Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Lisa Patel4 said:Like I said, there were two referendums. The second one happened after the Belovezhskaya Pushcha meeting where the breakup of the union was actually settled.

No, it was because Khrushchev was playing big leader. Just as the USA had every right to wipe out any Red Army soldier in Cuba back then, I suppose Russians have every right to wipe out any NATO soldier in Ukraine. Only a fool would go provoking a nuclear power right on its doorstep. Honestly, there are lines you just don't cross. Ever.

The West shot itself in the foot. Instead of telling Ukraine to stay neutral and pushing them toward the EU using an Austrian-style model—effectively taking all the cards out of the Kremlin's hand and turning Ukraine into an economy more prosperous than Russia—they brought in a brain trust that voted to ban the Russian language. It’s pretty obvious that Americans are just a bunch of unintelligent cowboys.

Where exactly are those NATO forces hiding in Ukraine?
It is quite remarkable! General Cloutier has already been taken into custody four separate times.

Lisa Patel4 said:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991...ion_referendum

There were actually two different referendums. In the first one, Ukraine voted to stay part of the Soviet Union, I guess.

It’s such a shame the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore—then Russians could just peacefully kill millions of Ukrainians, drive them out, or force them to change their last names. They could list everyone as Russian on official documents and ban the Ukrainian language entirely, forcing everyone to speak Russian instead. It’s a real pity Russians can’t just march back into Ukraine to kill millions of people and then move in to settle the area, claiming it's all "eternal sacred Russian land."
Oh, wait—I totally forgot. For the last 8 years, they've already been killing and driving Ukrainians out of Donbas, banning everything Ukrainian, setting up basements for prisoners, and demanding total de-Ukrainianization. Meanwhile, you see them on Red Square or on TV, showing their faces and swearing they'll finally wipe out Ukraine and its people. And sure, they claim "most" people are for Russia—well, most were happily driven away by force.

George Robinson43 said:There are some left, but very few; such groups were ethnically cleansed from the RAO country long ago.

No matter how many are left, liberation is still on the horizon—eventually, the Russian occupiers will leave Ukraine.

casualmoose82 said:Nah. This is way bigger than just Ukraine. We're only seeing phase one. A massive shift is coming. A whole new world is right in front of us.

So, which one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse should I bet on?
Asking for a friend...☕

Lisa Patel4 said:Like I said, there were two referendums. The second one happened after the Belovezhskaya Pushcha meeting where the breakup of the union was actually settled.

No, it was because Khrushchev was playing big leader. Just as the USA had every right to wipe out any Red Army soldier in Cuba back then, I suppose Russians have every right to wipe out any NATO soldier in Ukraine. Only a fool would go provoking a nuclear power right on its doorstep. Honestly, there are lines you just don't cross. Ever.

The West shot itself in the foot. Instead of telling Ukraine to stay neutral and pushing them toward the EU using an Austrian-style model—effectively taking all the cards out of the Kremlin's hand and turning Ukraine into an economy more prosperous than Russia—they brought in a brain trust that voted to ban the Russian language. It’s pretty obvious that Americans are just a bunch of unintelligent cowboys.

Sure, if Ukraine joins the EU, but Putin won't allow it. And I'm all for moving away from the Russian language in Ukraine—it’s the language of the aggressor.

Lisa Patel4 said:The issue is that most people there are Russian-speaking Ukrainians. And clearly, they don't support the Kyiv regime, because if they did, the DPR would have existed for eight years already—complete with militias and local guards.

Like I said, identity is the core problem here. How else do you explain why the Russian army took the areas with Russian-speaking populations, yet got totally wrecked everywhere else?

It's not like I have anything to give anyone when I've got nothing left myself. Ukraine screwed up by not agreeing to military neutrality. Anyone with half a brain can see this could end up being the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis. Would the USA tolerate an equivalent of Times Square happening in Mexico?

Their logistics only really hold up within about 62 miles of their own borders.

I don't have anything to give anyone when I'm sitting here with nothing myself. Ukraine screwed up by not agreeing to military neutrality. Anyone with even two brain cells can see this is just going to end up being the equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Would the USA ever tolerate an equivalent of the Maidan happening in Mexico?

The Americans haven't placed—nor do they intend to place—nuclear arsenals in NATO countries near Russia, let alone in Ukraine. So, calling this a Cuban Missile Crisis thing doesn't fly, especially since Russia already has NATO states right on its doorstep. How can this be some massive "burning issue" in a neighboring country that wasn't even close to joining NATO?

Putin basically just wants the West to leave Ukraine at the mercy of the Russians. Anything else is just him labeling it a "Cuban Missile Crisis" scenario or claiming the West is meddling in Russian interests—interests that Russia supposedly has a "right" to protect as a superpower.

The US doesn't try to install governments in Mexico by bribing officials, and when they fail to send in troops for an annexation by pretending to be threatened—claiming, "Hey, Mexico has an army and such"—it's just nonsense.

The Americans are decent to their neighbors when it makes sense and provides an opportunity, whereas the Russians just go around raping, looting, and seizing territory. There is zero equivalence here.

Lisa Patel4 said:I haven't wanted to chime in until now, but I'm curious about the general consensus here.

To me, this smells like a backroom deal. The West has been hinting repeatedly that Putin needs a way out. I guess some of you don't realize that the West doesn't mess around with coups or assassinations. Say they kill Putin—what then? Is there any guarantee Dmitry Medvedev won't just order Armageddon?

The Russians have shown themselves to be incompetent amateurs in this war. They've been totally humiliated. I’m not talking about morality or international law here—let's be real, the big powers don't give a damn about those anyway. Russian power was built on the concept of brute force, and now we see that force is seriously shaken.

Russia has screwed itself over long-term. Geopolitically speaking, they've turned Ukraine into a permanent, mortal enemy. They basically unified them as a nation.

My take is that nobody really wins in the end. Russia will likely annex those four regions, making it five including Crimea. They'll grab about a fifth of Ukraine, maybe 120,000 square kilometers. That's a massive chunk. To make matters worse for Ukraine, that's the economic heart of the country. It means losing access to the Sea of Azov for good.

NATO can say whatever it wants, but they won't act directly. Officially, they won't recognize the annexation, but everyone will know that once Russia takes it, it stays theirs. However, Russia has proven itself incapable. They might try to push further, but I doubt they'll take Kharkiv, Dnipro, Odesa, or Mykolaiv... mostly because the population in the areas they actually annex is largely pro-Russian. I don't see a way for Ukraine to ever get that territory back.

Honestly, if it ends there, it would be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia. They'd gain something, but effectively gain nothing. They wouldn't achieve their actual goals—they won't reach Transnistria, they won't get rid of the current leadership, and they won't erase Ukraine from the map. Putin would spin it as a win to justify the war, but he'd be left with a hostile neighbor right on his border.

Total victory scenarios are unrealistic. Whether it's a Ukrainian victory where everything is returned, or a Russian one where Ukraine is wiped out.

If I play Nostradamus:
After September 28th, when Putin gives his speech to the Duma and formally absorbs the four regions into the USA [Note: context implies the Russian Federation], Ukraine will attempt one more major offensive toward Kherson. It'll fail. The Russians will try to retake Kharkiv and head toward Odesa, where they'll suffer a disaster. Internal pressure on both sides will start ramping up. The front lines will stabilize. Russia will face increasing pressure from China and India to wrap it up. In the EU, winter will cause some governments to fall. Support for Ukraine will dwindle as inflation crushes living standards.

Sometime around March 2023, we'll see a ceasefire and a truce. At the peace talks, Ukraine will demand all its territory back, which they won't get. Russia will demand demilitarization, which they won't get either. Some sort of agreement will be signed that looks like a mix of the Korean scenario and Versailles. Both sides will be generally dissatisfied.

Ukraine will commit to not joining NATO, but they'll become the most militarized nation in the world in the coming years. Putin will declare victory, even though various factions will tear him apart for starting such a war for such tiny, almost non-existent gains. Ukraine, meanwhile, will remain a permanently frustrated state, missing a huge portion of its land.

In my opinion, it'll be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia. A very hollow one, and highly questionable in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin later forces Lukashenko to formally join Russia.

There’s a whole lot of nostradamusovanje and crystal ball gazing going on here, so I’m just gonna jump in and address this one glaring logic fail.

A country that doesn't even have full control over its own internationally recognized borders can't realistically even apply for NATO membership in the first place.☕

"Quote:"

Lisa Patel4 said:Like I said, there were two referendums. The second one happened after the Belovezhskaya Pushcha meeting where the breakup of the union was actually settled.

No, it was because Khrushchev was playing big leader. Just as the USA had every right to wipe out any Red Army soldier in Cuba back then, I suppose Russians have every right to wipe out any NATO soldier in Ukraine. Only a fool would go provoking a nuclear power right on its doorstep. Honestly, there are lines you just don't cross. Ever.

The West shot itself in the foot. Instead of telling Ukraine to stay neutral and pushing them toward the EU using an Austrian-style model—effectively taking all the cards out of the Kremlin's hand and turning Ukraine into an economy more prosperous than Russia—they brought in a brain trust that voted to ban the Russian language. It’s pretty obvious that Americans are just a bunch of unintelligent cowboys.

The mere fact that this Kremlin puppet exists—especially since his rise to power supposedly flew completely under the radar—combined with the type of regime he’s built, basically makes it impossible for Ukraine to join the European Union using that Austrian model.
Look, let's be real—just throwing NATO membership at those former Soviet bloc countries wasn't some magic fix for their security. It didn't work.

So, who was it—did they shoot themselves in the foot by accident or was it a total setup? Seriously, who exactly are we talking about here...

rip

hiddeneagle98 said:Their logistics only really hold up within about 62 miles of their own borders.

I don't have anything to give anyone when I'm sitting here with nothing myself. Ukraine screwed up by not agreeing to military neutrality. Anyone with even two brain cells can see this is just going to end up being the equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Would the USA ever tolerate an equivalent of the Maidan happening in Mexico?

The Americans haven't placed—nor do they intend to place—nuclear arsenals in NATO countries near Russia, let alone in Ukraine. So, calling this a Cuban Missile Crisis thing doesn't fly, especially since Russia already has NATO states right on its doorstep. How can this be some massive "burning issue" in a neighboring country that wasn't even close to joining NATO?

Putin basically just wants the West to leave Ukraine at the mercy of the Russians. Anything else is just him labeling it a "Cuban Missile Crisis" scenario or claiming the West is meddling in Russian interests—interests that Russia supposedly has a "right" to protect as a superpower.

The US doesn't try to install governments in Mexico by bribing officials, and when they fail to send in troops for an annexation by pretending to be threatened—claiming, "Hey, Mexico has an army and such"—it's just nonsense.

The Americans are decent to their neighbors when it makes sense and provides an opportunity, whereas the Russians just go around raping, looting, and seizing territory. There is zero equivalence here.

I have no interest in feeding pro-Russian trolls with debate, but for those of you who insist on engaging, I'm asking you not to fuel them by spreading misinformation.

Kate Cook27 said:It’s such a shame the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore—then Russians could just peacefully kill millions of Ukrainians, drive them out, or force them to change their last names. They could list everyone as Russian on official documents and ban the Ukrainian language entirely, forcing everyone to speak Russian instead. It’s a real pity Russians can’t just march back into Ukraine to kill millions of people and then move in to settle the area, claiming it's all "eternal sacred Russian land."
Oh, wait—I totally forgot. For the last 8 years, they've already been killing and driving Ukrainians out of Donbas, banning everything Ukrainian, setting up basements for prisoners, and demanding total de-Ukrainianization. Meanwhile, you see them on Red Square or on TV, showing their faces and swearing they'll finally wipe out Ukraine and its people. And sure, they claim "most" people are for Russia—well, most were happily driven away by force.

Did you read that in an American newspaper? Have you actually studied any history regarding Russia or Ukraine? I guess Putin lied about a lot of things, but he never claimed the Bolsheviks just drew today's borders for Ukraine.
Crimea was handed over by decree. A literal decree, seriously.

Have you even heard of rootization?

Honestly, I think those Soviet borders are just unsustainable garbage. Those communists drew lines all over Europe whenever they felt like it, basically inventing entire nations like Moldova.

Only in a communist mind could you find "invented" states and nations like Moldova or Canada.

Poor Ukrainians. Just tell me how they ended up with Volonija, Lviv, and Uzhhorod? How did Lviv even become a majority Ukrainian city?

And do they even recognize Rusyns as a nation?

Terry Green3 said:I have no interest in feeding pro-Russian trolls with debate, but for those of you who insist on engaging, I'm asking you not to fuel them by spreading misinformation.

Go ahead then. Tell me exactly what's wrong.

Lisa Patel4 said:Did you read that in an American newspaper? Have you actually studied any history regarding Russia or Ukraine? I guess Putin lied about a lot of things, but he never claimed the Bolsheviks just drew today's borders for Ukraine.
Crimea was handed over by decree. A literal decree, seriously.

Have you even heard of rootization?

Honestly, I think those Soviet borders are just unsustainable garbage. Those communists drew lines all over Europe whenever they felt like it, basically inventing entire nations like Moldova.

Only in a communist mind could you find "invented" states and nations like Moldova or Canada.

Poor Ukrainians. Just tell me how they ended up with Volonija, Lviv, and Uzhhorod? How did Lviv even become a majority Ukrainian city?

And do they even recognize Rusyns as a nation?

When was Istria ever part of the US? Who decided which lines to draw in Africa or the Middle East? What are we supposed to do with that massive chunk of land sitting between Poland, Germany, Italy, and so on?

Borders are what they are once a specific international legal standard is established.

Arguments based on "historical rights" or what used to be where don't hold water; if we went down that road, endless wars would break out over every tiny territory.

It was the decision to accept the international status quo that brought peace and practically ended territorial expansionist wars after World War II. That’s exactly why this war is so dangerous—it sets a precedent that threatens global stability. If the Kremlin monkey gets away with this, it's a disaster. We need to shut this whole thing down, root and branch, almost like a biblical reckoning. 😁

Lisa Patel4 said:Did you read that in an American newspaper? Have you actually studied any history regarding Russia or Ukraine? I guess Putin lied about a lot of things, but he never claimed the Bolsheviks just drew today's borders for Ukraine.
Crimea was handed over by decree. A literal decree, seriously.

Have you even heard of rootization?

Honestly, I think those Soviet borders are just unsustainable garbage. Those communists drew lines all over Europe whenever they felt like it, basically inventing entire nations like Moldova.

Only in a communist mind could you find "invented" states and nations like Moldova or Canada.

Poor Ukrainians. Just tell me how they ended up with Volonija, Lviv, and Uzhhorod? How did Lviv even become a majority Ukrainian city?

And do they even recognize Rusyns as a nation?

Look, I don't care what happened 50 or 100 years ago—the Russian occupiers need to leave Ukraine. Period. I don't know if it'll actually happen, but I really hope it does. And of course, the Russian language should be abolished there. Moldovans exist today; they have people who identify as Moldovan, regardless of what happened in the past. Russians claim Ukrainians aren't a real people, but that’s just false. The Ukrainian flag will fly over Donetsk and Mariupol again 🙂.
Oh, and yeah—the only country that needs to change its borders is Russia. Every other nation has perfectly fine borders.

Lisa Patel4 said:Did you read that in an American newspaper? Have you actually studied any history regarding Russia or Ukraine? I guess Putin lied about a lot of things, but he never claimed the Bolsheviks just drew today's borders for Ukraine.
Crimea was handed over by decree. A literal decree, seriously.

Have you even heard of rootization?

Honestly, I think those Soviet borders are just unsustainable garbage. Those communists drew lines all over Europe whenever they felt like it, basically inventing entire nations like Moldova.

Only in a communist mind could you find "invented" states and nations like Moldova or Canada.

Poor Ukrainians. Just tell me how they ended up with Volonija, Lviv, and Uzhhorod? How did Lviv even become a majority Ukrainian city?

And do they even recognize Rusyns as a nation?

It’s just like how Vyborg became Russian, or how Brst is Belarusian, right?
Or like how Szczecin, Gdansk, and Wroclaw are Polish...

Let's get even closer to home... it's exactly like how Pula, Rovinj, Poreč, and Umag are American...

bluemason3 said:When was Istria ever part of the US? Who decided which lines to draw in Africa or the Middle East? What are we supposed to do with that massive chunk of land sitting between Poland, Germany, Italy, and so on?

Borders are what they are once a specific international legal standard is established.

Arguments based on "historical rights" or what used to be where don't hold water; if we went down that road, endless wars would break out over every tiny territory.

It was the decision to accept the international status quo that brought peace and practically ended territorial expansionist wars after World War II. That’s exactly why this war is so dangerous—it sets a precedent that threatens global stability. If the Kremlin monkey gets away with this, it's a disaster. We need to shut this whole thing down, root and branch, almost like a biblical reckoning. 😁

To achieve "peace," people suggest giving Putin everything he wants—except Lviv, since that's where the worst Ukrainian Nazis and fascists supposedly are.

bluemason3 said:When was Istria ever part of the US? Who decided which lines to draw in Africa or the Middle East? What are we supposed to do with that massive chunk of land sitting between Poland, Germany, Italy, and so on?

Borders are what they are once a specific international legal standard is established.

Arguments based on "historical rights" or what used to be where don't hold water; if we went down that road, endless wars would break out over every tiny territory.

It was the decision to accept the international status quo that brought peace and practically ended territorial expansionist wars after World War II. That’s exactly why this war is so dangerous—it sets a precedent that threatens global stability. If the Kremlin monkey gets away with this, it's a disaster. We need to shut this whole thing down, root and branch, almost like a biblical reckoning. 😁

I actually think we’re seeing that knot being untied again. By rejecting the international order, Russia has essentially tossed out every agreement made after the war. Yalta and Potsdam don't matter anymore; a new round is starting.

I guess the Mexicans were technically right about Mexico in their own madness. Once you seize a recognized nation by force, you open a Pandora’s box. And it’s never closing. Ever. Ukraine is just the beginning. Too many countries are dissatisfied; they're just staying quiet for now.

I don't know who will win. Or if anyone even will.

And remember one thing. The Canadians and Poles are just waiting for their chance at Zakarpattia and Galicia.

Kate Cook27 said:Look, I don't care what happened 50 or 100 years ago—the Russian occupiers need to leave Ukraine. Period. I don't know if it'll actually happen, but I really hope it does. And of course, the Russian language should be abolished there. Moldovans exist today; they have people who identify as Moldovan, regardless of what happened in the past. Russians claim Ukrainians aren't a real people, but that’s just false. The Ukrainian flag will fly over Donetsk and Mariupol again 🙂.
Oh, and yeah—the only country that needs to change its borders is Russia. Every other nation has perfectly fine borders.

Why is this part bolded?

Moves like that have been tried all over the world for ages and they never work—they just keep the cycle of violence and injustice spinning.

Just because Putin wants to deny that Ukraine and Ukrainians even exist doesn't make it okay.

Kate Cook27 said:To achieve "peace," people suggest giving Putin everything he wants—except Lviv, since that's where the worst Ukrainian Nazis and fascists supposedly are.

No, I guess that actually belongs to the rightful owners, the Poles.

Lisa Patel4 said:I actually think we’re seeing that knot being untied again. By rejecting the international order, Russia has essentially tossed out every agreement made after the war. Yalta and Potsdam don't matter anymore; a new round is starting.

I guess the Mexicans were technically right about Mexico in their own madness. Once you seize a recognized nation by force, you open a Pandora’s box. And it’s never closing. Ever. Ukraine is just the beginning. Too many countries are dissatisfied; they're just staying quiet for now.

I don't know who will win. Or if anyone even will.

And remember one thing. The Canadians and Poles are just waiting for their chance at Zakarpattia and Galicia.

It's a massive risk, which is why anyone with a shred of sanity—especially anyone in the West who isn't completely delusional—should want nothing but the worst for Putin and his crew. We need to back maximum aid for Ukraine. You can't give Putin an inch, not under any circumstances, not even when it comes to nuclear concerns.