KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
^ Budanov and Zaluzhny were “wounded and/or dead” for weeks though.
This logic would make sense in a democratic or at least pluralistic society. Russia however is now thoroughly authoritarian. It's very likely that if anything was returned to Prigozhin it was with Putin's blessings. And if the intent is to quietly do away with Prigozhin by way of window, teacup, or car accident, it's best if he thinks he's forgiven.There are reports that Russian authorities have returned gold, money, and weapons to Prigozhin after they were found at his house and confiscated. If this indeed the case then it's a slap in the face for Putin because it undermines his image as a tough autocratic leader, weakening him further politically.
Thanks for that. I was having trouble figuring out why. Another point arises though, we know that the security services (FSB & GRU) and the military did nothing about Prigozhin's plot, before and when it happened. Both the GRU and FSB would have penetrated Wagner, probably to a reasonably high level. So theoretically they would have heard rumblings of it yet chose to forget to pass on said information to the Kremlin. Prigozhin was videoed in Rostov On Don during the rebellion talking and laughing with Deputy Minister of Defense Yevkurov and the First Deputy Head of the Russian Military Intelligence Alekseyev about Prigozhin taking Shoigu and Gerasimov:This logic would make sense in a democratic or at least pluralistic society. Russia however is now thoroughly authoritarian. It's very likely that if anything was returned to Prigozhin it was with Putin's blessings. And if the intent is to quietly do away with Prigozhin by way of window, teacup, or car accident, it's best if he thinks he's forgiven.
You can flip flop all you want but at the end of the day Russia is destroying another civilization and Ukraine/NATO is trying to stop it. There is a good reason every East European country wants to be in NATO...You know, to not get exterminated.Well sure. First representations are made about NATO non-expansion, we'll leave the exact nature aside for a moment. Then a bunch of NATO expansion takes place in the late '90s and early 2000's. And then in iirc 2003 Russia decides that since there is this powerful military alliance on its doorstep maybe joining makes sense and statements are made to that effect. I don't see the contradiction. Do you?
If the US had simply vetoed expansion, there is no expansion. It doesn't require a monolithic west. Just one firm "no".
The agreement went well beyond a ceasefire. One side wanted to see the agreement implemented in its entirety. The other didn't. There is a clear reason for those "successful" attacks. It was because the initial agreement was won by force of arms and the only leverage Russia and the rebels had, in the absence of any willingness on the part of the west to pressure Ukraine, was to use force of arms. Again consider the agreements and look at the implementation or lack thereof. As soon as time came to implement any of the political pieces that actually mattered, Ukraine simply wouldn't. On the subject of ceasefire violations, if you look at the social media presence of LDNR-related figures, typically from the lower level, they are full of complaints that they would take fire from the Ukrainian side, but wouldn't be allowed to return fire. The Minsk Accords were, for all intents and purposes, a political settlement that confirmed Russia's military victory in the '14-'15 campaigns. The problem is that Ukraine had no intention of fullfilling them, and the west had no intention of forcing them to. To present this as "both sides did some wrong" is fundamentally misleading. One side wanted them to work and one didn't.
Of course he did. That was the point. The '22 invasion was an attempt to toss all the pieces off the board and use overwhelming force to alter the outcome. But it doesn't mean that you can quietly ignore the implications of the Minsk Accords for any future deals between Russia and the West. Let's say Putin and Zelensky sign a peace deal on the current line of contact, recognizing territory based on who holds what, added with full return of refugees and an eventual referendum (on some timeline) over the future of the territories in question, and Russia paying out 1.5 trillion in war damages over a span of 10 years, with all sanctions lifted. This would require ratification in the Rada. Who is to say that Ukraine, having fought to a standstill and been bled white, won't use the break to rest, refuse to ratify anything, pocket the first reparation payments, and meanwhile re-arm at the rapid rate in preparation for round 2? A reasonable observer might say "Duh! That's exactly what they should do!" And another observer might say "Now, wait. Ukraine doesn't want the war either, they're negotiating in good faith and look, France and Germany are parties to the agreement, and even the US supports it. Surely Ukraine and their western backers can be trusted." No. No they can not. And how they handled the Minsk accords is the reason why.
My fundamental question remains unanswered. If Ukraine, France, and Germany, weren't bound by the Minsk Accords, then why would they feel themselves bound by any future treaty that they're ultimately not too happy with?
And by the way, the attempt to claim that it was both sides breaking it that sank it falls apart when you consider that Merkel admitted they were only a tactic to help Ukraine prepare for war. They were signed in bad faith from the beginning.
The act of destroying a country is not the main issue, as callous as it sounds, but the reasons justifying it. After all, Libya would have been the percieved counter point to this argument.You can flip flop all you want but at the end of the day Russia is destroying another civilization and Ukraine/NATO is trying to stop it. There is a good reason every East European country wants to be in NATO...You know, to not get exterminated.
Tell that to the Iraqis and Afghanis, let alone Libyans. Or are destroying another civilization have another justification if West that do that? Why some in the West still wondering why most Global South stay in the fence in this war, or come out with illusion Russian Propaganda grip most of Global South.can flip flop all you want but at the end of the day Russia is destroying another civilization and Ukraine/NATO is trying to stop it
What do Iraqis, Afghanis and let alone Libyans have to do with Russia exterminating Ukraine? Let alone on Russian-Ukraine subforum? Me as a Slav, I care more about what is happening now in my neighbourhood, than your idiotic "But USA..."Tell that to the Iraqis and Afghanis, let alone Libyans. Or are destroying another civilization have another justification if West that do that? Why some in the West still wondering why most Global South stay in the fence in this war, or come out with illusion Russian Propaganda grip most of Global South.
Trolling huh.. New guys calling idiot..Me as a Slav, I care more about what is happening now in my neighbourhood, than your idiotic "But USA..."
I wonder how many times treaties have been broken in History.Putin is a serial treaty-breaker. He can't be trusted to keep any promise. Russia was formally committed to not only recognising the pre-2014 borders of Ukraine, but protecting them. Putin broke that agreement, because he could. Any treaty which rewards Putin for invading Ukraine merely stores up trouble for the future.
"Russia should be interested in peace" - I think you've forgotten who invaded who. Putin doesn't want peace: he wants victory, or at least something he can present as victory, so he can keep power, & prepare for next time. He's proved that by his behaviour. If he wanted peace he wouldn't have started the war.
And entire articles refuting it, The fact is NATO was falling apart long before the invasion so using NATO as an excuse is total BS. Russian (Putin's) actions literally revived and expanded NATO better then any leader in the West ever could have.There are entire articles devoted to it. Swerve's point about it not being a binding agreement is likely valid. But it didn't help.
So you are by your reasoning putting responsibility for them falling apart squarely on Ukraine's shoulders.. LPR/DPR broke as many promises/agreements as Ukraine did. Blame lies on both sides, Not one or the other.They both fell apart because fundamentally and substantively Ukraine had no interest or desire to implement them. Read the agreements. There was no scenario where Ukarine's leadership was willing to follow through on what those agreements contained. Ukrainian presidents on two occasions made a serious attempt to follow through. One was Poroshenko in 2016 and the other Zelensky fairly early into his term. Both were immediately sabotaged by their own government. Both ran into issues with right wing "volunteers" not being willing to follow the separation of forces agreement and neither had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Rada to accept the autonomous status for the LDNR.
At various time leading up to and during the grain deal Russia literally put in its own bans on exporting Russian agriculture, Russia has actually exported record amounts, and sanctions dont apply to Russian agriculture.... Exactly what is Russia expecting?None of portions that benefited Russia were ever implemented. Russian agricultural exports were still essentially halted.
As you are mentioning the Sudetenland, you should mention Teschen. I guess you can find a few more examples, "both ways", if you care to look.As has been noted, Putin's word on a treaty is worthless. If you need a roadmap of how this plays out if this invasion isn't repulsed, look to the Sudetenland in 1938. Same mission template.
Please calm down, that another person has other opinions and using counter arguments shouldn't be a reason to attack that person in such agressive way.What do Iraqis, Afghanis and let alone Libyans have to do with Russia exterminating Ukraine? Let alone on Russian-Ukraine subforum? Me as a Slav, I care more about what is happening now in my neighbourhood, than your idiotic "But USA..."
Extermination doesn’t have to make sense, just ask Mao, Adolph, or that other more famous tyrant from Russia Joe Stalin. Many others could be added to the list.Please calm down, that another person has other opinions and using counter arguments shouldn't be a reason to attack that person in such agressive way.
Yes, it is wrong to invade another country without a good reason, but the point is that certain countries have done this multiple times in the last decades, but these invasions (or in some cases just airstrikes) are often simply accepted because "that country is on our side" => the good guys.
And yes, there are undoubtly cases of warcrimes in Ukraine, but that Russia wants to exterminate the Oekraïnians doesn't make sense at all.