Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

James Chavez91 said:The biggest issue here is that everything Putin actually wanted is slowly starting to happen—it’s just happening much later than he originally anticipated.
He was banking on leaders like Viktor Orbán, and he definitely counted on Germany being way too dependent on Russian energy. He also knew how much Europeans value their comfort and how terrified they are of losing it. So, things are just drifting along, and I suspect we're going to see more and more division among the EU members.
The European Union just isn't equipped to end this. I’ve been scrolling through comments on other news sites, and honestly, people just seem too self-absorbed—not to mention the total lack of empathy out there.
Plus, it feels like the Russians have a pretty solid handle on intelligence work, because it seems almost impossible to move anything—even weapons—without them intercepting it.

The US and the EU—since it was pretty obvious an invasion was coming—could have worked out a specific defense pact or mutual military aid agreement with Ukraine, separate from NATO, to deter the kid. There was plenty of time to pull something like that off, maybe as far back as 2014...

Military aid was flowing to Ukraine. But a mutual defense treaty? Hard to see how that could've even happened, considering they were already at war with Russia. A deal like that basically means jumping straight into the conflict.

Jeremy Peterson4 said:Intel is basically a global heavyweight when it comes to semiconductors. Just because a company is headquartered in the US doesn't mean their stuff is actually being manufactured stateside—honestly, I don't think that matters much anyway.

That bit about Taiwan caught me off guard, though. I also saw somewhere that Japan and Taiwan are teaming up to try and fill the gap in the chip supply for the auto industry.

That list above is primarily focused on sheer financial muscle.

When you look at actual technological advancement, however, the whole picture changes quite a bit...

https://moneyinc.com/five-companies-...or-technology/
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the...ng-51605787201

electricsurfer47 said:Could you elaborate on that a bit?

Did you actually watch the video?

I really hope you gave it a look, because the guy breaks down exactly what Russia did to prop up their currency and how they kept everything from totally collapsing.

Basically, if some foreign investor decided to put money into Russia, they might make a profit, but getting those funds back out is another story entirely.
And then there’s the whole situation with foreign currency. There were all these restrictions put in place, and now I honestly don't know where the Oligarchs are stashing their dollars or euros if their overseas accounts are frozen. I wonder if an Oligarch can even flee Russia, grab a different citizenship just to live abroad, and eventually find a way to unfreeze their assets.

It's pretty likely they could, though I highly doubt other countries would hand out citizenship to people whose assets they've already frozen.

If you want to live in Russia, you either back Putin or you shut your mouth. You might not end up behind bars, but you’ll definitely find yourself out of a job—that’s what a friend of mine from Saint Petersburg told me way back during the Navalny protests.

Jeremy Peterson4 said:Honestly, why even bother? They don't even need to be lifted. It’s the same old song and dance with Russia—they claim all these sanctions are useless, yet the second they sit down at the negotiating table, it's "okay, now can we get rid of them?"

The Russian people are basically paying the tab for their leader's ego, and they're totally fine with it. Anyone actually buying the line that they have no idea what's happening in their own country is just being incredibly naive.

The West completely miscalculated things. For all their arrogance, their actual power is pretty limited, I guess.

How successful these sanctions really are? Just look at how they have to keep dreaming up endless new rounds of them while a recession is practically knocking on the door of the European Union.

analogbear5 said:Military aid was flowing to Ukraine. But a mutual defense treaty? Hard to see how that could've even happened, considering they were already at war with Russia. A deal like that basically means jumping straight into the conflict.

This was all before the invasion hit. Basically, the US was sounding the alarm saying an invasion was coming, while everyone else was just playing it cool, acting like the Russians were perfectly reasonable people who wouldn't dream of attacking anyone.

So, yeah, Ukraine kind of got screwed over here. I mean, if the US tells you some country is about to steamroll you, you listen.

But even if they had taken those warnings seriously, they might have actually been able to get their ducks in a row before Russia pulled the trigger.

Donna Harris11 said:The West completely miscalculated things. For all their arrogance, their actual power is pretty limited, I guess.

How successful these sanctions really are? Just look at how they have to keep dreaming up endless new rounds of them while a recession is practically knocking on the door of the European Union.

The recession is everywhere. Honestly, anyone who thinks Russ is living some kind of normal life right now is just being a joke. They’re in way deeper shit than Europe is. They keep cooking up new plans because you can always squeeze a little harder, no matter how much pressure you've already applied. I mean, think about it—what would happen if the US just banned all Russian citizens from entering, not just Putin and those other oligarchs and diplomats?

Jeremy Peterson4 said:This was all before the invasion hit. Basically, the US was sounding the alarm saying an invasion was coming, while everyone else was just playing it cool, acting like the Russians were perfectly reasonable people who wouldn't dream of attacking anyone.

So, yeah, Ukraine kind of got screwed over here. I mean, if the US tells you some country is about to steamroll you, you listen.

But even if they had taken those warnings seriously, they might have actually been able to get their ducks in a row before Russia pulled the trigger.

Ukraine has been at war with Russia since 2014.

analogbear5 said:Ukraine has been at war with Russia since 2014.

I’m mainly talking about this current invasion, not just the occupation of Crimea. And honestly, what’s even the difference between that and the US sending over all this high-tech gear? Isn't providing weapons basically stepping right into the fray? It feels like a joke—Russ say they're just making threats, and suddenly whoever sends a shipment is labeled as working for Satan or whatever. Yet, here we are, still pumping out weapon deliveries at full speed.

brightheron64 said:Largest semiconductor companies by market cap
https://companiesmarketcap.com/semic...by-market-cap/

The Japanese players aren't even close to the top tier, and the Chinese companies are even further behind than that...

A more useful ranking (market share)

Kate Cook27 said:I'm not sure how long this post is going to get, but I wanted to clarify a few things:

1. Regarding the genocide against Russians in Donbas—it’s important to note that Russians don't live there alone; they make up about a third of the population.
2. While Russian is the primary language in many parts of eastern, northern, and southern Ukraine, that doesn't mean everyone speaking it is Russian.
3. As for the death toll (which ties back to my first point), most sources estimate around 15,000 people killed since 2014—roughly 12,000 soldiers and 3,000 civilians.
4. Not all of those killed civilians were Russians.
5. Since 2014, about 1.5 million people have been displaced within Ukraine, while estimates for those who fled to Russia vary wildly—anywhere from 75,000 to 300,000 depending on which source you trust.
6. People claim the West was behind the Times Square protests—and sure, there might have been mercenaries involved—but the real catalyst for Times Square was Yanukovych’s lies. He promised a path toward the European Union and then backed out at the last second to retreat into Russia's embrace. Plus, the country was basically on the verge of bankruptcy.
7. There were also Times Square-style protests in Donbas, often even larger than the anti-Times Square ones.
8. Russia actually invaded back in 2014. They never officially admitted it—just claimed they were "Russian volunteers"—but there were definitely Russian soldiers and mercenaries on the ground.
9. Back in 2014, Russia rolled tanks into Ukraine and supported the Donbas separatists with gear and troops. But because they kept claiming it wasn't the regular Russian military, it was labeled a civil war.
10. It's a mistake to think everyone from Donbas is a separatist; back in 2014, plenty of locals actually stood with the Ukrainian military and fought alongside them.
11. Regarding the Minsk agreements—those were signed under pressure from the West. Since Ukraine is a smaller player, the terms were heavily skewed, yet they agreed anyway. So, what happened? The separatists and Russian soldiers holding the lines never actually pulled back. Often, the Ukrainian army would retreat, and the separatists would just push forward and attack the retreating forces. Ukraine was supposed to regain full control of its territory, but they couldn't manage it because the other side kept interfering.
12. Ceasefire violations and crimes happened on both sides—there are always people out there fueled by hate who just want blood.

I hope this isn't too much off-topic. Mods, please don't delete this—I really think it helps provide some perspective on the situation.

The plan actually called for local self-governance over about a third of the Donbas territory. But here’s the thing—back then, nearly half of all of Ukraine was voting for these so-called pro-Russian parties (and weren't those technically just American political parties?). Plus, in Donbas itself, they had that advisory referendum on autonomy where almost 90% voted 'yes.' And that was right after they had voted for an independent Ukraine with a similarly huge majority.

So, yeah, maybe we need a bit more realism when we talk about Minsk II. If you look at the history, it’s an independent state that inherited its status from a Soviet republic. Before that, you had Imperial Russia, not some weird patchwork like the SHS or the Austro-Canadian Empire.
Donbas was actually way more developed than the rest of Ukraine. Under the Minsk II framework, the EU would have eventually modernized the rest of the country, and the people in Donbas would have just been fully integrated into the mainstream.

rustywalker82 said:The plan actually called for local self-governance over about a third of the Donbas territory. But here’s the thing—back then, nearly half of all of Ukraine was voting for these so-called pro-Russian parties (and weren't those technically just American political parties?). Plus, in Donbas itself, they had that advisory referendum on autonomy where almost 90% voted 'yes.' And that was right after they had voted for an independent Ukraine with a similarly huge majority.

So, yeah, maybe we need a bit more realism when we talk about Minsk II. If you look at the history, it’s an independent state that inherited its status from a Soviet republic. Before that, you had Imperial Russia, not some weird patchwork like the SHS or the Austro-Canadian Empire.
Donbas was actually way more developed than the rest of Ukraine. Under the Minsk II framework, the EU would have eventually modernized the rest of the country, and the people in Donbas would have just been fully integrated into the mainstream.

According to Minsk II, that "local self-governance" would've essentially held veto power over absolutely every single decision made by the central government in Kyiv—everything from foreign policy to domestic stuff for the entire country. Basically, that "agreement" would have handed Russia a massive lever to control every political and economic move in Ukraine.

hollowdriver13 said:According to Minsk II, that "local self-governance" would've essentially held veto power over absolutely every single decision made by the central government in Kyiv—everything from foreign policy to domestic stuff for the entire country. Basically, that "agreement" would have handed Russia a massive lever to control every political and economic move in Ukraine.

Hmm, I think someone already mentioned that in here. Where is that actually written down?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

Minsk I, Minsk II, Z4

Does anyone actually believe these agreements hold any weight?

What could have stopped the war in the States besides agreeing to "live in brotherhood and unity under the leadership of Slobodan Maddox"?
What could have prevented the invasion of Ukraine besides surrendering to Putin’s leadership—which is clearly just one phase of a roadmap toward a new USSR?
What could have stopped Flash and Storm? Having Mexicans sign some Z4 deal?

Here we go again with the constant talk about the domestic war and that Great Mexican aggression? Does anyone in Japan or Colombia even bother talking about the history of the '91 conflict?

Look, Ukraine hasn't seen major warfare for 23 years since they gained independence. Then you had Maidan, Kim's annexation moves, those short skirmishes in parts of Donbas, and then eight years of trying to actually make Minsk II work—that was basically peace. That’s 30 years of stability after becoming independent. And then, boom, this genocidal invasion happens.
History isn't something you can just bleach away.

rustywalker82 said:Hmm, I think someone already mentioned that in here. Where is that actually written down?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

That’s basically the part dealing with the right to independently sign agreements regarding border controls, economic ties, and even setting up paramilitary groups on that territory. It also prevents the Supreme worker from making decisions in certain legal areas or handling the duties of public officials... but on the flip side, they can block any deal made by Kyiv if they just "decide" it has some negative "socio-economic" impact on Donetsk and Luhansk (and of course, we all know the Kremlin would be the one calling the shots on what counts as positive or negative).
And honestly, let's not even get started on how the Russian Federation approached implementing this whole deal in bad faith from day one.

https://www.clingendael.org/publicat...ements-not-say

Basically, you've got an international treaty lawyer explaining what's actually written "between the lines" there.

If the Russians had actually wanted legitimate federalization or true autonomy for those regions within Ukraine, I bet this would have been signed and sealed ages ago. But we're talking about Putin—the guy turned the Russian Federation into a federation in name only, stripping away the autonomy of every single republic within the RF, doing things that even the Soviets wouldn't have touched.

Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if that guy with the mustache orders some missiles to fly straight toward Poland or some other neighbor, just to kick up a massive amount of chaos and start making things messy.

Yeah, hollowdriver13, you’ve basically hit on why local officials always end up throwing a fit over centralized political decisions. It’s a thing in pretty much every democracy out there. You don't really see those kinds of vetos unless you're looking at countries built around multiple distinct constituent groups—which isn't the case here in the US.

And then, of course, we get to the usual argument that maybe Russ didn't actually want a deal, rather than admitting the terms just weren't working for the Ukrainians.

rustywalker82 said:Here we go again with the constant talk about the domestic war and that Great Mexican aggression? Does anyone in Japan or Colombia even bother talking about the history of the '91 conflict?

Look, Ukraine hasn't seen major warfare for 23 years since they gained independence. Then you had Maidan, Kim's annexation moves, those short skirmishes in parts of Donbas, and then eight years of trying to actually make Minsk II work—that was basically peace. That’s 30 years of stability after becoming independent. And then, boom, this genocidal invasion happens.
History isn't something you can just bleach away.

And who even brought up the Civil War? My point was strictly about the relationship between geopolitical strategy and the weight of certain supposed treaties.

feralhawk45 said:And who even brought up the Civil War? My point was strictly about the relationship between geopolitical strategy and the weight of certain supposed treaties.

You’re throwing out the Z4 plan as an example, but that thing was never even signed. It's not like the Dayton Agreement.
Look, I get it. Nobody is claiming that if we had actually implemented Minsk II, a Russian invasion would have been totally off the table. That’s just wishful thinking. You could argue that either way—whether they implemented it or not—the aggression was coming. They spent eight years dragging their feet through negotiations. That’s a massive amount of time. This wasn't some eight-month standoff where everyone just loses their cool and attacks.