Russia-Ukraine War

[Periplus]

If you got any Russian friends I suggest you ask them about it. The Western media has lost its touch its no longer reliable when it comes to Ukraine

By the way I'm in no way justifying the Russian invasion but I'm a guy who likes to follow geopolitics and in my opinion any self respecting superpower would do what Putin did in Ukraine. There are crucial national interests that every nation will never budge on. Truth is West pushed for this war knowing fully what it would mean for the average Ukrainians

As someone who studied geopolitics in university and works in the field, it was unnecessary.

Russia’s own actions caused Eastern Europe to join NATO. Putin invading Ukraine has made neutral countries join NATO and brought the organisation closer than it’s been since the Cold War.

When it comes to Europe, the West is almost always on the right side of conflicts. WWI, WWII, Cold War, Yugoslavian War etc.

The problem is that the West is almost always the aggressor everywhere else in the world.

 

[AboveHeigtś]

As someone who studied geopolitics in university and works in the field, it was unnecessary.

Russia’s own actions caused Eastern Europe to join NATO. Putin invading Ukraine has made neutral countries join NATO and brought the organisation closer than it’s been since the Cold War.

When it comes to Europe, the West is almost always on the right side of conflicts. WWI, WWII, Cold War, Yugoslavian War etc.

The problem is that the West is almost always the aggressor everywhere else in the world.

The invasion was hundred percent coming, most veteran analyst were warning Western decision-makers since 2014 that Russia will not budge on Ukraine and that Russians would rather level Ukraine to the ground and won't allow the West to partake seriously in its re-building.

Do you agree with me that when a country has a large well equipped and technologically advanced military that holds vast arsenal of nuclear war heads and not to mention that it also supplies 40% of EU's gas and 20%-30% of its energy needs, shouldn't the West (US) respect its national interests?

 

[Kool-Aid]

 

[Periplus]

The invasion was hundred percent coming, most veteran analyst were warning Western decision-makers since 2014 that Russia will not budge on Ukraine and that Russians would rather level Ukraine to the ground and won't allow the West to partake seriously in its re-building.

Do you agree with me that when a country has a large well equipped and technologically advanced military that holds vast arsenal of nuclear war heads and not to mention that it also supplies 40% of EU's gas and 20%-30% of its energy needs, the West (US) should respect its national interests.

Since then, their strategic Kaliningrad enclave which houses a significant amount of their navy and army is now surrounded by NATO powers.

If their objective was to protect their strategic interests, this war has only went backwards for them.

They’ve also lost the “resource blackmail” card they had on Europe as they’ve now cut off gas supplies.

 

[Periplus]

In March, they said it would take days or weeks.

Now, they’re saying that they’re in no rush.

 

[GemState]

As someone who studied geopolitics in university and works in the field, it was unnecessary.

Russia’s own actions caused Eastern Europe to join NATO. Putin invading Ukraine has made neutral countries join NATO and brought the organisation closer than it’s been since the Cold War.

When it comes to Europe, the West is almost always on the right side of conflicts. WWI, WWII, Cold War, Yugoslavian War etc.

The problem is that the West is almost always the aggressor everywhere else in the world.

I'll have to write an effortpost to explain everything.

The contest for Ukraine didn't start in 2014, it commenced in early 2008. With oil prices high and Putin’s rule entrenched, Russia began to turn abroad. While Russia moved for Georgia, the West moved to attract Ukraine into its orbit, with the launch of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership and US encouragement for a NATO membership bid.

From this point on, tensions over Ukraine were always likely to mount. But over the next 14 years, the EU and its member states pursued a dangerously confused set of initiatives. Their failure to align legal, security and financial policy created the context in which war became possible. In legal terms, the EU pursued a strategy of attraction. Through its Eastern Partnership, the EU encouraged slow but steady convergence of Ukraine’s legal, political, and economic order toward European standards. Making its geopolitical intentions clear, the EU emphasized that Ukraine would have to choose between Brussels and Moscow.

On security policy, by contrast, division reigned. Some EU states wanted Ukraine to join NATO, others opposed it. These were too weak to deter Russia, yet too threatening for the Kremlin to ignore. Ambiguity became a formula for escalation. At two crucial points when Ukraine most needed financial support, Europe left it out in the cold.

First, like most of Eastern Europe, Ukraine received scant attention during the 2008 global financial crisis. With half of all Ukrainian pre-crisis loans denominated in foreign currencies, a dollar or euro swap line would have gone a long way towards preventing a financial collapse. But while the US was providing a dollar swap line for Mexico, the eurozone was unwilling to extend similar assistance to EU members Poland and Hungary, let alone to Ukraine.

Desperate for dollars and euros, Ukraine had no choice but to turn to the International Monetary Fund and austerity. This fuelled a 15% decline in GDP, an inflation rate of 22%, and an unabated crisis in Ukraine’s steel industry, which helped the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych win the 2010 presidential election. Yanukovych immediately turned to the Kremlin for financial support, trading an extension of Russia’s lease on the Sevastopol naval base in Crimea for a 30% reduction in the price Ukraine paid for Russian gas. By late 2013, Ukraine was facing insolvency and recession.

Recognizing the opportunity, Russia made Ukraine a strategic offer: US$12 billion per year of subsidies and economic benefits if the country abandoned the association agreement—or an escalation of sanctions, should Yanukovych sign the pact. Europe’s economic and financial experts failed to register either Russia’s seriousness or Ukraine’s predicament. Blind to facts on the ground and to the geopolitical consequences of its penny-pinching, the EU made a counteroffer of €610 million ($670 million), less than a tenth of Russia’s proposed assistance.

Pressured by the Kremlin and low-balled by the EU, Yanukovych abandoned the Association Agreement, instead accepting further gas discounts and a $15 billion concessionary loan from Russia. This, too, might not have spelled war had Europe’s rejection been wholesale. But, while Yanukovych was trying to navigate Europe’s financial stinginess, the Ukrainian people had been won over by the EU’s legal attraction. This led to Yanukovych being violently and unconstitutionally ousted and him being shot at while leaving Kyiv

Europe’s offer to Ukraine was legally attractive, militarily ambivalent, and financially mean. It was too expansive for Russia to be at ease, too weak on defense to provide effective deterrence, and too penny-pinching to keep fickle Ukrainian elites on a pro-EU course when it mattered most. Devoid of an overall strategy, Europe’s approach was a recipe for disaster.

The US always played a part in Ukraine, Michael McFaul writing in WaPo in 2004 about the Orange Revolution:

"Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities -- democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. -- but their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine."

William Burns, who is now the head of the CIA, but was the US ambassador to Moscow at the time of the Bucharest summit, wrote a memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that describes Russian thinking about this matter. In his words: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” NATO, he said, “would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

The EU/US has pushed forward policies toward Ukraine that put it on a crash course with Russia, this much is clear.

 

[Periplus]

I'll have to write an effortpost to explain everything.

The contest for Ukraine didn't start in 2014, it commenced in early 2008. With oil prices high and Putin’s rule entrenched, Russia began to turn abroad. While Russia moved for Georgia, the West moved to attract Ukraine into its orbit, with the launch of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership and US encouragement for a NATO membership bid.

From this point on, tensions over Ukraine were always likely to mount. But over the next 14 years, the EU and its member states pursued a dangerously confused set of initiatives. Their failure to align legal, security and financial policy created the context in which war became possible. In legal terms, the EU pursued a strategy of attraction. Through its Eastern Partnership, the EU encouraged slow but steady convergence of Ukraine’s legal, political, and economic order toward European standards. Making its geopolitical intentions clear, the EU emphasized that Ukraine would have to choose between Brussels and Moscow.

On security policy, by contrast, division reigned. Some EU states wanted Ukraine to join NATO, others opposed it. These were too weak to deter Russia, yet too threatening for the Kremlin to ignore. Ambiguity became a formula for escalation. At two crucial points when Ukraine most needed financial support, Europe left it out in the cold.

First, like most of Eastern Europe, Ukraine received scant attention during the 2008 global financial crisis. With half of all Ukrainian pre-crisis loans denominated in foreign currencies, a dollar or euro swap line would have gone a long way towards preventing a financial collapse. But while the US was providing a dollar swap line for Mexico, the eurozone was unwilling to extend similar assistance to EU members Poland and Hungary, let alone to Ukraine.

Desperate for dollars and euros, Ukraine had no choice but to turn to the International Monetary Fund and austerity. This fuelled a 15% decline in GDP, an inflation rate of 22%, and an unabated crisis in Ukraine’s steel industry, which helped the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych win the 2010 presidential election. Yanukovych immediately turned to the Kremlin for financial support, trading an extension of Russia’s lease on the Sevastopol naval base in Crimea for a 30% reduction in the price Ukraine paid for Russian gas. By late 2013, Ukraine was facing insolvency and recession.

Recognizing the opportunity, Russia made Ukraine a strategic offer: US$12 billion per year of subsidies and economic benefits if the country abandoned the association agreement—or an escalation of sanctions, should Yanukovych sign the pact. Europe’s economic and financial experts failed to register either Russia’s seriousness or Ukraine’s predicament. Blind to facts on the ground and to the geopolitical consequences of its penny-pinching, the EU made a counteroffer of €610 million ($670 million), less than a tenth of Russia’s proposed assistance.

Pressured by the Kremlin and low-balled by the EU, Yanukovych abandoned the Association Agreement, instead accepting further gas discounts and a $15 billion concessionary loan from Russia. This, too, might not have spelled war had Europe’s rejection been wholesale. But, while Yanukovych was trying to navigate Europe’s financial stinginess, the Ukrainian people had been won over by the EU’s legal attraction. This led to Yanukovych being violently and unconstitutionally ousted and him being shot at while leaving Kyiv

Europe’s offer to Ukraine was legally attractive, militarily ambivalent, and financially mean. It was too expansive for Russia to be at ease, too weak on defense to provide effective deterrence, and too penny-pinching to keep fickle Ukrainian elites on a pro-EU course when it mattered most. Devoid of an overall strategy, Europe’s approach was a recipe for disaster.

The US always played a part in Ukraine, Michael McFaul writing in WaPo in 2004 about the Orange Revolution:

"Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities -- democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. -- but their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine."

William Burns, who is now the head of the CIA, but was the US ambassador to Moscow at the time of the Bucharest summit, wrote a memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that describes Russian thinking about this matter. In his words: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” NATO, he said, “would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

The EU/US has pushed forward policies toward Ukraine that put it on a crash course with Russia, this much is clear.

While you’re correct in what you’ve written, you’re missing a lot of history.

Ukraine was practically a Russian colony for decades, treated as second class citizens during the USSR. When they got independence, Russia dragged its heels until Ukraine gave up its weapons.

Russia always calls Ukraine a “brotherly nation” but routinely fucks it over.

Putin and his predecessors have always misjudged the hatred the Eastern European public have for them.

If they wanted to prevent Ukraine from getting closer to the West, don’t offer money but rather offer to fix the past.

 

[HiraanBorn]

I'll have to write an effortpost to explain everything.

The contest for Ukraine didn't start in 2014, it commenced in early 2008. With oil prices high and Putin’s rule entrenched, Russia began to turn abroad. While Russia moved for Georgia, the West moved to attract Ukraine into its orbit, with the launch of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership and US encouragement for a NATO membership bid.

From this point on, tensions over Ukraine were always likely to mount. But over the next 14 years, the EU and its member states pursued a dangerously confused set of initiatives. Their failure to align legal, security and financial policy created the context in which war became possible. In legal terms, the EU pursued a strategy of attraction. Through its Eastern Partnership, the EU encouraged slow but steady convergence of Ukraine’s legal, political, and economic order toward European standards. Making its geopolitical intentions clear, the EU emphasized that Ukraine would have to choose between Brussels and Moscow.

On security policy, by contrast, division reigned. Some EU states wanted Ukraine to join NATO, others opposed it. These were too weak to deter Russia, yet too threatening for the Kremlin to ignore. Ambiguity became a formula for escalation. At two crucial points when Ukraine most needed financial support, Europe left it out in the cold.

First, like most of Eastern Europe, Ukraine received scant attention during the 2008 global financial crisis. With half of all Ukrainian pre-crisis loans denominated in foreign currencies, a dollar or euro swap line would have gone a long way towards preventing a financial collapse. But while the US was providing a dollar swap line for Mexico, the eurozone was unwilling to extend similar assistance to EU members Poland and Hungary, let alone to Ukraine.

Desperate for dollars and euros, Ukraine had no choice but to turn to the International Monetary Fund and austerity. This fuelled a 15% decline in GDP, an inflation rate of 22%, and an unabated crisis in Ukraine’s steel industry, which helped the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych win the 2010 presidential election. Yanukovych immediately turned to the Kremlin for financial support, trading an extension of Russia’s lease on the Sevastopol naval base in Crimea for a 30% reduction in the price Ukraine paid for Russian gas. By late 2013, Ukraine was facing insolvency and recession.

Recognizing the opportunity, Russia made Ukraine a strategic offer: US$12 billion per year of subsidies and economic benefits if the country abandoned the association agreement—or an escalation of sanctions, should Yanukovych sign the pact. Europe’s economic and financial experts failed to register either Russia’s seriousness or Ukraine’s predicament. Blind to facts on the ground and to the geopolitical consequences of its penny-pinching, the EU made a counteroffer of €610 million ($670 million), less than a tenth of Russia’s proposed assistance.

Pressured by the Kremlin and low-balled by the EU, Yanukovych abandoned the Association Agreement, instead accepting further gas discounts and a $15 billion concessionary loan from Russia. This, too, might not have spelled war had Europe’s rejection been wholesale. But, while Yanukovych was trying to navigate Europe’s financial stinginess, the Ukrainian people had been won over by the EU’s legal attraction. This led to Yanukovych being violently and unconstitutionally ousted and him being shot at while leaving Kyiv

Europe’s offer to Ukraine was legally attractive, militarily ambivalent, and financially mean. It was too expansive for Russia to be at ease, too weak on defense to provide effective deterrence, and too penny-pinching to keep fickle Ukrainian elites on a pro-EU course when it mattered most. Devoid of an overall strategy, Europe’s approach was a recipe for disaster.

The US always played a part in Ukraine, Michael McFaul writing in WaPo in 2004 about the Orange Revolution:

"Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities -- democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. -- but their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine."

William Burns, who is now the head of the CIA, but was the US ambassador to Moscow at the time of the Bucharest summit, wrote a memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that describes Russian thinking about this matter. In his words: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” NATO, he said, “would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

The EU/US has pushed forward policies toward Ukraine that put it on a crash course with Russia, this much is clear.

Excellent work @GemState

 

[AboveHeigtś]

While you’re correct in what you’ve written, you’re missing a lot of history.

Ukraine was practically a Russian colony for decades, treated as second class citizens during the USSR. When they got independence, Russia dragged its heels until Ukraine gave up its weapons.

Russia always calls Ukraine a “brotherly nation” but routinely fucks it over.

Putin and his predecessors have always misjudged the hatred the Eastern European public have for them.

If they wanted to prevent Ukraine from getting closer to the West, don’t offer money but rather offer to fix the past.

You seem to be the emotional type of people that I hate, most EU leaders think like you. Russia bad---EU good is an arrogant world view that will lead to a conflict. As someone who studied geopolitics you sure do focus on ideological aspect of things and quite little on the strategic interests that should be the corner stone of all policies. What does EU gain from an unnecessary conflict in Ukraine? Now we got to face recession and absolutely nothing will change in Ukraine, it won't become NATO or EU member in the foreseeable future.

Russia is a super power with a greate military and it is by far the world's richest resource nation these are facts. It could've been a key ally for the EU. If those cursed Eastern apes weren't taunting Russia tirelessly EU would've been by now the center of world trade surpassing US and couldve easily contained China on its own. Instead of courting them into the Western hegemony, EU(mainly Poland and UK) have been of course boldened by the US led foreign policy absolutely ruined that opportunity.

Accepting cuqdad ridden Poland and the tiny Baltic countries as full members of EU was a huge mistake. Wish they could be kicked out.

 

[Periplus]

You seem to be the emotional type of people that I hate, most EU leaders think like you. Russia bad---EU good is an arrogant world view that will lead to a conflict. As someone who studied geopolitics you sure do focus on ideological aspect of things and quite little on the strategic interests that should be the corner stone of all policies. What does EU gain from an unnecessary conflict in Ukraine? Now we got to face recession and absolutely nothing will change in Ukraine, it won't become NATO or EU member in the foreseeable future.

Russia is a super power with a greate military and it is by far the world's richest resource nation these are facts. It could've been a key ally for the EU. If those cursed Eastern apes weren't taunting Russia tirelessly EU would've been by now the center of world trade surpassing US and couldve easily contained China on its own. Instead of courting them into the Western hegemony, EU(mainly Poland and UK) have been of course boldened by the US led foreign policy absolutely ruined that opportunity.

Accepting cuqdad ridden Poland and the tiny Baltic countries as full members of EU was a huge mistake. Wish they could be kicked out.

I am not an emotional person but this issue is emotional, therefore, you have to factor it in.

Half of the EU were effectively colonised for half of a century by Russia, which has no guilt for its actions and in fact seems to be oblivious to the fact that there is resentment.

Now, let’s take emotion out.

Russia is a nation of 200 million with horrible income inequality. The average Russians lives no different to someone in Nigeria or Egypt.

If Russia joined the EU, we would have one of the biggest immigration crises in world history.

Their main money maker is fossil fuels, which doesn’t have a viable future in the next two or even three decades.

However, most of the EU are hooked on Russia’s fossil fuels, which created a system of dependency and inflated Russia’s importance in Europe.

Furthermore, NATO up until recently was dealing with its biggest credibility crisis since it’s inception as the US was threatening to leave.

So, answer this:

What better way is there to get rid of Russia and it’s fossil fuels from Europe, test out weaponry, whilst also defending a nation’s sovereignty and uniting Europe under NATO?

Now, you would say, war to achieve those ends is inhuman and I agree.

But we agreed to take emotion out of it.

 

[AboveHeigtś]

I am not an emotional person but this issue is emotional, therefore, you have to factor it in.

Half of the EU were effectively colonised for half of a century by Russia, which has no guilt for its actions and in fact seems to be oblivious to the fact that there is resentment.

Now, let’s take emotion out.

Russia is a nation of 200 million with horrible income inequality. The average Russians lives no different to someone in Nigeria or Egypt.

If Russia joined the EU, we would have one of the biggest immigration crises in world history.

Their main money maker is fossil fuels, which doesn’t have a viable future in the next two or even three decades.

However, most of the EU are hooked on Russia’s fossil fuels, which created a system of dependency and inflated Russia’s importance in Europe.

Furthermore, NATO up until recently was dealing with its biggest credibility crisis since it’s inception as the US was threatening to leave.

So, answer this:

What better way is there to get rid of Russia and it’s fossil fuels from Europe, test out weaponry, whilst also defending a nation’s sovereignty and uniting Europe under NATO?

Now, you would say, war to achieve those ends is inhuman and I agree.

But we agreed to take emotion out of it.

The way dirt poor Poland, Baltic, Romania etc. were courted into EU, with loans and the carrot and stick method. Investment in exchange for political reforms. It has been quite effective in Eastern Europe can't see why it would've not worked on Russia, note that Im talking about Russia of late 90s to late 00s.

Anyways I'm not suggesting that Russia would join EU but having a friendly cooperation and mutual respect maybe even a special trade pact with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. All Russia demands is respect(Belarus, Ukraine, Caucus and stans as its own hegemony) you give them that it is kinda easy to work with them. But the problem is that those Eastern European countries are convinced that the big bad Russia is coming to colonise them once again and this paranoia makes them do very irrational things. Just listen to the Polish president and what he is calling for. The Poles are absolute menace they will get us all nuked.

Russia is not going anywhere it will always be on EU doorstep with 7000+ nuclear war heads. It is unfortunately an authoritarian country, EU should be doing its best to neutralise them not prioritise American foreign policy.

Half of the EU were effectively colonised for half of a century by Russia, which has no guilt for its actions and in fact seems to be oblivious to the fact that there is resentment.

That half specially Poland and Baltic states should've never joined EU as full memeberstates. They've both suffered greatly under Russian imperialism hence they will always see Russia as an enemy, but why should rest of EU throw their interests and greater well being of their citizens for them? Considering the fact how reluctant they are when it comes to EU policies well mainly Poland and Hungary are extremely reluctant but you get the point.

 

[Magaffe]

The way dirt poor Poland, Baltic, Romania etc. were courted into EU, with loans and the carrot and stick method. Investment in exchange for political reforms. It has been quite effective in Eastern Europe can't see why it would've not worked on Russia, note that Im talking about Russia of late 90s to late 00s.

Anyways I'm not suggesting that Russia would join EU but having a friendly cooperation and mutual respect maybe even a special trade pact with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. All Russia demands is respect(Belarus, Ukraine, Caucus and stans as its own hegemony) you give them that it is kinda easy to work with them. But the problem is that those Eastern European countries are convinced that the big bad Russia is coming to colonise them once again and this paranoia makes them do very irrational things. Just listen to the Polish president and what he is calling for. The Poles are absolute menace they will get us all nuked.

Russia is not going anywhere it will always be on EU doorstep with 7000+ nuclear war heads. It is unfortunately an authoritarian country, EU should be doing its best to neutralise them not prioritise American foreign policy.


That half specially Poland and Baltic states should've never joined EU as full memeberstates. They've both suffered greatly under Russian imperialism hence they will always see Russia as an enemy, but why should rest of EU throw their interests and greater well being of their citizens for them? Considering the fact how reluctant they are when it comes to EU policies well mainly Poland and Hungary are extremely reluctant but you get the point.

Ukraine is getting what it deserved.

Russia didn't do anything when the oppressed the Russian speakers in the Donbass from 2014. They only invaded when Ukraine was about to invade the the Donbass, when they made plans to join the EU, and when they threatened to build nukes (they have those reactors they inherited so it realistically could be done).

They did this to themselves. How could Russia ignore such provocations?

 

[Periplus]

Ukraine is getting what it deserved.

Russia didn't do anything when the oppressed the Russian speakers in the Donbass from 2014. They only invaded when Ukraine was about to invade the the Donbass, when they made plans to join the EU, and when they threatened to build nukes (they have those reactors they inherited so it realistically could be done).

They did this to themselves. How could Russia ignore such provocations?

The Ukrainian president is a Russian speaker from Eastern Ukraine.

Kulahaa oppressed.

 

[Magaffe]

The Ukrainian president is a Russian speaker from Eastern Ukraine.

Kulahaa oppressed.

He's a jewish comedian LMAO

What are you talking about!

 

[Periplus]

The way dirt poor Poland, Baltic, Romania etc. were courted into EU, with loans and the carrot and stick method. Investment in exchange for political reforms. It has been quite effective in Eastern Europe can't see why it would've not worked on Russia, note that Im talking about Russia of late 90s to late 00s.

Anyways I'm not suggesting that Russia would join EU but having a friendly cooperation and mutual respect maybe even a special trade pact with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. All Russia demands is respect(Belarus, Ukraine, Caucus and stans as its own hegemony) you give them that it is kinda easy to work with them. But the problem is that those Eastern European countries are convinced that the big bad Russia is coming to colonise them once again and this paranoia makes them do very irrational things. Just listen to the Polish president and what he is calling for. The Poles are absolute menace they will get us all nuked.

Russia is not going anywhere it will always be on EU doorstep with 7000+ nuclear war heads. It is unfortunately an authoritarian country, EU should be doing its best to neutralise them not prioritise American foreign policy.


That half specially Poland and Baltic states should've never joined EU as full memeberstates. They've both suffered greatly under Russian imperialism hence they will always see Russia as an enemy, but why should rest of EU throw their interests and greater well being of their citizens for them? Considering the fact how reluctant they are when it comes to EU policies well mainly Poland and Hungary are extremely reluctant but you get the point.

Europe always tried to cooperate with Russia since time immemorial. However, it always ends with Russia stabbing Europe in the back.

In WWII, Russia snaked Europe and made a deal with Hitler. When Hitler invaded, the US bailed out the red army with cash and equipment.

After WWII, they agreed to relinquish control of former Nazi-seized countries. The West gave France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy back but Russia took over all of Eastern Europe.

Now after the Cold War, when Russia is at its weakest. The West didn’t interfere in Russia like it did in post-war Germany.

They gave Central Asia to Russia as its hegemonic area. No one disputes Russia’s hegemony there. Beggars can’t be choosers, they lost Eastern Europe the minute they got independence.

Poland and Romania are now infinitely richer than they were in 1990 and now beat Russia in most (per capita) economic indicators.

 

[Periplus]

He's a jewish comedian LMAO

What are you talking about!

Yes, he’s a Russian Jew.

Surely you’ve heard of those before.

 

[Magaffe]

Yes, he’s a Russian Jew.

Surely you’ve heard of those before.

I didn't know he was a Russian speaker. But doesn't matter.

Unbeknownst to you there has been a conflict in the Donbas since 2014. Perhaps you should have a read?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022)

 

[Periplus]

I didn't know he was a Russian speaker. But doesn't matter.

Unbeknownst to you there has been a conflict in the Donbas since 2014. Perhaps you should have a read?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022)

Yes, I knew that.

Did you know that the Ukrainian political elite believed that Zelensky would be pro-Russia when he got elected?

Did you know that the richest man in Ukraine is a Muslim from Donbass?

This same billionaire switched his support from pro-Russia to pro-Ukraine the minute war broke out in Donbass.

 

[Magaffe]

Yes, I knew that.

Did you know that the Ukrainian political elite believed that Zelensky would be pro-Russia when he got elected?

Did you know that the richest man in Ukraine is a Muslim from Donbass?

This same billionaire switched his support from pro-Russia to pro-Ukraine the minute war broke out in Donbass.

Regardless of him being an Oligarch Russian civillians have been murdered, disappeared, and tortured in the Donbas since 2014.

 

[Periplus]

Regardless of him being an Oligarch Russian civillians have been murdered, disappeared, and tortured in the Donbas since 2014.

Russian civilians?