this post was submitted on 20 May 2022
6 points (60.0% liked)
Europe
3871 readers
48 users here now
Europa
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But Putin isn't interested to find a diplomatic solution, he have his own plans. He will maybe interested in a diplomatic solution if he got more under pressure .But from the past he learned he can do what he want no buddy try stop him. So someone have show his limits like a little child have to learn it. How you can make politic with a guy you can't trust ? You need some security. Everybody want to find diplomatic solution but you say now to the Ukraines hey common what is wrong with you just find a diplomatic solution with super power there not interested in diplomatic solution and there just reaped and killed you wife and children. Now is time to show unity and strength and i hope Russia is than interested in a diplomatic solution. My way was i tried to inform people on Russia Social Networks that the west are not Nazi peoples. But was also very scary to see if you now playing video games like Insurgency what also a lot of Russia people, there using now west people as a insult.
This is a false statement. Putin has tried to find a diplomatic solution for over 8 years. The west refused to do diplomacy during this whole time. NATO has expanded for the past 30 years despite promises not to move east. NATO has continuously destroyed countries and continued to surround Russia. Countless western experts warned that this will ultimately lead to a conflict. Politics isn't about trust. It's about understanding your interests and the interests of others. It's about recognizing red lines, and creating conditions where conflict can be avoided.
Russia never threatened Ukraine until the west ran a coup there, and put in a regime there with ambitions to absorb it into NATO. Finland and Sweden have never been threatened by Russia, until they expressed ambitions to join NATO. It's as if NATO expansion has been the key destabilizing factor here all along as everyone who has a modicum of understanding of the subject has been saying.
The escalation created the current crisis and now you're claiming that the solution is more escalation. You're absolutely insane and people like you will be the end of us all.
No, this is than a misunderstanding im just for do something and don't looking away like we did this the last years. But to be a democratic regime this decision was coming from the Ukraine folk otherwise there would like it to be a part of Russia again. Of course the NATO did mistakes the last years but this is still not acceptable what Russia/Putin is doing.
NATO is currently fuelling the conflict and fighting Russia in a proxy war at great cost to Ukraine. This isn't something that happened in the past, NATO is playing a direct role in the atrocities today. Of course, this doesn't justify what Russia is doing, but it takes two to tango. My original point is that the west chose to escalate towards conflict instead of pursuing diplomacy. Now there is a war in Europe and millions of people are suffering. Yet, the west continues to fuel the fire bringing us to the brink of global annihilation.
There was never any such promise.
you are a liar https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629
Promises between countries are made with treaties, not words traded over breakfast.
A promise was made, and later broken. You claimed that no such promise was made which was a lie.
I believe they threw their president out because he stopped the EU progress they had made and had nothing to do with NATO. NATO came formally in to the picture in 2019 once the threat from Russia had mounted.
I highly recommend educating yourself on the subject before opining. Lots has been written over the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan on the first chapter.
Oh you mean this Euromaidan? https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
US officials, unhappy with the scuttled EU deal, saw a similar chance in the Maidan protests.
Your source states very clearly that the US did not orchestrate the Maidan protests, and that its involvement was due to the aborted EU-deal.
Nothing in there about the Maidan government wanting to join NATO, aside from one reference to Putin's paranoia about it :
Indeed, the article referenced in this sentence says:
So, according to your source, Crimea was not annexed in reaction to Ukraine giving up its neutrality, but in prevision of it.
Nuland is literally on tape selecting the government after the coup, but you do you bud.
Not my point, I never said the US did not participate.
Participate is such a great euphemism for saying US actively worked to overthrow the government.
"participating" means "actively working", how is this wordplay contradicting my comment?
US orchestrated this coup, and I've linked you tons of documents supporting this in our previous discussion. I recall you whining that it was too much reading.
You did link a ton of documents, and I have not found yet the ones supporting that claim (does not help that you did not single them out). In fact, the article that we are discussing here, who as I highlighted explicitly states the opposite, was part of that ton of documents.
It is the second time that you use this document to support what it denies.
I'm sorry you have poor reading comprehension.
Please, help me understanding what I poorly comprehend in
I've already spent a lot of time explaining this in the past thread. It's pretty clear there's no point for me to continue wasting energy here. If you don't want to understand that Maidan coup was orchestrated by US, then there's nothing I can say that will change that.
Indeed you did repeat it a couple of times.
You never highlighted a source for that single claim though. Nor for the one that the Maidan government had plans to join NATO.
On the other hand you provided a source that explicitly denies those statements that you claim it contributes proving.
What is particularly ridiculous is that to a comment sourcing the claim that the Maidan revolts were caused by the aborted EU deal, you replied by citing the above article that agrees with @Ninmi 's point that you thought it disproved.
The sources I provided you with clearly demonstrate that US was directly involved in the coup, and hand picked the members of the puppet regime that it installed after. If you don't understand why US wanted to install this regime in Ukraine then you really need to read up on US geopolitical goals and history.
Here's an article from the Guardian from 2004 for you, that talks about US starting to meddle in Ukraine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
In 2008, Bush openly stated plans to integrate Ukraine in to NATO
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia
Here's a Guardian article from 2014 stating the obvious
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
US played a direct role in both funding and orchestrating the coup
Imagine arguing with a straight face that the regime had no intentions of joining NATO given that US openly stated desires to integrate Ukraine into NATO, and handpicked the regime in Ukraine after the coup.
Only relevant sources and no insults, thanks I guess?
It did play a role, we agree on that; my point is that it is very speculative to assume that it single-handedly had the whole decisive power. Whether they truly led the revolution is a disputed fact, even among your sources. Same for choosing the new government, the phone call shows they had a say in that, but to my knowledge nothing shows that they single-handedly picked the whole government, as there were other parties involved, including Ukrainian pro-EU and Ukrainian nazis.
That they were going to join NATO is a pure speculation based on the opinions that
About the latter, do you think an economic weakening of Russia through the EU-deal would not already be a favorable turn for the US? I recall that the official position of the Maidan government was that it was not planning to become a NATO member, at least until the annexation of Crimea.
The fact that they were going to join NATO is the only reasonable explanation for why US wanted to do a regime change in Ukraine in the first place. Everything this regime has done while it was in power is in line with this explanation.