Please no shitposting or insults, let's have a serious discussion going.
>Muh 8 years of bombing Donbass Pic related is the number of civilian deaths every year of conflict, (2020 and 2021 were even lower). A steady decrease of hostilities and violence. Now can one justify killing the double amount of civilians in less than 3 months now? And the people who are dying are the most pro-russian ukrainians. The most 'nazi' ukies live in the western part mostly untouched by the war. Also the Donbass war was started by russian mercs and because Russia were fueling them with weapones. For example Kharkiv also was trying to form a separatist republic back in 2014, at the end that went to nothing and they lived a normal peaceful life until this war started in february, no prohibition of russian, no genocide against them, nothing.
>NATO expansion, US want to attack Russia Estonia and Letonia are in NATO for many years now, why they are not a problem for Russia? Why Russia will not invade them? Now Finland will also join and they share an even bigger border with Russia than Ukraine. Will putin also attack them? But anyway with the balistic missiles it don't even matter if you are at the border or not, they will hit any target in Russia in just some minutes. But Russia have nukes, that means no country will ever invade them if they don't want to start a nuclear war.
You need to be 18 to post here. Also basic savoir in geopolitics would be nice.
>What is the casus belli The official casus belli is that: 1. Ukraine has been infiltrated by NATO since 2014. The alliance was actively reforming and rebuilding the Ukrainian military, to get it up to NATO standards. Which is no different from making Ukraine a NATO member, just unofficially. This was declared to be unacceptable for Russia already back in April 2008. Ukraine during Soviet times was designed as a “spearhead” against NATO, with shitloads of weapon/ammo stockpiles, bases, airfields. It was designed by the Soviets as a fortress in a war against the west, and now this fortress is being turned against Russia. 2. Russia claimed that a massive Ukrainian military force was assembling near Donetsk/Luhansk with a Blitz operation in mind, they wanted to conquer Donbass in a 3-day long campaign, and Russia’s turned the tables by invading first.
>Why Estonia and Letonia are not a problem for Russia They are, but they are in an extremely vulnerable position themselves. All it takes to neutralise the Baltics is cutting them off from Poland via the Suwalki gap. That’s a 20-40km area, which would likely take less than a day to conquer. Finland on the other hand is similar to Ukraine in terms of lack of geographic vulnerabilities. Their borders with Russia are massive and they cannot be easily neutralised.
>But Russia have nukes, that means no country will ever invade them if they don't want to start a nuclear war. Yeah this doesn’t work like in RTS games, sorry. Ever heard of hybrid warfare? Proxy warfare? Salami-tactics?
Let’s imagine Mi6 fuels some kind of armed rebellion in Russia’s south or western regions. Ukraine, as an official/unofficial NATO member armed to the teeth starts sending “volunteers” and “equipment” into Russia, due to their massive borders being hard to patrol.
How should Russia respond? By nuking Kiev, over volunteers? No, sounds excessive. Invade Ukraine and force it to stop feeling the war inside Russia? Sure, but by 2025-2030 Ukraine would likely end up having the biggest army in Europe, with fortified défenses and NATO savoir of battle-tactics. Such an invasion would end up being many times more costly for Russia than the current invasion. So Russia would end up being forced to use nukes against Ukraine to respond to Ukraine’s proxy-war involvement - which would be kind of “eeeek”
Putin treats this current war as a preemptive war for many reasons
Michael Wright
>shitloads of weapon/ammo stockpiles, bases, airfields. Totally useless for NATO because it's all Warsaw pact shit and not up to NATO standards.
>Finland on the other hand is similar to Ukraine in terms of lack of geographic vulnerabilities. Their borders with Russia are massive and they cannot be easily neutralised. So by your logic Russia should also start a war with Finland? Nope, they will never going to do so.
>Let’s imagine Mi6 fuels some kind of armed rebellion in Russia’s south or western regions. This is what exactlly Putin did with the war in Donbass, and somehow NATO is the evil ones?
Thomas Diaz
> Also the Donbass war was started by russian mercs and because Russia were fueling them with weapones Also wrong, was debunked by a Swiss officer who was participating in the restoration of the Ukrainian army since 2014+ He claimed that the main reason the war started, was because there were a lot of high-ranking army defectors in Donetsk/Luhansk regions after Kiev launched its crack-down operation on the independence movement in 2014. There’s where the rebels got all the weapons and equipment from - Ukraine’s own stockpiles. Russia started sending help only when shit got really ugly around 2015.
Ian Butler
>slavs >white
Aaron Diaz
tell me where Strelkov, Motorola, Alexander Borodai were born?
Jace Collins
>Totally useless for NATO because it's all Warsaw pact shit and not up to NATO standards. Great point, yet completely useless in the context of this argument. Ukraine has been relying quite heavily on these exact stockpiles in its current war with Russia. So it’s quite irrelevant whether they are Warsaw-pact era stockpiles or not. They are still numerous and effective in war. And have served Ukraine well in its défenses against Russia. > So by your logic Russia should also start a war with Finland? Nope, they will never going to do. Nice crystal ball you got there. Russia will engage in war against Finland if it deems so necessary. It already happened in the past, more than once. So you have history to prove you wrong. Additionally, it seems the Russian leadership is chimping out about Finland’s membership quite a lot, and talking about a “military-technical” response. The last time I heard that phrase was months prior to the Ukraine invasion.
Tyler Hernandez
>This is what exactlly Putin did with the war in Donbass, and somehow NATO is the evil ones? Not exactly what he did. Russia wanted to stay out of the conflict in Ukraine, but it was constantly being baited into joining it. The war could have been finished early in 2014-2015 if the west wanted the war to end. But they didn’t. They refused to put pressure on Kiev to follow Minsk agreements. Gentle reminder: Russia for 8 years straight refused to acknowledge any kind of “independence referendums” in the Donbass region, because they were still hoping for that region to remain part of Ukraine but with greater autonomy. A lot of top officials in the Kremlin were growing impatient with Putin’s reluctance to recognise the republics.
Now look at the current war. What is this war about based on Russia’s official statements? Two main demands: (1) non-alignment of Ukraine, and (2) independence for Luhansk/Donetsk. First of all, non-alignment for Ukraine would hurt nobody, neither would it hurt Ukraine, nor hurt Russia, nor hurt NATO. Second of all, Donetsk/Luhansk have been de-facto independent for 8 years.
Maybe it’s high-time NATO tells Kiev to just agree to these terms and people stop dying? Of course not, US/UK will keep sending billions of military aid into Ukraine, because simply, they don’t give a shit about Ukrainians. They want to get rid of a geopolitical opponent, not rescue a country.
Thomas Rivera
Dude you just posted cringe. 1. Of all Russia invade before Ukraine started to join NATO, the reason why Ukraine wants to join NATO is Russian invasion. Euromaidan was about police dictatorship and EU intigration, not about NATO at all 2. Of course Ukraine had massive forces near Luhansk and Donetsk cause there was a war zone....Besides what was the problem just to wait when Ukraine forces would attack and then use you army to conter? Its so simple, they wouldnt get sanctioned and shit.
3. Russian army is a shit tier army war with nato would mean absoulte deafet for them after several months. They dont have a fucking scopes and aviation team dont know how to work in big numbers, thats just fucking emberassing. 3 month war in Uktaine 40% of all equipment is destroyed ( only video and photo confirmation),,,just fucking pathetic im so fucking disappointed and glad at the same time
Im dont right this post as Ukrainian i write it as a guy with political science degree. It was so easy to understand that Ukraine would be eaten by Russia without any war but they just shoot their leg for some fucking magical number and flex. And look what happen...they just turn themself from Boogeman to a Peppa pig.
>Russia wanted to stay out of the conflict in Ukraine Oh please really? Maybe they shoud try not to steal a chunk of their territory while the country was in a weak possition because of the maidan?
Oliver Fisher
1. A road-path to Ukraine’s membership in NATO has been announced in April 2008. This was announced before the Georgian war of 2008/08/08. Look up the Bucharest summit declarations. Even the current-servicing CIA director wrote in 2008 that the Russians are very aggressive towards the idea of Ukraine joining, and that pushing Ukraine into NATO could cause a civil war, and potentially a full-scale Russian military response. After the Georgian war of 2008, Ukraine’s membership plans were put on hold, but the 2014 Maidan coup restarted this process, as Washington officials appeared on Kiev’s streets handing out cookies and openly talking about who they want to put in power after Yanukovich is gone. This caused Russia to do its Crimea thing, and the Crimea thing spiralled into NATO making Ukraine an unofficial member of its alliance by sending advisors to rebuild the Ukrainian army. 2. This point is incomprehensible to read. Please try again so I could respond. 3. Russian army has quite a lot more real-world experience than most of continent European NATO nations. And they have the technology as well (for example, home-grown cruise missiles, own GPS system, hypersonic technology, etc.) Additionally, geography plays a major role, so nothing is as clear cut as you’d like.
Colton Mitchell
>No, I just follow the news: politico.eu/article/putin-russia-no-problem-finland-sweden-join-nato Then you suck very much at it. Russia’s leadership said “We have no problem with Sweden and Finland joining NATO, but we have a problem with NATO infrastructure appearing in those countries.” So ultimately what they said was: “You can sign any paper you want, but we won’t let you become part of the alliance in a material-physical sense.” >Oh please really? Maybe they shoud try not to steal a chunk of their territory while the country was in a weak possition because of the maidan? Sure, maybe Maidan is also Russia’s fault? Lmao Crimea is a super-sensitive issue for Russia. And it became obvious what kind of plans NATO had for the Black Sea (Crimea including) after Maidan. Russia did the right thing, by solving a major weak point for itself with zero bullets fired. If Russia would wait until the situation in Crimea deteriorated, you’d see a loooot more deaths, but the exact same conclusion.
Jonathan Morgan
The official casus belli was a bunch of incoherent and ridiculous explanations that looked like they were making it up on the spot to see what sticks.
The actual casus belli was that Ukraine was turning western when they weren't supposed to be, they were supposed to be there. Putin tried to stop Russia's eventual Great Power decline by military means where he can't by either soft power, economic productivity or population growth. The decline is inevitable, however, because without those your military will be antiquated, ineffective and expensive and this fuels a negative feedback loop which makes the other three factors worse: Soft power because you're threatening everybody and nobody likes bullies, economic productivity because investment and resources are absorbed by the military and pointless wars and population growth because people leave somewhere else.
After the Cold War, Russia accepted a smaller role so that why the Baltics and most Eastern European countries where assumed as lost. Finland was western for a while in practice. It was those that Russia didn't consider lost where they drew the line.
>but we have a problem with NATO infrastructure appearing in those countries and exactly what NATO infrastructure have appeared in Ukraine?
>Crimea is a super-sensitive issue for Russia Not an argument, it's part of other country now. Same as Karelia was always historicaly part of Finland, now it belongs to Russia. >with zero bullets fired Yeah, nice one, It's a pitty the current war is a meat grinder.
Eli Baker
Because we time slip. More here.. Retrieve all United States aid and comfort from Ukraine. Stop your war at Russia. If you are a regime, and if you supply aid and comfort in Ukraine then you war Russia. If you are a regime, and if you war Russia then you are not justice warriors. If you retrieve all United States aid, and comfort, from Ukraine then you forfeit war at Russia. You are a regime. Forfeit war at Russia. Retrieve all United States aid, and comfort, from Ukraine. If you are not a regime then publicly declare free for all in both law and also order. If you do not publicly declare free for all in both law, and also order, then expect commensurate justice application within the United States. Rebellion. I may even rebel against United States regime. United States time slip years off committments. Government employees see masses using wrong dates, and government employees cooperate the wrong date. In time slips, jailed, imprisoned, and probationed endure extra punishment and correction. Punished and corrected are not brought back to court for resentencing nor time served reassement. Release jailed, imprisoned, and probationed at America. I am on probation. Respect me. In time slips, millions dollars disappear out of bank deposits and charity donations. Terrors, tragedies, and failures entail United States is regime or else United States lacks credibility in justice. United States is a regime, and United States lacks just war at Russia. If you continue assuming United States is not a regime then United States must publicly declare both law, and also order, impossible in our too chaotic world. If both law, and also order, are impossible in our too chaotic world then justice requires strength. Russia is obviously, logically, absolved in exclusive question to Eastern Ukraine for joining Russian Federation.
Landon Fisher
>The official casus belli was a bunch of incoherent and ridiculous explanations that looked like they were making it up on the spot to see what sticks. They seemed incoherent and ridiculous for people who weren’t following the conflict since 2014. They were quite coherent for those who did though. >We cannot accept Ukraine as a NATO member, because that creates too much strategic unpredictability for our national security This statement has been made time and time again since 2008, nothing changed with its importance. >We cannot accept Ukraine as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi/Nationalistic state This seems like a very vague reason for westerns, but the reality on the ground is that the nationalistic/neo-nazi ideology in Ukraine is the socio-political mechanism that enables Ukraine’s drift-away from Russia’s sphere of influence. Normally, this would never happened, because people would be against it, had the public not been radicalised to the core. There’s way too many social/blood bonds between Ukrainians and Russians due to mutual history, even to this day. (i.e. many Ukrainians worked in Russia and sent money back home)
As for your claim about an inevitable decline - if that’s true, then why does the west spend so much effort fuelling the war? They could have let Russia have its status quo permanently in Ukraine, and still decline.
The cold-hard reality is that the ones declining long-term are actually the western powerhouses. Russia as a natural-resource giant, territory-giant, and North-Trade-Route benefactor, would actually be extremely well off in the 2nd half of this century, extremely well off. The demographic problem being the only pain-point. But which country doesn’t have declining demographics as a painpoint today? Japan to lose 50% of its population by 2050, Europeans/Americans importing millions of migrants to compensate for the decline.
Angel Reed
>and exactly what NATO infrastructure have appeared in Ukraine? You seem to have reading comprehension problems. Ukraine is a highly militarised country. It was militarised by the Soviets during the Cold War. And now this fortress ended up in NATO hands. All of Ukraine’s vast military assets (airfields, bases, stockpiles, bunkers) unofficially become NATO assets. >Not an argument, it's part of other country now. The fact that Crimea was part of another country is not an argument by itself. Security issues persist regardless of borders. Stop confusing politically-moral arguments with military-material arguments. They are not the same. If a country sees a threat, said country will attack that threat, regardless of where that threat is located, inside or outside. The prospects of Crimea ending up in NATO’s hands were a huge threat for Russia. >Yeah, nice one, It's a pitty the current war is a meat grinder. Yeah, it’s a pity Putin refuses to nuke Ukraine, or at least refuses to carry out missile strikes against Zelensky’s bunkers and palaces, or against Ukraine’s decision-making HQ’s and Ukraine’s energy/food/water supplies. Imagine how quickly the war would end if Putin decided to fight the same as Americans fight their wars - by destroying everything in the country and making survival impossible. Instead Putin tries to laser-focus on just destroying Ukraine’s military positions. Costly tactic, but certainly the more moral one.
Carter Howard
And? NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO don't ask or pressure countries to join. It's the other way around, countries have to convince NATO and ask to join the alliance. Russia just don't respect the freedom and independence of their ex urss states.
Connor Jackson
>They seemed incoherent and ridiculous for people who weren’t following the conflict since 2014. They are incoherent with one another. They said all of the following: >It's to stop NATO expansion >It's to stop NATO from attacking Russia >It's to stop Ukraine from attacking Russia >It's to stop Ukraine genociding Russians in the Donbass >It's to demilitarize Ukraine >It's to end the US biolabs in Ukraine which were creating a bioweapon which only targets ethnic Russians >It's to bring back what is essentially Russian territory and Russian people >It's to denazify Ukraine, which is led by a Nazi Junta of drogadicts >Also the troops are here to exercise, can't we make exercises in our own territory? So which one is it? The narrative isn't even coherent with itself.
>We cannot accept Ukraine as a NATO member, because that creates too much strategic unpredictability for our national security It creates more predictability actually. If Ukraine joins NATO they won't attack Russia (they weren't going to do it anyway but it's not something that's would be tolerated) and if you attack Ukraine you are by default on war with everyone else.
>nationalistic/neo-nazi ideology in Ukraine is the socio-political mechanism that enables Ukraine’s drift-away from Russia’s sphere of influence There are neonazis in Ukraine, just like there are elsewhere, there have been more since the war for obvious reasons but there are probably less than in Russia. Tankies can claim that Ukrainians are neo-nazis and the second afterwards start blaming the Jews. What's moving Ukraine away from Russia's sphere of influence is Russia's waning influence itself which can no longer brainwash at will and keep the Ukranian state as a satellite so they have been using increasingly heavy-handed methods over time.
The cold-hard reality is that for any decline of the west there could be, for Russia is an apocalypse. They are bringing people because they can. Nobody wants to go to Russia.
Jace Smith
>Ukraine has been infiltrated by NATO since 2014. The alliance was actively reforming and rebuilding the Ukrainian military, to get it up to NATO standards. Which is no different from making Ukraine a NATO member, just unofficially. well how else should they have reacted to russia annexing piece of their land and arming separatists? I don't understand how people even think, every country would put their military in high gear if a neighboring country started shit with them
Jordan Baker
Russia has one of the lowest fertility rates, so they problem is even WORSE than many western countries, except western countries are usually richer and can bring people and talent in. Russia is suffering a brain drain.
Russia industry is just natural resource extraction and arms exports. There's nothing else, no diversification. All the industry they had is rusting and they haven't been able to shift it to something else. Probably the only reason why it worked to begin with is that they had a captured market in Eastern Europe. In Western countries there have been places that suffered the same fate but others have been able to transform which was enough to compensate it. Russia won't be able to compete with the West or China for that matter.
