The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Claims that Crimea is historical Russian territory, regardless of the 1991 Ukrainian independence are complete rubbish and Russian propaganda. Crimea isn't Russian because it was invaded and colonised by Russia, IIRC late 18th / early 19th centuries, and the current ethnic Russian population is the result of ethnic cleansing because of Stalin deporting the Crimean Tartars from their traditional territory. There are no legal or moral grounds to support the proposition that Crimea is traditional holy Russian territory.
Sorry Ngati, but it is also can go both ways, historically it is not also part of Ukrainian home land (whatever it is). It is only admistrative division by Khrushchev that cement Crimea is part of administrative Ukraine SSR. Ethics Russia is the dominant part of Crimea.

By that logic, Israel also should not exist as this is also result from ethics cleansing of Arab Palestinian by Jewish Settlers. But US and West put Israel as legitimate nation anyway. So by that logic, why can't Russian claim Crimea is historically theirs?
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Is Brit still keep them on workable conditions? If not mistaken I watch YouTube video shown some UK civilians manage to get hold few of them. So is there any inventories still in military grade storage? I Imagine some in UK perhaps trying to buy back Challenger 1 from Jordan, or perhaps some wondering why the entire Challenger 1 being sold to Jordanian at first place.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
True. But that doesn't excuse Russia's breaking of the agreement.

Everything comes down to that. The only unequivocal, unforced, written agreement is the one in which Russia & a couple of western countries agree to recognise & protect Ukraine's independence & territorial integrity within its 1991 borders.

Russia broke that agreement. Nobody else. The Minsk accords were a reaction to Russia's breaking of its promises. After that breach, Ukrainians didn't trust Russia to keep its word. Do you blame them? The basic problem here is that breach. Everything goes back to it. You can cavil about Ukrainian non-acceptance of agreements, but from their point of view those agreements were made with a knife to their throat, & they don't feel they're valid.
You keep trying to steer the argument back to "whose fault is it". This is not up for debate. Russia is the aggressor. Anyone claiming otherwise is deluded or lying. The question now is, what happens next? The point was being made that negotiations are impossible "because Russia". My counter-point is that negotiations are impossible because Ukraine won't keep any deal they're not perfectly satisfied with, and the US will back them in breaking that deal. Negotiations are impossible because Ukraine wants everything, is willing to give next to nothing, and any deal that is short of that, they will break with US blessing and tacit or open support from other western countries. Russia is willing to negotiate. Ukraine isn't.

How does one find common ground when the apparent motivations of Putins were either to:

- install a RU friendly puppet (a UKR Lukashenko)
- completely absorb UKR into RU

Putin did not invade because of biolabs, Nazis, or concerns of LPR/DPR citizens. This invasion was solely to put the RU stamp down on a UKR which had shown an increasing turn to the west.
I think only the first was on the table realistically, with of course independence for the LDNR. But this has obviously failed. I don't believe Russia's negotiating position will be "Let us pick the president of Ukraine". So you find a middle ground by taking the status quo and trading tit-for-tat from there. The middle ground isn't between positions. The middle ground is between the realities on the ground and what sides want those realities to be. You can find that middle ground by paying the costs in blood. Or you can find that middle ground by trading one thing for another. The latter method would be negotiation.
 

2007yellow430

Active Member
You keep trying to steer the argument back to "whose fault is it". This is not up for debate. Russia is the aggressor. Anyone claiming otherwise is deluded or lying. The question now is, what happens next? The point was being made that negotiations are impossible "because Russia". My counter-point is that negotiations are impossible because Ukraine won't keep any deal they're not perfectly satisfied with, and the US will back them in breaking that deal. Negotiations are impossible because Ukraine wants everything, is willing to give next to nothing, and any deal that is short of that, they will break with US blessing and tacit or open support from other western countries. Russia is willing to negotiate. Ukraine isn't.



I think only the first was on the table realistically, with of course independence for the LDNR. But this has obviously failed. I don't believe Russia's negotiating position will be "Let us pick the president of Ukraine". So you find a middle ground by taking the status quo and trading tit-for-tat from there. The middle ground isn't between positions. The middle ground is between the realities on the ground and what sides want those realities to be. You can find that middle ground by paying the costs in blood. Or you can find that middle ground by trading one thing for another. The latter method would be negotiation.
yiu are forgetting the very important issue: assuming a negotiated settlement, what comes next? The only way to ensure no repeats is to soundly defeat Russia. We’ve learned from the last two or three negotiated peaces that negotiations do not work. We need to bloody them but good, leaving them all but destroyed. Thats the only way to put this to a stop. Sad, but unfortunately true.

Art
 
West so sure that by six months Russia will be crumbling economically thus reach exhaustion and capitulate by end of the year. This is talk on Western media and politicians as justification for what they call sweeping embargoes to Russia.

Russian sure that Ukrainian will not last much longer due to exhaustion on man power. West will not going to bear more cost on continuing support corrupt regime in Kyiv. At least that's what you are going to read if reading Russian telegram and media.

Each sides supporters will say others dreaming, and other sides will lose steams soon enough. For me most likely both sides loosing steams and reach stalemate and that's where common ground can be achieved.
I think expectations on both sides that the others will reach exhaustion soon are misguided. The West has the means to support Ukraine in the current form for a very long time, and Russia seems to be able to support itself as well. This war can drag on for many years, because I don’t think any side can justify stopping the war in a stalemate after so much blood has been spilled.
 
Sorry Ngati, but it is also can go both ways, historically it is not also part of Ukrainian home land (whatever it is). It is only admistrative division by Khrushchev that cement Crimea is part of administrative Ukraine SSR. Ethics Russia is the dominant part of Crimea.

By that logic, Israel also should not exist as this is also result from ethics cleansing of Arab Palestinian by Jewish Settlers. But US and West put Israel as legitimate nation anyway. So by that logic, why can't Russian claim Crimea is historically theirs?
Russia’s big mistake with Crimea was the annexation. It would have been much easier from a political perspective to create an independent country named Republic of Crimea and support its independence, like the West supported Kosovo.

Annexation of territories reeks of imperialism, while the creation of small independent states smells like anti-colonialism. The optics are very different.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The evidence is mass abduction of children, rusification of Crimea and other occupied territories, many prominent Russian talk hosts talking about obliterating Ukrainians, bombing civilians to spread terror and historical Russian policies like Holodomor and more rusification (east Prussia, Tatars, Circasia Moldova, Belaruss, ...)

By extermination I mean gradualy replacing Ukrainan language and culture with Russian one.
And I am fairly certain this is a war of Putins and other Russians wet dream of trying to reestablish the glorious Russian empire/Soviet union.
The side that wanted forced assimilation was Ukraine. The language question was at the root of this conflict. In a country where pre-'14 ~30% of the population were ethnic Russians, Russian as a language had no legal status. This is ludicrous. In Russia there are plenty of legal carve-outs for minority ethnicities. In Ukraine, they managed to piss off Hungary so much (by shutting down Hungarian language schools) that Hungary vetoed aid packages to Ukraine.


You'll note that Hungary, being a NATO and EU member, was able to make some headway in addressing the issue for their ethnic minorities. No such accommodations are being made for ethnic Russians for whom the position of the Ukrainian government is "assimilate or get out".

EDIT: Where are you getting the Minsk accords anyway? Russia leadership has never mention them as the reason for invasion. It was always denazification or that Putins historical lesson of how Ukraine is Russia.
I dare suggest that one shouldn't take Putin's statements at face value.

  • "The Minsk agreements of September 2014 and February 2015, which sought to end Russia’s war in eastern Ukraine, rest on two irreconcilable interpretations of Ukraine’s sovereignty – what could be called the ‘Minsk conundrum’: is Ukraine sovereign, as Ukrainians insist, or should its sovereignty be limited, as Russia demands?
  • Ukraine sees the agreements as instruments with which to re-establish its sovereignty in line with the following sequence: a ceasefire; a Russian withdrawal from eastern Ukraine; return of the Russia/Ukraine border to Ukrainian control; free and fair elections in the Donbas region; and a limited devolution of power to Russia’s proxy regimes, which would be reintegrated and resubordinated to the authorities in Kyiv. Ukraine would be able to make its own domestic and foreign policy choices.
  • Russia sees the Minsk agreements as tools with which to break Ukraine’s sovereignty. Its interpretation reverses key elements in the sequence of actions: elections in occupied Donbas would take place before Ukraine had reclaimed control of the border; this would be followed by comprehensive autonomy for Russia’s proxy regimes, crippling the central authorities in Kyiv. Ukraine would be unable to govern itself effectively or orient itself towards the West.
  • These contradictory provisions are testimony to a stunning failure of Russian foreign policy. In 2014 Russia launched a campaign of violent subversion to compel Ukraine to ‘federalize’ its political system. Belying Russian expectations, Ukrainians fought back en masse, forcing Russia to resort to increasingly open military intervention. Russia inflicted crushing defeats on Ukrainian forces, yet was unwilling to pay the price that further high-intensity war would have exacted.
  • Western views on how to implement the Minsk agreements are imprecise and inconsistent. One prevalent view is that implementation means finding a mid-point between the Russian and Ukrainian positions. However, attempts to do so have failed – heaping pressure on Ukraine, risking political instability in Kyiv, and not leading to any discernible change in Russian policy. Instead of trying to resolve an unresolvable contradiction, Western policymakers should acknowledge the starkness of the Minsk conundrum.
  • An alternative approach would make the defence of Ukraine’s sovereignty the unambiguous premise of Western policy. It would view the Minsk and Normandy processes mainly as conflict management tools. In line with the priority attached to upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty, Western governments would meanwhile maintain support for long-term political and economic reform in Ukraine, using the EU/Ukraine Association Agreement as the anchor.
  • This approach would also encourage the authorities in Kyiv to engage more inclusively with those living in occupied Donbas. Yet it would proceed from the assumption that the region should not be legally reincorporated into Ukraine for the foreseeable future. Finally, this approach would logically entail a lengthy stand-off with Russia over Ukraine – a prospect that many decision-makers in the West would find troubling and unnerving."
I've posted the text of the Minsk agreements before. They clearly list in what order they are to be implemented. Ukraine was unhappy with that text and repeatedly wanted it changed. Russia wanted them implemented as is. This is not a conspiracy theory, this has been discussed, on this forum, previously. I'm not going to go over this again because it's so clear and plain. Ukraine was not willing to take the steps that they were required to take under the Minsk Accords. Instead they repeatedly demanded that Russia hand over control over the border, and then they would do things.

So yes, this is true; "Ukraine sees the agreements as instruments with which to re-establish its sovereignty in line with the following sequence"

But it is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Ukraine "sees" the agreements as. What matters is what is actually written in them. And the agreements substantively undermine Ukrainian sovereignty.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
... Russia is willing to negotiate. Ukraine isn't....
Russia is willing to negotiate only on the basis that Russia wins, & Russia has proved far more untrustworthy than Ukraine.

It's very hard to see a basis for negotiation with Russia as long as Russia is claiming that territory it doesn't control, & where Russian-speakers are a minority, is Russian territory forever, & not negotiable, & still maintaining that Ukrainian is not an ethnicity or language, that calling oneself Ukrainian is proof that you're a Nazi, & is trying to obliterate the Ukrainian language in lands it controls. Russia should be given a set of preconditions for negotiations, including renunciation of all that. Keeping any of those on the table is proof of bad faith, in my eyes.

Yes, Ukraine has some bad language policies, but remember that it elected a Russian-speaking president with a huge majority.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Russia is willing to negotiate only on the basis that Russia wins, & Russia has proved far more untrustworthy than Ukraine.
Do we actually know Russia's negotiating position? The leak of the Istanbul Accords seemed to show Russia willing to give up all of Kherson and Zaporozhye.

It's very hard to see a basis for negotiation with Russia as long as Russia is claiming that territory it doesn't control, & where Russian-speakers are a minority, is Russian territory forever, & not negotiable, & still maintaining that Ukrainian is not an ethnicity or language, that calling oneself Ukrainian is proof that you're a Nazi, & is trying to obliterate the Ukrainian language in lands it controls. Russia should be given a set of preconditions for negotiations, including renunciation of all that. Keeping any of those on the table is proof of bad faith, in my eyes.
What do you consider a reasonable compromise given the realities on the ground?

Yes, Ukraine has some bad language policies, but remember that it elected a Russian-speaking president with a huge majority.
They elected him on a platform of implementing the Minsk Accords. Which Ukraine's own elites prevented him from doing. This is exactly my point. Ukraine has a policy of forced assimilation that predates the current conflict by a long way.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
A reasonable compromise is very, very difficult, because of Russian untrustworthiness. A Russian guarantee of Ukrainian independence, for example - we've been there. It's hard to see any durable end which doesn't include military defeat of Russia. And that is a huge problem.

A compromise that allowed a referendum in Crimea under international supervision & restricted to those residing in Crimea pre-Russian seizure might be reasonable, with options including independence & joining Russia - but demilitarised.

Both sides guaranteeing language rights, Russian recognition of Ukrainian independence (again), ethnicity, & language, permission to return or compensation for lost property for all people displaced from Crimea & Donbas, Russian military withdrawal from Ukraine, real autonomy (with local security services) for any parts of Donbas that vote for it in fair, internationally supervised referenda with displaced Ukrainians able to vote . . .

But the biggest problem is the possibility of Russia trying again. Putin has form. How can he be trusted? Remember, his breaches of agreements are far greater than those of the Ukrainians. He's killed tens of thousands & displaced millions.

About language: not having official status is not in the same category as banning publication in it & teaching of it (even at home), & hunting down & destroying books in it, is it?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
A reasonable compromise is very, very difficult, because of Russian untrustworthiness. A Russian guarantee of Ukrainian independence, for example - we've been there. It's hard to see any durable end which doesn't include military defeat of Russia. And that is a huge problem.
Will Russia accept a substantive military defeat without going nuclear? Quite a problem. I wouldn't. But then I'm not in charge. Guarantees from Russia are not particularly meaningful. They can be included sure, why not, but I wouldn't regard guarantees by either side as a substantive concession or offer of value.

A compromise that allowed a referendum in Crimea under international supervision & restricted to those residing in Crimea pre-Russian seizure might be reasonable, with options including independence & joining Russia - but demilitarised.
I suspect this one would be a non-starter. The sheer infrastructure costs of rebasing the Black Sea Fleet would be staggering. Russia made an attempt to do that in the 2000's with the construction of a new base at Novorossiysk and fell horribly short despite considerable resources expended. Maybe a "demilitarized" in the sense of drastically fewer ground forces and combat aircraft? Maybe demilitarized outside of Sevastopol's main base? There are also major repair plants inside Crimea that play a huge role in the functioning of the Black Sea Fleet.

Both sides guaranteeing language rights, Russian recognition of Ukrainian independence (again), ethnicity, & language, permission to return or compensation for lost property for all people displaced from Crimea & Donbas, Russian military withdrawal from Ukraine, real autonomy (with local security services) for any parts of Donbas that vote for it in fair, internationally supervised referenda with displaced Ukrainians able to vote . . .
The question becomes, do people who left the Donbas and have no intention of returning still get to vote? Why? Also who will run the referendum? What about full independence for the Donbas? Not on the table? Why not?

But the biggest problem is the possibility of Russia trying again. Putin has form. How can he be trusted? Remember, his breaches of agreements are far greater than those of the Ukrainians. He's killed tens of thousands & displaced millions.
NATO membership for post war Ukraine could do the trick. Possibly a special kind of membership that says "no NATO bases, but Article 5 applies". I'm really curious since to me there seem to be a lot of potentially tradable pieces here. Full and unrestricted NATO membership for Ukraine, with no Russian objects, in exchange for a no-referendum handover of the LDNR and Crimea with full recognition? Russia paying buckets of cash, with a full lifting of sanctions? (let's be clear, without sanctions the Russian economy is a powerhouse, not China or the US by any means, but a reasonable source of most if not all of the gigantic funds needed to repair the damage of this war)

About language: not having official status is not in the same category as banning publication in it & teaching of it (even at home), & hunting down & destroying books in it, is it?
I get the sense that you're implying something. Can you elaborate? Many war-time excesses have taken place but I'm not aware of any blanket ban on Ukrainian-language publications in Russia, nor any ban on teaching Ukrainian. A quick search revealed many businesses offering courses of Ukrainian language in Moscow, and several universities offering it as a subject.


And apparently Russia has developed a program for Ukrainian to be taught as a second language in grade schools. This is associated with the annexation of many territories that contain native Ukrainian-speakers. Note this is dated April 2023, and the language will be "classical Ukrainian" i.e. not the surzhik Russian-Ukrainian hybrid spoken in practice by many Russian-Ukrainian speakers.

 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
A reasonable compromise is very, very difficult, because of Russian untrustworthiness. A Russian guarantee of Ukrainian independence, for example - we've been there. It's hard to see any durable end which doesn't include military defeat of Russia. And that is a huge problem.
Once UKR goes NATO, that avenue is closed.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
think expectations on both sides that the others will reach exhaustion soon are misguided.
That's why I said in my post, it can be 6 mo from now, a year or two year. It all depends on development in the ground. If no sides make meaningful break through, and only changing possitioning as this war already seen for close to a year, then it is basically a stalemate.

By that time, each sides can decide continue jostling or trying to find common ground for ceasefire. I already said since last year, the development on the ground will decide new lines. It is easy for us behind the keyboard to say they will continue till each sides make their goal or capitulation on one side. Capitulation on each sides seems getting far away each days, and it is left on stalemate.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
A reasonable compromise is very, very difficult, because of Russian untrustworthiness.
We need to be careful on making this statement.

I am not referring to the Russians but rather the notion that trust / keeping their word is an absolute pre-requisite for a compromise. By putting it as a pre-req, you will not see any breakthrough, because it is almost impossible to value, quantify and validate trust. Besides, you are trustyworthy until you are not trustworthy.

In the absence of "trust", you have needs and consequences. Needs can and are driven by the reality of the situation both on the battlefield and domestic politics. Consequences would be what happens if treaties/agreements are broken. From these basics, trust can be gradually rebuilt.

You don't go into negotiation with a hijacker by measuring his trustworthiness because it is zero anyway; you start from zero trust and build it up, by exchanging and managing needs and consequences.
 
Last edited:

rsemmes

Member
These were Gady's takeaways:
1.) By and large this is an infantryman’s fight (squad, platoon and company level) supported by artillery along most of the frontline. This has several implications.
1st: Progress is measured by yards/meters and not km/miles given reduced mobility.
2nd: Mechanized formations are rarely deployed due to lack of enablers for maneuver. This includes insufficient quantities of de-mining equipment, air defenses, ATGMs etc.
2.) Ukrainian forces have still not mastered combined arms operations at scale. Operations are more sequential than synchronized. This creates various problems for the offense and IMO [in my opinion] is the main cause for slow progress.
3.) Ukrainian forces by default have switched to a strategy of attrition relying on sequential fires rather than maneuver. This is the reason why cluster munitions are critical to extend current fire rates into the fall: weakening Russian defenses to a degree that enables maneuver.
4.) Minefields are a problem as most observers know. They confine maneuver space and slow advances. But much more impactful than the minefields per se on Ukraine’s ability to break through Russian defenses is Ukraine's inability to conduct complex combined arms operations at scale. Lack of a comprehensive combined arms approach at scale makes Ukrainian forces more vulnerable to Russian ATGMs, artillery etc. while advancing. So it's not just about equipment. There’s simply no systematic pulling apart of the Russian defensive system that I could observe.
5.) The character of this offensive will only likely change if there is a more systematic approach to breaking through Russian defenses, perhaps paired with or causing a severe degradation of Russian morale, that will lead to a sudden or gradual collapse of Russian defenses. Absent a sudden collapse of Russian defenses, I suspect this will remain a bloody attritional fight with reserve units being fed in incrementally in the coming weeks and months.
6.) There is limited evidence of a systematic deep battle that methodically degrades Russian C2 [command and control]/munitions. Despite rationing on the Russian side, ammunition is available and Russians appear to have fairly good battlefield ISR [information, surveillance, reconnaissance] coverage.
Russians also had no need to deploy operational reserves yet to fend off Ukrainian attacks. There is also evidence of reduced impact of HIMARS strikes due to effective Russian countermeasures. (This is important to keep in mind regarding any potential tactical impact of delivery of ATACMs [U.S.-produced Army Tactical Missile System]).
The Ukrainian military reported on July 17 that the Russian forces had deployed more than 100,000 personnel in the Lyman-Kupyansk area. A
Russian forces, even if severely degraded and lacking ammo, are likely capable of delaying, containing or repulsing individual platoon or company-sized Ukrainian advances unless these attacks are better coordinated and synchronized along the broader frontline.
7.) Quality of Russian forces varies. Attrition is hitting them hard but they are defending their positions well, according to Ukrainians we spoke to. They have been quite adaptable at the tactical level and are broadly defending according to Soviet/Russian doctrine.
8.) Russian artillery rationing is real and happening. Ukraine has established fire superiority in tube artillery while Russia retains superiority in MRLSs in the South. Localized fire superiority in some calibers alone does not suffice, however, to break through Russian defenses.
9.) An additional influx of weapons systems (e.g., ATACMs, air defense systems, MBTs, IFVs etc.) while important to sustain the war effort, will likely not have a decisive tactical impact without adaptation and more effective integration.
Ukraine will have to better synchronize and adapt current tactics, without which western equipment will not prove tactically decisive in the long run. This is happening but it is slow work in progress. (Most NATO-style militaries would struggle with this even more than the Ukrainians IMO).
10.) The above is also true for breaching operations. Additional mine clearing equipment is needed and will be helpful (especially man-portable mine-clearing systems) but not decisive without better integration of fire and maneuver at scale.
Again, I cannot emphasize enough how difficult this is to pull off in wartime.
Monocausal explanations for failure (like lack of de-mining equipment) do not reflect reality. E.g., some Ukrainian assaults were stopped by Russian ATGMs even before reaching the 1st Russian minefield.
11.) There is a dearth of artillery barrels that is difficult to address given production rates and delivery timelines.
12.) So far Ukraine’s approach in this counteroffensive has been first and foremost direct assaults on Russian positions supported by a rudimentary deep battle approach. And no, these direct assaults are not mere probing attacks.
13.) There is evidence of tactical cyber operations supporting closing of kinetic kill-chains. That is cyber ISR contributing to identifying and tracking targets on the battlefield. Starlink remains absolutely key for Ukrainian command and control.
14.) Quality of Ukrainian officers and NCOs we met appears excellent and morale remains high. However, there are some force quality issues emerging with less able bodied and older men called up for service now.
15.) The narrative that Ukrainian progress thus far is slow just because of a lack of weapons deliveries and support is monocausal and is not shared by those we spoke to actually fighting and exercising command on the frontline.
16.) It goes without saying that in a war of attrition, more artillery ammunition and hardware is always needed and needs to be steadily supplied. Western support of Ukraine certainly should continue as there is still the prospect that the counteroffensive will make gains. But soldiers fighting on the frontline we spoke to are all too aware that lack of progress is often more due to force employment, poor tactics, lack of coordination between units, bureaucratic red tape/infighting, Soviet style thinking etc. ... and Russians putting up stiff resistance.

You haven't got this one yet?

The actual report will be very interesting to read, a second "Preliminary Conclusions".
 

Larry_L

Active Member
Apparently Igor Girkin has been arrested in Moscow,

Another member of the "Club of Angry Patriots" has also been arrested. Pavel Gubarev, the chairman of the club, and the former self appointed governor of Donetsk is one of the most radical elements of the Russian federation. He has been quoted as advocating mass killing as a filtration measure.

Quote: “We aren’t coming to kill you, but to convince you. But if you don’t want to be convinced, we’ll kill you. We’ll kill as many as we have to: 1 million, 5 million, or exterminate all of you.”

This may be a hint that Russia is thinking of negotiating, but more likely is mostly about consolidating power where it currently rests, as it follows a purge of military officers.



 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Is Brit still keep them on workable conditions? If not mistaken I watch YouTube video shown some UK civilians manage to get hold few of them. So is there any inventories still in military grade storage? I Imagine some in UK perhaps trying to buy back Challenger 1 from Jordan, or perhaps some wondering why the entire Challenger 1 being sold to Jordanian at first place.
The Chieftain was a good tank, arguably one of the best the Poms ever built, but IIRC it was underpowered and the Leyland engine was absolute sheep manure.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
Some replies to a few random posts, in no particular order.

True. But that doesn't excuse Russia's breaking of the agreement.

Everything comes down to that. The onlyunequivocal, unforced, written agreement is the one in which Russia & a couple of western countries agree to recognise & protect Ukraine's independence & territorial integrity within its 1991 borders.

Russia broke that agreement. Nobody else.
This is not necessarily true though. From the Budapest Memorandum:

[…]except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.[…]

The initiators and the executors will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.


Russia very clearly sees NATO, and the USA in particular, as a threat. Is that not true? Sure, there are numerous statements here stating that NATO is not a threat to Russia - the official position that is repeated over and over and over, which I am not even sure has any relevance, definitely not at this point anyway and, likely, never did - and is a purely defensive alliance, etc. Is it how the Russians see it (including Putin and Co)? Well… if you think the answer is yes, you have not been following for quite a while. In fact, concerns had been clearly (I don’t believe any more clarity could be expressed, really) presented to the other “initiators and executors” for a very long time. Had they been not? Had there not been “consultations” held on the subject over the past few decades and more recently on the subject of Ukraine and NATO?

you are forgetting the very important issue: assuming a negotiated settlement, what comes next? The only way to ensure no repeats is to soundly defeat Russia. We’ve learned from the last two or three negotiated peaces that negotiations do not work. We need to bloody them but good, leaving them all but destroyed. Thats the only way to put this to a stop. Sad, but unfortunately true.

Art
Ironically, that is more or less exactly what is happening in Ukraine right now. The only “but” is we need to replace “Russia” with “Ukraine” and this post is pretty much entirely true from the Russian perspective.

remember that it elected a Russian-speaking president with a huge majority.
As mentioned, the guy was elected on ending the conflict in the east (basically following through on the Minsk agreements), as well as to end the rampant corruption. The former is out in the open for us all to see and discuss here. The latter… Well, they haven’t moved an inch, so to speak, in the past 5 years (way longer than that, really). For convenience, here are the last six reports from Transparency International: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022. Looking at other sources, you may find Ukraine and Russia standing literally one after the other as far as corruption is concerned

It had nothing to do with language, in my opinion. Perhaps, it had everything to do with fatigue? Fatigue of the bull manure being pushed by the Poroshenko government and the “right-wing patriots”? Note, Poroshenko has been accused of treason together with Medvdchuk (the same file). The very first Google search result is the source. Fatigue of the war? And so on.

Saying “look, they elected a Russian speaker, so there is no problem” is about the same as saying “look, they elected a Jew, so there can be no “nazis” in Ukraine and its ranks in particular” (a good read on the latter subject from the NYT: Nazi Symbols on Ukraine’s Front Lines Highlight Thorny Issues of History)

A very important, in my opinion, thing to note here is the fact that for the first time almost the entire country voted for the same person and the eastern part was leading the way: 2019 Ukrainian presidential election - Wikipedia (sorry for Wikipedia link, but there is a very striking graphic; checkout the all other elections in Ukraine for comparison). Yet, even here, one can see a clear division between the eastern and wester Ukraine.

EDIT: Where are you getting the Minsk accords anyway? Russia leadership has never mention them as the reason for invasion. It was always denazification or that Putins historical lesson of how Ukraine is Russia.
From February 22, 2022, as reported by TASS (via Google translate):

"And therefore, I want to emphasize once again that we were interested in implementing this Set of Measures, because this is the result of a compromise," Putin stressed. He recalled that he was among the authors of this document on behalf of the Russian Federation.

The Ukrainian authorities publicly stated that they would not comply with the Minsk agreements, the Russian Federation could not tolerate genocide of the Donbas people. "Actually speaking, yesterday's event, the recognition of these republics, is dictated precisely by the fact that the leadership of Kiev, the leadership of Ukraine, has already publicly begun to declare that they are not going to implement these [Minsk] agreements. They're not going to do it, what else can you say here? And the first persons have already publicly announced this. What to expect next? To wait for the continuation of this bullying of people, this genocide of almost four million people who live in these territories? It's just impossible to look at it. <...> Well, how can this continue to be tolerated?" said the Russian leader.

Kiev reduced all efforts to implement the Minsk agreements to zero, they were "killed" by the Ukrainian leadership long before the recognition of the DPR and LPR, Putin said.

"All other years <...> by the efforts of the current Kiev authorities, everything was reduced to zero. The Minsk agreements were killed long before yesterday's recognition of the people's republics of Donbass. And not by us, not representatives of these republics, but by the current Kiev authorities," the Russian leader said.


Again, falsehoods in your post.

Almost forgot the source: Путин заявил, что минских соглашений больше не существует
 
Top