Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Timothy Snyder’s brilliant piece perfectly captures the disconnect between what people are actually experiencing on the ground in Ukraine and the endless wave of concern trolling coming from the West—which really sums up the whole nature of this conflict.

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/...ue#pageIndex_2

George Robinson43 said:Everything seems fine on the surface.
But honestly, when someone starts rambling about redrawing borders and then casually shrugs it off with a "So be it. Who cares?", it tells you everything you need to know about their character.

Alright, but why don't you explain to us how borders were ever drawn before now?
The only real difference is that we used to just read about this stuff in history books, but now we're watching it happen live on a 24/7 news cycle.
And what was the Dayton Agreement if not just drawing lines on a map? Or look at Mexico, or those territorial disputes in the Mediterranean, and so on.
Humanity has been sketching out borders since the beginning of time, and it usually ends in some massive massacre a century later, and this whole mess will probably just be taught in schools as the defining event of 2022.
History just keeps looping back on itself; we'll have another crisis in ten years, some new Hitler or Putin will pop up out of nowhere, and then we'll head straight back into bloodshed—maybe even a total nuclear reset of the planet. 😉

Man, I was just scrolling through some major US news outlets and saw this claim that Ukrainians actually agreed to all of Russia's demands back on March 29th, and that’s supposedly why the Russians pulled back from Kyiv

And then they go on to say that it was only after that agreement that the Russians actually started fighting in earnest...

Honestly, the sheer amount of stupidity floating around out there is just unbelievable...

Kate Cook27 said:Ukraine didn't really have a say regarding the nuclear weapons. It would have been better if they'd kept them, but they didn't.

Ukraine was living under the Russian umbrella; the culprits behind the anti-Russian stance are actually Russian policies. The coup wasn't "perverse"—the American people (and Ukrainians) were fighting for a better future. If there wasn't a real reason, they wouldn't have been out in the streets. Even if there were Western-funded mercenaries at the Majdan, the vast majority weren't mercenaries—they were just people who believed in a better tomorrow.
If Yanukovych had actually stuck to his word and done what he said he was going to do—instead of saying one thing, doing another, and probably thinking something else entirely—this whole coup wouldn't have happened.
Can someone explain how the conflict in Donbas just got completely ignored?
Personally, I think the West's biggest mistake was Western Crimea. The real question is whether the West thought Russia would just stop at Crimea, or if they were trying to show some respect to Putin and Russia while looking for a way out?

My apologies—I'll dive into the details a bit later since I have to run, but for now:

Have you by any chance had the opportunity to read that Mearsheimer article in Foreign Affairs from 2014—the one linked earlier?
You can download it right here: In his piece "Why The Ukraine Crisis is The West's Fault : The liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin," Mearsheimer lays out a provocative argument regarding the origins of the current instability. He essentially contends that the West—specifically through its expansionist policies and the promotion of democratic ideals in regions where they don't necessarily take root—has inadvertently backed Russia into a corner. It’s a perspective that challenges the standard narrative of pure aggression, suggesting instead a series of strategic miscalculations by policymakers in Washington and Brussels. The core of the argument rests on the idea that the push to integrate Ukraine into the EU and NATO was seen by Moscow as an existential threat—not because of some inherent hatred of democracy, but because of the geopolitical reality of spheres of influence. Mearsheimer argues that the West ignored the basic tenets of realism, believing that moralizing about democratic values would somehow insulate them from the harsh realities of power politics. Instead, this approach triggered a defensive reaction from Putin that shifted the entire regional security architecture. It is a cynical, albeit structured, critique of liberal internationalism. He suggests that by attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western bulwark, the West actually destabilized the very region it hoped to secure, effectively handing Russia a pretext to intervene. It's the kind of high-stakes political chess where one side thinks they are playing a game of spreading liberty, while the other side sees nothing but a tightening noose.

Alright, I misspoke—I should have said "perverse coup." What was truly perverse wasn't just the event itself, but how the Western media later rebranded it as this glorious democratic revolution aimed at toppling a dictator. In reality? It was the removal of a democratically elected president.

The way Ukrainians freely and democratically elected him after getting burned by Yushchenko was exactly how they should have replaced him through standard democratic procedures—those very same procedures the West supposedly swears by (unless, of course, those in power decide otherwise). As you pointed out, the fact that Yanukovych said one thing, did another, and likely thought a third is just the standard playbook for politicians everywhere. In a functional democracy, the only remedy for that kind of inconsistency is voting them out during scheduled elections. In this specific case, there were two major reasons why things should have played out differently. First, the EU's offer was frankly meager compared to what Russia was putting on the table; from a purely economic standpoint, Yanukovych's decision—made strictly within his legal authority—was justifiable in the short term. If the voters felt that move was a mistake for their long-term future, they could have simply rejected him at the next election. Second, and more importantly, there isn't even any evidence to suggest that the peaceful phase of Euromajdan in late 2013 actually had the support of the majority of the population. To prove that, you need an election. Instead, we got that bloody period—the violent overthrow of Yanukovych in early 2014—which was orchestrated by a tiny minority of Ukrainians, specifically the extremists within the Right Sector. That’s why we didn't see a legitimate democratic transition following the established rules.

Of course, Afterward—once the dust finally settles and we can actually see through the smoke—we’ll be left staring at the wreckage of our own making. So, Yanukovych flees to Russia while they go ahead and annex Crimea—it’s a mess, plain and simple. His political faction didn't stand a prayer of winning another election even if things had stayed stable—but, of course, elections were still mandatory. So they went through with them, but under circumstances that were undeniably disastrous for democracy.

That coup—while perhaps not born of pure malice—was undeniably unjustified and illegal. Looking back, the whole thing feels downright absurd. It’s entirely possible the actors involved genuinely believed they were doing the right thing at the time, but history has a way of exposing those delusions. In hindsight, it seems they triggered a catastrophic chain reaction—one that has culminated in the current, massive evil we see today: an existential threat to the Ukrainian people and their nation, coupled with the terrifying prospect of even greater devastation—namely, the looming shadow of nuclear destruction.

I think you’d agree that, looking back, it would have been far better to simply wait for the elections—especially since Yanukovych was actually willing to call for early ones—rather than rushing headlong into that coup. Or am I missing something?

I'll pick this up later—right now, I really have to run.

Nancy Howard4 said:Alright, but why don't you explain to us how borders were ever drawn before now?
The only real difference is that we used to just read about this stuff in history books, but now we're watching it happen live on a 24/7 news cycle.
And what was the Dayton Agreement if not just drawing lines on a map? Or look at Mexico, or those territorial disputes in the Mediterranean, and so on.
Humanity has been sketching out borders since the beginning of time, and it usually ends in some massive massacre a century later, and this whole mess will probably just be taught in schools as the defining event of 2022.
History just keeps looping back on itself; we'll have another crisis in ten years, some new Hitler or Putin will pop up out of nowhere, and then we'll head straight back into bloodshed—maybe even a total nuclear reset of the planet. 😉

Nihilism makes for pretty lousy international policy. Not everyone on this planet is a sociopath cheering for war and ethnic cleansing from the comfort of their couch.

analogbear5 said:Nihilism makes for pretty lousy international policy. Not everyone on this planet is a sociopath cheering for war and ethnic cleansing from the comfort of their couch.

The whole mess in 2022 was really just the inevitable climax of those lower-intensity conflicts we saw from 2014 to 2021—all kicked off by that externally directed coup involving the Right Sector back in early 2014.

So, what exactly do you think is inaccurate about Oliver Stone's documentary "Ukraine on Fire"?
They even let it back up on YouTube, so it might actually be worth your time to watch it.

It’s much like that lecture by Mearsheimer in Florence I linked earlier—where he dives into (especially toward the end) the actual moral implications of the policies being carried out.

northernbadger71 said:Man, I was just scrolling through some major US news outlets and saw this claim that Ukrainians actually agreed to all of Russia's demands back on March 29th, and that’s supposedly why the Russians pulled back from Kyiv

And then they go on to say that it was only after that agreement that the Russians actually started fighting in earnest...

Honestly, the sheer amount of stupidity floating around out there is just unbelievable...

Oh, please. It's more like the Ukrainians would have surrendered way back in February if it weren't for those mean old Americans and Brits constantly poking them to go after their Russian brothers.

It's pretty obvious this site is just spreading RT propaganda; I can only hope they at least got a decent paycheck for it.

Noah Sullivan said:My apologies—I'll dive into the details a bit later since I have to run, but for now:

Have you by any chance had the opportunity to read that Mearsheimer article in Foreign Affairs from 2014—the one linked earlier?
You can download it right here: In his piece "Why The Ukraine Crisis is The West's Fault : The liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin," Mearsheimer lays out a provocative argument regarding the origins of the current instability. He essentially contends that the West—specifically through its expansionist policies and the promotion of democratic ideals in regions where they don't necessarily take root—has inadvertently backed Russia into a corner. It’s a perspective that challenges the standard narrative of pure aggression, suggesting instead a series of strategic miscalculations by policymakers in Washington and Brussels. The core of the argument rests on the idea that the push to integrate Ukraine into the EU and NATO was seen by Moscow as an existential threat—not because of some inherent hatred of democracy, but because of the geopolitical reality of spheres of influence. Mearsheimer argues that the West ignored the basic tenets of realism, believing that moralizing about democratic values would somehow insulate them from the harsh realities of power politics. Instead, this approach triggered a defensive reaction from Putin that shifted the entire regional security architecture. It is a cynical, albeit structured, critique of liberal internationalism. He suggests that by attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western bulwark, the West actually destabilized the very region it hoped to secure, effectively handing Russia a pretext to intervene. It's the kind of high-stakes political chess where one side thinks they are playing a game of spreading liberty, while the other side sees nothing but a tightening noose.

Alright, I misspoke—I should have said "perverse coup." What was truly perverse wasn't just the event itself, but how the Western media later rebranded it as this glorious democratic revolution aimed at toppling a dictator. In reality? It was the removal of a democratically elected president.

The way Ukrainians freely and democratically elected him after getting burned by Yushchenko was exactly how they should have replaced him through standard democratic procedures—those very same procedures the West supposedly swears by (unless, of course, those in power decide otherwise). As you pointed out, the fact that Yanukovych said one thing, did another, and likely thought a third is just the standard playbook for politicians everywhere. In a functional democracy, the only remedy for that kind of inconsistency is voting them out during scheduled elections. In this specific case, there were two major reasons why things should have played out differently. First, the EU's offer was frankly meager compared to what Russia was putting on the table; from a purely economic standpoint, Yanukovych's decision—made strictly within his legal authority—was justifiable in the short term. If the voters felt that move was a mistake for their long-term future, they could have simply rejected him at the next election. Second, and more importantly, there isn't even any evidence to suggest that the peaceful phase of Euromajdan in late 2013 actually had the support of the majority of the population. To prove that, you need an election. Instead, we got that bloody period—the violent overthrow of Yanukovych in early 2014—which was orchestrated by a tiny minority of Ukrainians, specifically the extremists within the Right Sector. That’s why we didn't see a legitimate democratic transition following the established rules.

Of course, Afterward—once the dust finally settles and we can actually see through the smoke—we’ll be left staring at the wreckage of our own making. So, Yanukovych flees to Russia while they go ahead and annex Crimea—it’s a mess, plain and simple. His political faction didn't stand a prayer of winning another election even if things had stayed stable—but, of course, elections were still mandatory. So they went through with them, but under circumstances that were undeniably disastrous for democracy.

That coup—while perhaps not born of pure malice—was undeniably unjustified and illegal. Looking back, the whole thing feels downright absurd. It’s entirely possible the actors involved genuinely believed they were doing the right thing at the time, but history has a way of exposing those delusions. In hindsight, it seems they triggered a catastrophic chain reaction—one that has culminated in the current, massive evil we see today: an existential threat to the Ukrainian people and their nation, coupled with the terrifying prospect of even greater devastation—namely, the looming shadow of nuclear destruction.

I think you’d agree that, looking back, it would have been far better to simply wait for the elections—especially since Yanukovych was actually willing to call for early ones—rather than rushing headlong into that coup. Or am I missing something?

I'll pick this up later—right now, I really have to run.

The mere fact that he ran off to Russia proves what his motives were. And the way Putin later considered bringing him back to power after killing Zelensky's family and the rest of the government? That's just the icing on the cake that shows exactly who he was working for and what he was doing.

Honestly, they should have just let him finish his term from some villa in the suburbs of Moscow.

The real issue isn't what he did while in office, but how things unfolded after he fled; those protests and petitions he tried to stifle with heavy-handed crackdowns are actually constitutionally protected parts of the "democratic process" that our colleague seems to think belong to him personally—rather than recognizing them as anything other than a "perverse coup."

slyfox43 said:Honestly, they should have just let him finish his term from some villa in the suburbs of Moscow.

The real issue isn't what he did while in office, but how things unfolded after he fled; those protests and petitions he tried to stifle with heavy-handed crackdowns are actually constitutionally protected parts of the "democratic process" that our colleague seems to think belong to him personally—rather than recognizing them as anything other than a "perverse coup."

Just imagine the scene where some American president tries to run things from Mexico City after being forced to flee the country. Yeah, I don't think the people would buy that...

Noah Sullivan said:The whole mess in 2022 was really just the inevitable climax of those lower-intensity conflicts we saw from 2014 to 2021—all kicked off by that externally directed coup involving the Right Sector back in early 2014.

So, what exactly do you think is inaccurate about Oliver Stone's documentary "Ukraine on Fire"?
They even let it back up on YouTube, so it might actually be worth your time to watch it.

It’s much like that lecture by Mearsheimer in Florence I linked earlier—where he dives into (especially toward the end) the actual moral implications of the policies being carried out.

Honestly, just by looking at how it's edited, it's pretty obvious there isn't any objectivity here—it's basically just a mouthpiece for Putin.

I was browsing through some automotive forums on PDF, where you'll find people obsessing over gas prices, and honestly, even those seemingly reasonable folks are swallowing Russian propaganda whole. You can't get through to them that this isn't some sudden shift, but rather a coordinated campaign that's been running for twenty years, with the KGB—or more accurately, the FSB—constantly planting disinformation wherever they can find an opening; it’s the same kind of psychological subversion that fueled much of the anti-vax movement during the pandemic.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Just imagine the scene where some American president tries to run things from Mexico City after being forced to flee the country. Yeah, I don't think the people would buy that...

But then again, Ukrainians aren't a "real" nation or a sovereign state like we are, so I suppose those rules don't apply to them. For them, being directed by Moscow isn't just expected—it’s almost unnatural to suggest otherwise.

Spoken like a true patriot.

On another note: Yanukovych didn't *have* to run. He could have chosen to stay and face the music for his crimes against his own people, following the standard legal procedures. But, clearly, that wasn't convenient enough for him.

Kimberly Perez82 said:You really are a sweetheart, aren't you? Too lazy to even look it up yourself. 🙂 Just check Wikipedia, copy-paste it, or Google it just to make sure I didn't just pull this out of thin air.

"At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the NATO MAP as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its own future and foreign policy course without outside interference."

So, look—ever since NATO Bucharest 2008, when Putin was also around, he’s been incredibly blunt about not allowing Ukraine into NATO because he views it as an act of aggression against Russia. This isn't news; people have known this for fifteen years now. Yet, here we are, seeing the exact same agenda being pushed just like it was back in 2008. It's baffling. Either they are being willfully ignorant, or they simply didn't believe Putin, even though he was crystal clear. Honestly, if you ask them, I don't think even they actually know why they're pushing so hard to get Ukraine into NATO in the first place.

Man, that's like showing up to a homeowners association meeting and telling everyone that if anyone even *thinks* about hooking up with your neighbor, you're going to take it as a personal insult—and then when someone actually does go home with her, you go over there and break her teeth just because you felt disrespected.

Jesse Sanchez4 said:I was browsing through some automotive forums on PDF, where you'll find people obsessing over gas prices, and honestly, even those seemingly reasonable folks are swallowing Russian propaganda whole. You can't get through to them that this isn't some sudden shift, but rather a coordinated campaign that's been running for twenty years, with the KGB—or more accurately, the FSB—constantly planting disinformation wherever they can find an opening; it’s the same kind of psychological subversion that fueled much of the anti-vax movement during the pandemic.

It’s these people who genuinely believe gas prices are going to plummet to $3.25 just because the Ukrainians finally take down Putin.

Joshua Bishop3 said:Man, that's like showing up to a homeowners association meeting and telling everyone that if anyone even *thinks* about hooking up with your neighbor, you're going to take it as a personal insult—and then when someone actually does go home with her, you go over there and break her teeth just because you felt disrespected.

It’s basically that old "you're either mine or you're nobody's" logic, right?

Noah Sullivan said:The whole mess in 2022 was really just the inevitable climax of those lower-intensity conflicts we saw from 2014 to 2021—all kicked off by that externally directed coup involving the Right Sector back in early 2014.

So, what exactly do you think is inaccurate about Oliver Stone's documentary "Ukraine on Fire"?
They even let it back up on YouTube, so it might actually be worth your time to watch it.

It’s much like that lecture by Mearsheimer in Florence I linked earlier—where he dives into (especially toward the end) the actual moral implications of the policies being carried out.

You’re just a total Mearsheimer and Stone fanboy—basically worshiping them because they tell you exactly what you want to hear. To me, they're just guys cashing in on controversy through books, movies, and paid speaking gigs. This whole debate between us? It's just followers versus skeptics—totally pointless.

That doesn't mean Mearsheimer's take is totally useless—you've gotta factor it in if you want to wrap your head around global politics. But leaning on nothing else and ignoring the counterarguments? That's basically just cult behavior.

As far as Stone goes—I’ve actually sat through both of Putin's speeches, the one before the DLNR recognition and the one right before the invasion of Ukraine. Honestly, his whole dramatic routine feels pretty redundant at this point.

Maria Zakharov, just pure sweetness and charm. https://twitter.com/andreivaitovich/...Ghea79qQB_O5Ig

So, we've got a meeting coming up next week over in Luhansk, and the big topic on the table is going to be a Marshall Plan for Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/statu...p6pbxMW7A&s=19

goldenowl73 said:Maria Zakharov, just pure sweetness and charm. https://twitter.com/andreivaitovich/...Ghea79qQB_O5Ig

I honestly think what was posted above was handled much better than this version.😒

Noah Sullivan said:Even Professor John Mearsheimer warned them against giving up those nukes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
... Almost alone among observers, Mearsheimer was opposed to that decision because he saw that Ukraine without a nuclear deterrent would likely be subjected to aggression by Russia. [72] As early as 1993, he suggested that Ukraine should retain its nuclear weapons as a deterrent.[73] ...

If Ukraine had a nuclear bomb war situation, we probably wouldn't even be talking about this, though there'd be plenty of other reasons to worry since they'd have to maintain some sort of decent relationship with Russia, right? But then again, how could Ukraine even manage a nuclear program when they don't have any space to test anything? I mean, look at Russia—they've got all that vast territory in Siberia, Kamchatka, and Novaya Zemlya where there isn't a single living soul around for miles! Meanwhile, Americans, Englishmen, and Frenchmen always have their own colonies to work with, don't they?