I'm attempting to break through the shills for a moment for an honest question.
What is the official reason for the attack? Not the true reason, just the official narrative reason.
Surely, they aren't trying to just go with the "angry evil russian guy does bad thing because he's bad" story, right?
So what's the reason?
Puton claims that ukraine is a nazi state that has murdered innocent ivans since the soviet breakup.
For real. Thats his official reason. That ukrainians are nazis.
Something about Ukraine culture teaching Russians how to be gay, which Putin didn't like
Putin's long winded rant basically stated the direction Ukraine was headed in was unacceptable for Russia.
From there he inched his way in coming up with bullshit excuses and false flags each time, like acknowledging east Ukraine's independence and putting in troops to protect them. Kind of a weaselly way to do it.
The true reason is that Putin is a big fan of the Red Alert series and wanted to try it in real life
Tsukihime > Fate
Melty Blood > TsukiRE
Nowhere is running the story that putin did it just because he is le bad!!11.
He obviously has his motives, he didn't want ukraine to joing nato so invaded to stop that happening. That's the official reason and it's likely the real reason. It's not that complicated, not everything has to be a conspiracy 10 layers deep.
Rin > Sabre
Based and truthpilled. Remake sucks ass
hearty kek hahaha
wtf?
>He obviously has his motives, he didn't want ukraine to joing nato so invaded to stop that happening.
That's an even stupider explanation than "he's just evil".
>What is the official reason for the attack?
Just listen to his fucking speech. It's incredible how many people think their opinion is worth something when they don't have the slightest idea of what they're talking about.
The west has inched closer to Russia breaking a few pacts (Minsk agreement for example.) ukraines previously pro Russian government was colour revolutioned a while back. Since then a lot of dodgy shit has been going on in Ukraine, a lot of ‘development money’ has been siphoned off (Hunter Biden just one example.) there are rumours of even soviet stuff than the usual base corruption, chemical and biological weapons, arms moved v close to Russian border and servers that are physically in the area but not subject to EU laws. Russia wants a neutral country where Ukraine is and right now it’s being pushed towards politically being aligned with the west. The west has told Ukraine they’d have their back if Russia kicked back and dangled EU/NATO membership at them and all that has turned out to be a lie. So Ukraine is screwed.
Ordinary Ukrainians suffer, Russia invades, hopefully just installs a puppet govt (military neutral or Russian friendly) and backs off. Unless someone fucks up and starts WW3 by shooting a plane down or sinking a ship they shouldn’t be.
There’s a link somehow with turkey and Syria but it’s murky. Putin is a dangerous bloke, the west treats him like a comedy bogeyman which is a mistake. Even more of a mistake to use Ukraine as the Wild West for expansionism and Very Dodgy Shit. I feel pretty sorry for civilian Ukrainians
b-b-biolab?
Putin felt it was a good time to use hard power to regain control of Ukraine for economic and demographic reasons. Russia has a population in decline and they need Ukraine to prevent a demographic crisis, as Ukraine generally has a younger and healthier population. They also need Ukraine to be under their control to allow for less expensive distribution of natural gas and oil, and to expand their farmland and industrial base. Without Ukraine, Russia will wither and die as Muslims from the former Republic gradually become the majority of their population and they become the nation-state equivalent of nothing more than a gas station run by brown people
Excellent take
>real reason
Since coming out of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has been divided into pro-western Ukrainian speakers in the West and pro-Russia Russian speakers in the East, who were heavily supported by Russia. Politics and elections and such were all closely divided along these lines, but the average person's opinion was that they shouldn't try to get too close to either side.
In 2014 Ukraine had the opportunity to take the first step towards EU membership. This was tempting because the EU offers a lot of money. Putin freaked out, created a "Eurasian Union", and demanded that the pro-Russian President join it instead. He complied, but there were massive riots across the country until he got forced out of office. Russia maintains this was a CIA coup that was accompanied by Nazi pogroms of Russian-speakers in the East.
Putin then responded by occupying Crimea and backing separatist forces in the Russian areas. These separatists were a disappointment to Russian intelligence because they completely failed to take areas that weren't close to the border. At the same time, the fact that Russia is clearly behind all of this has evaporated most of the goodwill Ukrainian Russian-speakers had towards Russia, to the point where most of the country became in favor of joining EU/NATO.
So Putin felt he had to act or not only would Ukraine leave the Russian sphere, they'd join the Western one instead.
It's over saber bros our girl is shit
Precisely this. Putin mentioned specifically that from a tactical standpoint he simply cannot allow NATO nuclear weapons 30 minutes from Moscow. (Obviously.) He brought up the point a couple times, I think to evoke memories of events like the Cuban Missile Crisis where America found itself in similar precarious positions.
However I think there's a big layer of the "excuse to kill Europeans" mixed in there because everyone involved is either a Jew or a Mason.
BOOBIES AND GIRL BUTT :D
Russia as old school claims to the land. Even Poland.
The Dutch have claim to the new york city area.
Ie old territory claims/ disputes.
Do you realistically see NATO as an offensive threat you fuckin retard? That was just rhetoric. Ukraine was not joining NATO anyway, but NATO aren't an offensive alliance
According to the Montevideo convention of 1933 a state, in order to be recognized as such, and thus, making it a subject of international law requires these elements:
ARTICLE 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
This was mostly true for the majority of the XX century but, international law always changes according to time and customs, so, the doctrine added a new requisite and that is "International recognition"
This all happened in a very short frame of time and I forgot what law exactly Putin invoked in order to invade, but the timeline is like this
Putin recognizes both of the conflicts zones as sovereign states - both states gain status as international law subjects - both the legislative entities of Russia and these newly recognized states establish a defensive pact - The defensive pact instantly activates, binding and forcing Russia to intervene.
If Ukraine had stopped it's military operations against Donetsk then this conflict would have stopped there, but, they decided not to, so things escalated to where we are now.
Now, for the reasons leading to this conflict, you'll have to do your reading, but these are the legal aspects of the invasion.
Which is, in the eyes of international law, in observance of it's precepts and customs.
Ukrainians have been keeping a small Nazi battalion around. They could've disbanded and cracked down on them, but they didn't. What does that tell you about Ukraine?
>Episope
At least proof read for fuck's sake
Here are the OSCE reports on artillery shellings of Donetsk and Lugansk. Ukros are fucking retards
osce.org