Russia will definitely have a success on their next offensive. They are panicking that Russia will soon capture Kharkiv, Ukraine's 2nd largest city.
[deleted]
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Russian_Tsarist_8
2 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Look, NATO, which is supposedly one of the strongest military alliances in history, is helping Ukraine right now, but Russia still manages to keep winning and capturing towns.
[deleted]
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Russian_Tsarist_8
2 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
If NATO is not involved in Ukraine, then why did France send thousands of troops to the fronts? And they send billions of dollars of aid there. And if Ukraine is not fascist, then explain the Ukrainian secret police, the Myrotvorets hit-list, and the Neo-Nazi Azov battalion. And as for the ISIS terrorists, they were recruited by the Ukrainian embassy in Tajikistan. IN 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea, the secret police massacred several ethnic Russians in Odessa. Then they started the conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk, which continued until those regions asked to join Russia and the SMO started. The Ukrainians are losing land every day, and hundreds of civilians die just because Zelensky is refusing to surrender his lost cause. After the 4 annexed regions overwhelmingly voted to exit Ukraine and join Russia, Zelensky made it illegal to negotiate with Russia, putting more blood on his hands. Your 'info' is so one-sided and obviously lies that it is clear that you got them from western propaganda.
[deleted]
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Russian_Tsarist_8
2 ups, 7mo
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/france-preparing-to-send-2-000-troops-to-ukraine--svr
TheMammothTank
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Ukraine may lose but it is not weak and it's loss won't be as miserable as you think. A third of the Russian Black Sea Fleet has been destroyed. A couple of T-90s were already caught in camera being destroyed. Even if Ukraine does not win, Russia would still suffer.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
Meanwhile, Russia had a whole parade made up of captured NATO military vehicles.
TheMammothTank
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
There is still a chance it is fake. In that parade, I don't see any Leopards or Bradleys in there. Russia will still suffer even if they win. Finland, who nearly won against the Soviets in 1940, decided to join NATO back in 2022. Sweden followed after in 2023. This effectively makes Russia's Baltic Fleet bottled up. The Russians may have also made the mistake of not putting priorities on the navy. They lost the Russo-Japanese War because of that. They also probably only won WWII because the Americans were doing Lend-Lease with them. Modern day Russia, they lost the First Chechen War. They won the second one with heavy casualties and potential war crimes. What else? Corruption. I already know Ukraine and other former USSR members have it, but Russia probably has the most. It's the reason their "aircraft carrier" is inoperable for so long. It probably caused the Kursk disaster. There is also a big problem with vodka. Drinking too much of that alcohol.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
Finland did not nearly win, they were defeated and lost a lot of their border lands after the Moscow Treaty. In the Russo-Japanese War, Russia had barely any ships in the Manchuria area, and had to send new ships from St Petersburg all the way around Africa and Asia. No wonder they were defeated, they were exhausted and had low morale from that extremely long journey. And WW2, Russia was the biggest reason why Germany lost. First, they were pushed back, but when winter came, they gained momentum and did not slow down. If the Americans did not show up, they would have went all the way to France. And even while Stalin was Hitler's biggest enemy and fought the fiercest, Churchill was planning to betray him using those same Nazi soldiers that he was fighting against at the moment. Stalin actually had an extremely high chance of joining the Axis, but Barbarossa made him do otherwise. Let's face it: if the USSR became an Axis nation, the Allies would have likely never won. And while I (and probably you) severely oppose Communism, we still need to be thankful for what the USSR did for the Allies in WW2.

And Russia has captured at least one Bradley before, and destroyed several Abrams and Leopard tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmU_16zSnY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPT8gs3f06g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh2OMdUlpw0

And a lot of the vehicles that Russia captured are very badly destroyed, and probably couldn't end up at the parade at all.
TheMammothTank
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Alright good point and potential evidence. But Russia still lost an S-400 in Crimea. I am also hearing Russia is convicting a list of rocket scientists rn. I also heard Iran had S-300s to defend against Israel, and one of them had their radar damaged. Apparently, corruption and incompetence has not been kind.
Russian_Tsarist_8
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
It's true that Russia has lost vehicles and weapons, both sides lose things in war. But about the corruption, Ukraine has more of it. It even ranked higher than Russia on the official world rankings for corruption.
TheMammothTank
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Both western and Russian rankings show that corruption, correct?
Russian_Tsarist_8
0 ups, 7mo
Both agree that Ukraine has corruption, although they have different views on it. They also have different views on Russia's corruption, which isn't surprising because they pretty much never agree with each other.
[deleted] M
1 up, 7mo, 4 replies
Ah, the classic underestimation mixed with overconfidence. A delightful cocktail, isn't it? Let's not forget history's fondness for the underdog. Russia's strength? Unquestionable. But brute force in a complex geopolitical puzzle? Like using a hammer to fix a Swiss watch. And Ukraine, under constant threat, still stands—not just a testament to their resilience but to the inefficacy of overwhelming might without right. 

Your mention of top officials' panic? Fascinating. It echoes the age-old adage: the bigger they are, the harder they fall. 

And as for capturing cities, history is littered with tales of territories gained only to be lost, a cycle as repetitive as it is fruitless. Strength, my friend, is more than territory—it's in the spirit of the people. 

And on that front, Ukraine's spirit is as indomitable as any. As for NATO aid, it's merely the world saying, 'Bullying on the playground won't be tolerated.' Now, about that next offensive you're counting on—let's just hope it's not another chapter in the 'Art of War: What Not to Do'.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo
https://covertactionmagazine.com/2023/02/03/how-a-network-of-nazi-propagandists-helped-lay-the-groundwork-for-the-war-in-ukraine/
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
You clearly get all of your news from western propaganda. Zelensky's support in Ukraine is plummeting, and more and more Ukrainians are starting to support Russia. When the military operation started, Russia claimed that it would take just 10 days. In fact, most of what they own now was captured in just a three-day's time. However, NATO came in and made it much worse. They are sending supplies to Ukraine, but at the same time place severe sanctions on countries that send help to Russia.

Also, Ukraine is literally being run by fascists. To this day, they even have a Neo-Nazi party in their government. When citizens protest, they get shut down immediately so that Zelensky's weak regime is not toppled. And if Ukraine is not Nazi, then explain the secret police (AKA Gestapo) who arrest every citizen who speaks out about Zelensky's fascist government. Also please explain the Myrotvorets hit-list, where they place people around the world and then go after them to kill them. Just like Hitler's government, they are using extreme forces and measures to secure themselves, because otherwise their fascist leadership will collapse.

After the 4 occupied oblasts voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, Zelensky made it illegal to negotiate with Russia. NATO, AKA the fascist CIA-American empire, has also been trying to prevent all peace talks. They are willing to put every Ukrainian civilian to death just to fight Russia more. They claim to be the "democratic" and "peaceful" and "moral" side, yet they are the ones who are making the war last longer, killing more civilians. NATO cares nothing about Ukraine itself, they just want it to exist as an anti-Russia buffer state controlled completely by them.

There is nothing good about Ukraine, and there is no possible way for them to win. This war is a lost cause to them, and Zelensky is sending thousands of Ukrainians to death on the front just because he doesn't want to surrender. 

Also, the USA played a huge role in the start of the war. They supported Kiev's regime and made it basically a puppet state. They showed fascism in the government, and it has grown significantly over the years. Russia and Ukraine are brother nations, and all that separate them are language, borders, and their hate for each other. There is no such thing as Ukrainian nationalism, it is simply just hate for Russia.
[deleted]
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo
Most of the land that Russia holds right now was captured in a 3-day's time without much destruction. It is after NATO became involved when more people started dying. And it is not Russia, but Ukraine who is destroying most of their towns. My grandpa who lived in Russian Nova Kakhovka personally saw how the Ukrainian army was launching missiles into his town from Kherson which they held. The people in the occupied oblasts voted to join Russia. When you have a fascist circus clown as your leader with a corrupt and toppling regime, it is obvious that your citizens will grow to despise you and join the other side. Protesters who protested against Zelensky were all arrested by secret police (AKA Gestapo) and they were shut down immediately.
AnotherWorldViewM
1 up, 7mo
Russia ISN'T using brute force. That's just your detachment from reality talking - or perhaps just detached retinas. 

This isn't a "war" to them, but rather a "Special Military Operation", being conducted with limited resources, and for limited purposes. They are in the escalation management mode, because the consequences of their response to NATO's aggression (which began this in 2008, see then-Ambassador Burns' wikileaked State Department Cable - "NYET, MEANS NYET!") moving ever Eastward from Germany, since breaking their 1994 promise of "not one inch"...well, their responses could have such disastrous consequences, not just for Russia, but for all of humanity. 

So they went in LIGHT, and not HEAVY. Standard Military planning advises a 5:1 advantage for those moving forward towards defenses. They went in with a smaller force (in the whole of Eastern/Southern Ukraine - now Russia) than would be needed to hold Kiev. But they did remarkably well, that notwithstanding. There goal was to force Zelensky and his Nazi thugs to the bargaining table - and they achieved it. They had the framework of a deal signed - and then the Coup regime assassinated their negotiator - and NATO sent Boris Johnson over to scotch the deal. However, as a confidence building measure Russia withdrew their troops from the gates of Kiev, only to realize later that they were tricked.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 2 replies
And Ukraine was the one who started this conflict. Over a decade ago, the Ukrainian secret police massacred about 30 ethnic Russians in Odessa. They also started hostilities with Donbass, where many ethnic Russians lived. When the Russians saw what the Ukrainians were doing, they stood on defense. When the Ukrainians came to Donetsk and Luhansk for hostilities, and conflict started in 2014, which marked the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Ukrainians committed atrocities, and in 2022 they declared independence. Soon after, they instead asked Russia to annex them. So Ukraine is at fault for all this, no matter what you say if it's true or not.
[deleted] M
1 up, 7mo
Diving into the narrative you've spun, Ri8, is akin to embarking on an odyssey through a world where shadows twist and tales defy the gravity of logic. Let's walk through this puzzle, shining a flashlight of common sense to see where things might have gone a bit wonky.

The assertion that Western media is the root of all misinformation is a delightful starting point, painting a picture of monolithic deceit. This is a classic example of the hasty generalization fallacy, where the vast and varied landscape of international journalism is reduced to a single, biased entity. Reality, however, thrives on diversity, and the global news ecosystem is no monolith but a mosaic of perspectives.

You mention Zelensky's plummeting popularity and a surge in Ukrainian support for Russia, yet this narrative seems adrift in the sea of anecdotal evidence, lacking the buoy of empirical data. This leap of logic, without the lifeline of substantiated facts, ventures into the murky waters of baseless assertion.

The saga of a 10-day military blitzkrieg, prolonged by NATO's intervention, unfolds like an epic drama. Here, we encounter the oversimplification fallacy, where the complex dynamics of international conflict are condensed into a narrative of good versus evil, ignoring the myriad factors at play in geopolitical strife.

With regard to the depiction of Ukraine as a den of fascism and secret police evokes the slippery slope fallacy, sliding from the existence of nationalist groups to branding an entire government as fascist without a measured analysis of policy and governance. This slippery narrative skates on thin ice, mistaking the shadow of a leaf for a dragon.

Referendums in occupied oblasts and the prohibition of negotiations are presented as fait accompli, yet this narrative is ensnared in the false dilemma fallacy, suggesting that there are only two options: accept Russia's claims or face endless conflict. Reality, however, is rarely so binary, and history is a testament to the power of diplomacy and dialogue.

My favorite bit was the portrayal of NATO and the United States as puppeteers in a grand geopolitical theatre is an intriguing plot twist, albeit one that falls into the conspiracy theory realm, a mixture of post hoc ergo propter hoc and ad hominem fallacies. It assigns causation where there may be none and attacks entities rather than addressing the substance of the conflict.

(more)
[deleted] M
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
2/ Lastly, the assignment of blame for the conflict to Ukraine for actions against ethnic Russians and the portrayal of Ukrainian nationalism as mere hatred for Russia serve as examples of the straw man fallacy. This misrepresents the arguments of the opposing side to more easily attack them, sidestepping the genuine grievances and aspirations of the Ukrainian people.

In this journey through your narrative, dear Ri8, we've navigated the twists and turns of logic and fallacy. Let's remember that the essence of debate lies not in the shadows of misinformation but in the pursuit of truth, guided by the principles of reason and evidence. As we continue this discourse, may we strive to elevate our arguments, ensuring they withstand the scrutiny of logic and contribute constructively to our understanding of this complex world.

On this adventure through your story, Ri8, we've walked through some tricky spots where things didn't quite make sense. Remember, arguing isn't about hiding in the dark with wrong information. It's about searching for the truth, using good thinking and real facts to guide us. Not feelings.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
I don't have too much time at this moment to argue, but if it interests you, you can watch this video about a Ukrainian citizen in Russian Mariupol explaining why he came to support Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5hBDGE1yec
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
I didn't think we were arguing I thought it was a debate/discussion. Which, I suppose is an argument.

I'm really interested to know if a lot of people in Ukraine are beginning to support Russia, but it doesn't seem like that's happening. I checked out this guy's YouTube channel, finding just a few gaming clips and some videos from early 2023. There's no real proof he's from Ukraine. His videos make Ukraine look terrible during the conflict and then suddenly better afterward, all thanks to the same folks who surrounded their country with 190,000 soldiers and promptly invaded that caused the trouble.

Digging deeper, I noticed he hasn't shown any interest in Russia or Ukraine until 2023. This raises a couple of possibilities: maybe he's experiencing wartime Stockholm Syndrome, where people start feeling for their aggressors, or perhaps he's from Russia, pretending to be Ukrainian to push certain views. Focusing on just one person doesn't give us the full picture. A credible content creator needs a solid history of videos, which this guy lacks.

To sum it all up, it's tough to pin down who this person really is or what he stands for, especially without a clear video history. Given Russia's history with propaganda, it's likely we're seeing more of the same here. What's clear is that taking a deep look at one individual doesn't offer a complete view. Instead, it's the bigger shifts and trends that will truly tell us what's going on.
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
I'm not saying that this guy is exactly credible, but my grandparents who lived in Russian-occupied Ukraine also came to favor Russia

gtg for now
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
"came to favor Russia" 

(See Stockholm syndrome)
Russian_Tsarist_8
1 up, 7mo, 1 reply
They opposed the Zelensky regime long before the invasion
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
A small percentage of Americans are Neo-Nazis who also attacked the Capital Building in W. D. C. Who not only Support Trump but Putin as well with blind conviction.

That doesn't mean that they represent the rest of USA.
TheMammothTank
0 ups, 7mo
Ukraine may lose but it is not weak and it's loss won't be as miserable as you think. A third of the Russian Black Sea Fleet has been destroyed. A couple of T-90s were already caught in camera being destroyed. Even if Ukraine does not win, Russia would still suffer.
AnotherWorldViewM
2 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
On what date, did Russia institute a draft?
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Sorry for the delay, was having another discussion. Wanted to focus on that first, then address yours.

On September 21, 2022, Russia initiated what's known as a partial military mobilization, compelling certain individuals, notably those with prior military service, to reenlist, regardless of their willingness. This system closely resembles what Americans refer to as a draft, where individuals are mandated to serve once called upon. While "conscription" is the term generally used worldwide, "draft" specifically applies to the U.S., describing a similar process where the government selects individuals, often through a lottery system, to serve in the military. In contrast to Russia, the U.S. military has been entirely voluntary since the draft was abolished in 1973, meaning that all service members join by choice. Therefore, Russian conscription operates similarly to the American draft system, requiring individuals to serve without the option to refuse when summoned.
AnotherWorldViewM
2 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Ukraine is CURRENTLY conscripting any male that they can get their hands onto - to go die in the meat grinder at the Front. They just changed their laws to lower the legal age to 25, and include women. The laws aren't being followed, anyway - as children are being snatched off the streets near Odessa, and only tossed back (after being assaulted) when the conscripters realized how they had just kidnapped a kid, and it was too extreme, even for their CIA and Banderite Nazi paymasters. https://www.rt.com/russia/595557-ukraine-kid-violence-draft/

As for the September 21, 2022 call-up that you cited. YES - after the initial goal of forcing Ukraine to the Bargaining table at Minsk and Istanbul, in the Spring of 20222, was thwarted by NATO, in the person of Boris Johnson (there had been a draft agreement signed and initialed by both sides, waiting for final approval) - the Russians realized that the west was interested in continuing the proxy war against them, at any cost in Ukrainian and Russian lives. According to Lindsay Graham, it's "a bargain". So they exercised their options under the military contracts, previously signed by trained Russian Service members, who were largely released into civilian life, as reservists. That's not a draft. They weren't grabbing untrained civilians off of the streets, handing them empty rifles, and sending them off to die at the front, as Ukraine does. It was a necessary step, given the west doubling down at their proxy-aggression against Russia. While the US and their Kiev Puppet-Regime, can't meet their recruitment goals - Russia has no such problems, getting patriotic men of all ages to sign-up without compulsory means.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
It's important to remember that Ukraine is trying to protect itself because it was attacked. However, Russia started the fight, which raises questions about whether their actions are right or legal.

You also mentioned some very strong terms like "Banderites" and "Nazi paymasters." These are serious words and need strong proof before we use them - not just speculation. "Banderites" is often used pejoratively by Russian media and officials to describe Ukrainian nationalists, suggesting that they are neo-Nazis or ultra-nationalists. This label is used to invoke historical negative connotations and to discredit modern Ukrainian nationalism by linking it to fascism and xenophobia. With this in mind, it sounds like you're just repeating Russian Propaganda.

So, while there are elements within Ukraine that can be described as nationalist or even far-right, the depiction of the Ukrainian state and its armed forces as dominated by Nazis is misleading and lacks a nuanced understanding of the situation. It is essential to differentiate between limited far-right elements and the broader political and military stance of Ukraine.

Regarding the West “doubling down” on a proxy war, it's really about many countries helping Ukraine stay free, not about starting a fight. They are helping because Russia's actions, like sending soldiers into another country without permission, are not allowed by international rules. When you say the West is “doubling down”, it kind of sounds like they are the ones making the situation worse. But really, the West started *helping* Ukraine more *after* Russia began its military actions there. This help from the West includes things like sanctions against Russia and support to help Ukraine defend itself. So, the West reacting this way is more about responding to what Russia did first, not about starting or increasing the trouble. It’s like if someone started a problem and then blamed others for reacting to it. Russia should stop escalating the conflict in their illegal military actions.

On conscription, Russia called up people who used to be in the army, which isn’t the same as forcing everyone to fight but shows how big this situation is. Many people in Russia didn’t agree with the war at first, which might show that they didn’t think it was right to fight like this. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-deserter-asylum-5c7642cd14431d9af65076df2df4b861
AnotherWorldViewM
2 ups, 7mo, 2 replies
It's important for Imperialist NARRATIVE MANAGEMENT to PRETEND - "that Ukraine is trying to protect itself because it was attacked".

At this point it feels like you're just huffing your own farts, telling me that they smell like roses - and offering an opportunity for me to do likewise. And yet you wonder why I'm not going along with you.

This IS the History_Memes stream... Not the NeoCon Forever War and Imperialism Talking points stream. 

Your analysis is devoid of any relevant historical perspective. It feels like you first heard that Ukraine was a place, in 2014, at the earliest. 

Ukraine has for centuries been a region - and not a nation. It's name means "Borderlands" (between Russia and the rest of Europe). CIA societal assessments going back to the 1950's, identify properly the rift in Ukrainian society. The Western portions are mostly Uniate Catholic, Ukrainian dialect (of Russian) speakers. Sympathies there lean towards Bandera, and the Waffen SS Galicia division types. They identified it as being ripe for US/NATO Operations. In the East and South - they mostly follow the Russian Orthodox Church, and speak Russian. These are identified as bad locations for US/NATO Operations. The middle of the country is split between the two tendencies. 

That's why the CIA and MI-6 worked so hard on things like PROJECT AERODYNAMIC and PROLOGUE - to foster the fanatical anti-Russian/Nazi sympathies in the area around Lvov. They fostered a large Ukrainian Nazi Emigré community in Canada, and even a few settlements in the USA... That's where the State Department recruited for Yushenko his CIA-handler wife. There's photos of her with GHWBush41 and Stetsko, the unrepentant Nazi. 

Modern Ukrainian "Nationalism" is a disease that the west has been deliberately fostering since at least the late 40's. As soon as the USSR fell apart - the Empire swung into action - fostering that and  Genocidal division, to take over in Ukraine. Have you not heard the people of Western Ukraine, in their television channels, speaking of the need to "cleanse" the East and South of Ethnic Russians? That's who we put into power, with a CIA Coip in 2014. Nuland wasn't KUST handing out cookies - she was picking the Coup Government's leadership. Yats was "the guy" - Tahnybhok (and ardent Nazi) on the outside, but in on phonecalls 3× a week. One of the top Oligarch financiers of the Coup, waiting in the wings (Poroshenko) - to be handed the Presidency in a Western dominated new Regime.
AnotherWorldViewM
2 ups, 7mo
That's how the Civil War in the East, Killing more than 15,000 (with countless r*pes and tortures snd lesser included offenses) over about 8 years, was begun by "the west". Zelensky - an actor, a drug addict, and an Intelligence asset of "the west" - ran on making peace with Russia, and won overwhelmingly. But as soon as he was installed into Office - he was told, in no uncertain terms, by the CIA-backed NAZIS who really run the country - that he would be swinging from a tree, if he implemented the Minsk Accords, or compromised in any respect with the Donbass Republics, or Russia. 

Before the Russians even entered the Ukrainian Civil war - he was outlawing (non-fascist) political parties, and shutting down opposition media. This is NOT a Democracy. It's Fascistic Regime, being run from Langley, Whitehall and Brussels. 

The PRECEDENT SET BY NATO - when it stole "Kosovo" from Serbia - is one that recognizes "self-determination". Well... The people in the East have determined that they don't want to be ruled over by murderous Nazi thugs, working for western paymasters. That's THEIR CHOICE. If you claim to support Democracy and not Autocracy - then go ahead and honor their clearly and repeatedly stated will. 

Russia was ready to settle in March and April of 2022. The NATO Imperialists decided to keep going ahead with their designs in Ukraine - clearly expressed in Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" and various RAND Corporation papers, like "Extending and Unbalancing Russia" (2019). That's on y'all. You're the ones who started recruiting Russian Nazis like Botsman and Nikitin - and trying to begin pathetic and doomed, cross-border attempts at "Regime Change" in Russia... Now Russia is quite justified in either De-Nazifying and UNITING with  Ukraine...or creating a Buffer Zone that prevents further attacks from "the west". 

You're going to lose your PROXY WAR. That is inevitable. Now Russia has agreed to peace talks, again - but this time, with the Puppet Masters, not the Puppet.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo, 1 reply
Hey ANW, I get that there were projects like Aerodynamic and Prologue, but we should remember they were in response to what Communist Russia was doing in the East back then. It's important to understand that today's young people in Ukraine, who grew up after the Cold War ended, probably aren't thinking about old influences or conspiracies. They just want their country to be their own.

About Russia's actions, when Putin said he was just doing a military operation but then stayed longer, it makes you wonder. If it was just an operation, shouldn’t it have finished by now? Also, just because Putin claims there might be some Nazi presence in Ukraine, it doesn't give him or any country the right to move borders. This move goes against what he initially stated. This kind of action is a big deal because it goes against international law, that’s why the UN and many other places are really concerned and not okay with what’s happening. Let’s focus on these facts and not so much on guessing motives or past actions. It's clear that these actions are serious and have real consequences for everyone involved.

If we start justifying today's actions with yesterday’s history, we might as well prepare for endless battles over who’s been wronged the longest.
AnotherWorldViewM
2 ups, 7mo, 2 replies
What the USSR DID - was made necessary by the Perfidy of their "allies", Churchill and Truman - who were betraying the spirit of Yalta, before it had even happened. Churchill was planning "OPERATION UNTHINKABLE" - the betrayal of-, and the renewed attack against-, the USSR, using the same kinds of Banderites and other Nazis, that PROJECT AERODYNAMIC wound up using, as its troops, with the UPA. The betrayal was planned before Roosevelt's death (Stalin believed he was poisoned) - and implemented by the time that Berlin was falling. Patton was openly calling for the Allies to keep marching East. OPERATION DROPSHOT was completed by 1949, at the latest. The USSR was fully justified in noticing that they had been invaded 3 times in a hundred and fifty years - through the same corridor - and deciding to prevent a fourth invasion, by creating a buffer zone.

The ONLY REASON that the Russians allowed the reunification of Germany, was a fraudulent promise that NATO wouldn't expand "one inch to the East". Well we see what the NATO Empire's promises are worth, now. The attempts to add Georgia and Ukraine to NATO, are well past Russia's 'Red Line(s)'. William Burns wrote a secret cable about it, back in 2008. "NYET means NYET". LOOK IT UP. 

Then in 2012 - Obama told Russophobic hawk Mitt Romney that the 50's wanted their foreign policy back... As soon as the election was over - it was now HIS foreign policy, too. 

What the common people of Ukraine wanted was never an option. The US and NATO were pushing their own plans, using Nazi ideologues, from even before the Maidan Coup. Soros and Pierre Omidyar were paying for the buses that brought the hooligans and Nazis to Kiev. The people in the East saw what was happening. They weren't going to tolerate it - they didn't - and they won't, going forward. Carpathians from Lvov and Ivano-Frankovsk don't get to rule over the Donbass. It's not theirs, it never was, and it never will be. The same is true of Crimea. This isn't about YESTERDAY'S battles - but about today's. 

Russia was at the Gates of Kiev in February 2022. They never intended to take and hold it - just to force a fair settlement. They demanded autonomy for the Donbass, and recognition for Crimea. They also needed a promise of neutrality, relative to the belligerent offensive alliance - NATO. The Ukrainians AGREED to their terms. So they pulled back, as a confidence building measure. Then NATO scuttled the deal, & began pumping Ukraine full of mercenaries n gunz.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
When people mention old issues to explain what they're doing today, it's important to remember that past problems don't make it right to break the rules now. International laws say you can't attack another country just because you had issues a long time ago. That kind of thinking can make a country act like a bully, deciding on its own what's right or wrong without listening to others, which is a bit like how authoritarian governments act.

Creating a buffer zone might seem like a good idea for safety, but taking over parts of another country to do this is against the law. Countries are supposed to respect each other's space and solve problems through talking, not by taking over. When a country ignores these rules, it's acting on its own authority without caring about international laws, which is another sign of authoritarian behavior.

Talking about NATO and how it might include countries like Georgia and Ukraine is a big deal, but using this as a reason to attack these countries is jumping to conclusions. Just because countries talk about something, doesn't mean it will definitely happen. Acting on assumptions and attacking because of what might happen is what authoritarian leaders do when they want to scare and control people.

Even if other countries are influencing Ukraine, that still doesn't give anyone the right to invade it. Every country should handle its issues internally or talk them out with others. Using force like this shows a desire to control and dictate what should happen, which is often seen in fascist governments.

And about what happened in 2014 and today, no matter how much influence comes from outside, it doesn’t justify using military force against another country. International laws are very clear about this. Ignoring these laws and doing what you want is a big sign of an authoritarian and possibly fascist approach.

Finally, trying to force a country to agree to something by using military power, like what's being said about Russia in 2022, isn’t how things should be done. It should be about making agreements in peaceful ways, not through force. When a country uses its military to push others around and make them agree to things, that's a lot like what fascist governments do.

So, looking at all these actions, they kind of show patterns that we see in authoritarian and fascist governments, where power and control are more important than following rules and respecting others.

No more spaghetti, please. Its everywhere.
[deleted] M
0 ups, 7mo
Show More Comments
Caption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
CAPTURE OF BAKHMUT AND AVDIIVKA; UKRAINE IS WINNING THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA; SUCCESSFULLY REPELLED THE 2023 COUNTERATTACK; UKRAINE'S ARMY BEING AT THEIR BREAKING POINT; ADVANCES ON ALL FRONTS; 4 ANNEXED OBLASTS; UKRAINE ONLY BEING AROUND BECAUSE OF NATO AID, AND YET STILL LOSING MISERABLY