wiredseal7 said:I don't know about some parallel universe, but over here—it looks like they skipped right over the opening act (and by that, I mean the snipers).
So, what actually went down before the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014? And since you’re asking about Crimea—what was the deal with the new administration's plan to sign that 50-year lease for the port in Sevastopol?
They weren't exactly in a position to dictate terms back then—it was humiliating, sure, but it kept things from going south completely. If they had just stuck to the part about ending the conflict and getting life back to normal in those areas, we wouldn't be here. Instead, they went and doubled down by mobilizing over a thousand soldiers for an offensive on two separate occasions.
Vladimir Putin probably wants this whole thing wrapped up just so he can bury the hatchet with the European Union—get those remaining sanctions lifted and keep the cash flowing into his pockets.
They didn't really want to greenlight something like that—the Brits were pretty much on the same page—but the European Union should have stepped up, been more assertive, and forced the Ukrainians to just wrap things up over there.
Now instead we’re stuck watching this massive slaughter and the total devastation of eastern Ukraine—honestly, you decide which is better.
There is absolutely no doubt about it: after another 10 or 20 years of the Russian Federation funneling money into Europe and using KGB tactics to tear the continent apart by backing populists, fake news peddlers, and various oligarch types, their ultimate goal will be to swallow the entire former Warsaw Pact zone. Then we’ll see how much fun everyone is having.
We were all so convinced that we should have just let Vladimir Putin go, given him whatever he wanted just to keep him from getting angry. You know, because the more we let him run wild, the better. After all, if only the innocent suffer, it’s probably best not to resist.
Oh, absolutely—the more crimes Vladimir Putin commits in Ukraine, the more certain we become that we should have just catered to his every whim.
Maybe throw in a few more thermobaric bombs or some more civilian casualties, and I’ll just stand here and ceremoniously scatter ashes over the whole thing. Truly, I am increasingly convinced that all of this could have been avoided if we had simply guaranteed Russia that they were allowed to invade Ukraine—or rather, that NATO wouldn't defend it. Now, Russia is especially terrified that NATO might step in, which is why they are ramping up the destruction of Ukrainian cities and creating a humanitarian catastrophe. Those are clearly the rational, geopolitical imperatives at play here.
The whole "if I can't have it, nobody can" geopolitical doctrine stems directly from the interests of the Russian people, and it is the world's duty to serve the supreme servant of that nation.