Just because one country carries out an illegal invasion, does not mean any other country can do the same. The old saying comes to mind, Two wrongs don't make a right, in other words it is not valid to carry out a criminal act, making the excuse that someone else also did it.
The simple reality was that the Ukraine Government was quite legally (they are a sovereign country) had decided to alline with Europe instead of Russia and Putin did not like it and as an independent and Russia had no right to do anything about it state they had every right to do so.
What genuine concerns.
www.ukrainianworldcongress.org
It’s a little more complicated than that in Ukraine though. Here is the latest “incident” from less than a week ago (on X):
Putin knows very well that there was no threat to Russian sovereignty when we use the internationally recognized borders of Russia as a definition of "Russia". Just like there are few Satanists and few Nazis in Ukraine. This war is about Russia trying to rebuild their empire and Ukraine is considered by Moscow to be a key part of that empire.
I don't know Radchenko but I have read a bit of and about Ragozin. He is basically a "mole" pretending to be against Putin but is actually attacking Western countries and Ukraine from the inside. A devious and dangerous person, pretending to be someone he is not.
I specifically said I don't think it was Russian sovereignty but there is a difference between a threat to national sovereignty and a security issue. Crimea is a good example the potential for Ukraine under western controls to lock the Russia navy out of the black sea is a serious security issue for Russia tho it's not a sovereignty issue. Same with Western or western supported millitary assets on the border
Yes there is a solid point about Ukraine not being a Russian vassle state tho vassle state is perhaps to strong a term I would say Ukraine under strong Russian influence is more accurate. The switch from that to under strong Western influence is the security threat Russia was warning about. Think the Monro doctrine in the United States. As for Ukraine not being fond of Russians I think it very much depend on were in Ukraine your talking about there is/was a huge divide east and west on this issue much of the east was/is solidly pro Russian in terms of language culture and history. If not politics.Just because one country carries out an illegal invasion, does not mean any other country can do the same. The old saying comes to mind, Two wrongs don't make a right, in other words it is not valid to carry out a criminal act, making the excuse that someone else also did it.
Very true, also kinda irrelevant as far as reality in international affairs goes (sadly) to be honest If wars were only fought when everyone agrees on who is in the wrong they would in fact never be fought... On the flip side I believe if both sides were understood more often they would be fought less often. Hypocrisy rarely is of benefit in these situations
The simple reality was that the Ukraine Government was quite legally (they are a sovereign country) had decided to alline with Europe instead of Russia and Putin did not like it and as an independent and Russia had no right to do anything about it state they had every right to do so.
This would be along post about the legitimacy of Ukrainian elections the antirussian laws passed the (yes not a treaty) but word of America regarding further NATO expansion.
but I'll sume it up by saying ng from the point of Russia it was a very threating series of events one they were vocal about. A good indication of this is when Merkel voted down urain NATO expansion due to he believe that Russia would consider it a act of war
What genuine concerns.
They said they had some but they really don't stand up to any scrutiny and must be viewed in the same light as the excuses that Hitler used that resulted in WW2 .
The reality was that Ukraine stopped being a vassal state to Russia and Putin did not like it and simply thought he could roll in and change the government as the USSR had done to Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Did not work as historically Ukrainians are not very fond of Russians.
One can also refer to the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, which the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, which Russia ignored
A history of Ukraine
History of Ukraine-Russia relations - Ukrainian World Congress
The significance is not the identity of the social medial personality reporting on this, but the nature of the statements made by a Ukrainian government official.
The excuse of Western hostility to Russia is not valid as prior to 2014 Russian taking of Crimea from Ukraine the West was ambivalent to Russia and simply wanted peace and trade to continue. The continued reduction of their armed forces was a clear indication of this and there was never any apatite for any conflict with Russia. In appearance it all is just Putin trying to restore the grandeur of the old borders of the USSR and its empire. The Western hostility only arose due to the aggression displayed by Russia to its neighbours. I also note that the comment on Western aid only coming when Ukraine was on the back foot also indicates the west unwillingness to be aggressive towards Russia unless forced to.
You seem to be forgetting something. All the western military aid to Ukraine is a reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Think about it. 15 years ago Western countries, & particularly European ones, were gradually disarming, cutting the size of their armed forces, & often not spending enough even to keep the equipment they had operating. They were letting arms & ammunition factories close, & running down stocks. They barely even reacted to Russia grabbing Crimea & Donbas.
I'm not forgetting it was after Russian aggression I pointed it out because from the Russian prospective it's confirmation that the west is "against Russia".
The Russian perception is simply wrong. It is not rational, coherent, or logical. It is no more realistic than the "jewish threat" against Nazi Germany.
Something spooked the Isrealis. I would also point out you dont manufacture multiple hardened Uranium refinement sites and enrich Uranium up to 60% for a peaceful nuclear program.
Yet the reality is as follows:
Well I could point out thatevery monertiering agency there is has no evidence of Iran trying to build a bomb. But it doesn't matter Israel and the u.s had reason to believe they did. Iran like Ukraine could have taken steps drastic as they may have been to remove those fears but didn't. As far as Russia by being rational that's literally opinion infact that is why perspective matters. I could point out Russia's fears of how Crimea would deny them there only warm water ports how that is a national security issue for Russia, and to be objective I believe that any country would consider that possibility a security issue.
One small correction. The west did something. The west provided economic support to Ukraine, and passed sanctions against Russia. They also refused to recognize the annexation.
You're assuming that he knew those would be the consequences. But Russia went into Ukraine thinking it could end things quickly. I suspect the plan wasn't conquest, but rather was regime change. It's only as the war dragged on and Russia failed to achieve their objectives that things went down this path. It's possible to, fearing NATO, ironically take missteps to manage perceived risk and end up incurring a much greater risk as a result. It would indicate a strategic blunder but then... isn't that what this war is?
You could be right, I don’t follow the guy, but occasionally see his posts and articles. I don’t believe this is the case from what I see. He certainly has different opinions from yours, but it doesn’t make him a “mole”, I don’t think. Over the past three years, a whole bunch of people were called “Russian shills” for various reasons, from western analysts and politicians to the Russian “opposition leaders” (departed Navalny, Kara-Murza, Yashin, etc, who actually are Russian “shills” by definition, but not in the spirit they are referred to as such) and people such as Ragozin. In absolute majority of cases this is because people do not have sufficient information to understand decisions made by others (politicians), unable or unwilling to see the reality, simply disagreeing with the “shill”, etc. It is actually pretty rare that the “shill” is actually a shill.
Russia is currently in a spat with Azerbaijan after some arrests. Depending on who you believe, they're either going after leaders of organized crime or after legitimate Azeri businessmen. I suspect this might be related.
Dont get me wrong, I agree completely with the concept that RU wanted a quick regime change and things spun way out of control. Now we have "good money following bad" and the RU demands are knowingly unacceptable to UKR at this time.
Not that the UKR demands are knowingly acceptable to RU at this time.