Russia invading Ukraine (NEWS/UPDATES)


Status
Not open for further replies.
The Russians are giving the impression that their strategic desire to have a neutral state on their border was/is non-negotiable. They did not want any further eastward expansion of NATO infrastructure. They also claim that crimes against Russian speaking people's in the east of Ukraine were/are not being reported in western media. I do not know what the veracity of these claims are. They may be exaggerating the danger and impact of a a right wing element in Ukraine, which I think had Nazi units during WWII.
Unfortunately it is not up to Russia if Ukraine decided to join NATO or not. It also would have made no difference or posed no Russia.
 
The Russians are giving the impression that their strategic desire to have a neutral state on their border was/is non-negotiable. They did not want any further eastward expansion of NATO infrastructure. They also claim that crimes against Russian speaking people's in the east of Ukraine were/are not being reported in western media. I do not know what the veracity of these claims are. They may be exaggerating the danger and impact of a a right wing element in Ukraine, which I think had Nazi units during WWII.
Dude. They had a neutral state on their border a month ago. Ukraine isn't in NATO or the EU. Their response to having such a neutral state there was to invade it. Clearly "neutral" was not the "strategic desire."

And it hasn't been for quite a while: when Yushschenko - who was then the elected president of Ukraine in an election that was marred by massive Russian-sponsored electoral fraud - started doing things the Russians didn't like, Putin had him poisoned. Oh - the guy he beat in that election? So "neutral" that he lives in Russia now while they invade Ukraine.

Yeah, "neutral" was the goal. Definitely not "Russian satellite." Yeesh.
 
The Russians are giving the impression that their strategic desire to have a neutral state on their border was/is non-negotiable. They did not want any further eastward expansion of NATO infrastructure. They also claim that crimes against Russian speaking people's in the east of Ukraine were/are not being reported in western media. I do not know what the veracity of these claims are. They may be exaggerating the danger and impact of a a right wing element in Ukraine, which I think had Nazi units during WWII.
Right, so the Russians don't want another NATO country on their border so that is the reason they've invaded? Or it's because the Ukrainian's are persecuting Russians in Ukraine despite there being no evidence of this actually happening? But it's also about Crimea, an area they already control? Make your mind up.
 
Dude. They had a neutral state on their border a month ago. Ukraine isn't in NATO or the EU. Their response to having such a neutral state there was to invade it. Clearly "neutral" was not the "strategic desire."

And it hasn't been for quite a while: when Yushschenko - who was then the elected president of Ukraine in an election that was marred by massive Russian-sponsored electoral fraud - started doing things the Russians didn't like, Putin had him poisoned. Oh - the guy he beat in that election? So "neutral" that he lives in Russia now while they invade Ukraine.

Yeah, "neutral" was the goal. Definitely not "Russian satellite." Yeesh.
Dude, they were heading towards NATO. As for the other stuff, it depends on how willing you are to trust the narrative. I don't decide either way. I'm not so naive as to not consider that Russia want to control a satellite state but I don't necessarily buy all the claims made in relation to that.
No. But they aren’t the ones who invaded an independent country, are trying to starve cities, and bombing hospitals.
I don't support that. It's horrific.
 
It's not even a correct timeline. It's just a load of re-hashed version of events. And a shite one at that.

The 2 biggest pivotal moments in this conflict is when the Constitution of Ukraine was brought forward in 2004 that ties with the EU became legally binding which was voted by the Ukrainian public
In 2014, Yanukvoych's first thing in power was to withdraw the constitution, despite the fact he only enjoyed a 3% margin win with suspicions of double voting in Crimea, Luhansk and Donestsk (what a coincidence that turned out to be)

Atleast get the facts right before putting forward an argument.
Here is the other part Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”

Feel free to do your own timeline if you are in possession of the right 'facts'.
 
Dude, they were heading towards NATO. As for the other stuff, it depends on how willing you are to trust the narrative. I don't decide either way. I'm not so naive as to not consider that Russia want to control a satellite state but I don't necessarily buy all the claims made in relation to that.
Do you deny that Yushschenko was poisoned during the electoral campaign against Putin's chosen stooge? Because of course Putin has no form for poisoning people he doesn't like...

'Heading towards NATO" would be an incentive for a normal country to offer an improved relationship - trade, diplomacy, investment - to maintain neutrality. Instead Russia sent in the tanks. Again, something Russia has no form for doing against nearby countries doing things it doesn't like, of course.
 
Last edited:
Right, so the Russians don't want another NATO country on their border so that is the reason they've invaded? Or it's because the Ukrainian's are persecuting Russians in Ukraine despite there being no evidence of this actually happening? But it's also about Crimea, an area they already control? Make your mind up.
Why would I need to make my mind up? I'm not involved. There is no analysis of the situation that lead to this in our media It's all just one-sided. If you're happy for that, then that's up to you. Berating people who prefer more balanced analysis of the issues is also your choice.
 
Here is the other part Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”

Feel free to do your own timeline if you are in possession of the right 'facts'.
Regardless of what you think the timeline may be, it doesn’t justify invading an independent country and doing what the Russians are doing.

Coming up with different timelines and theories is just trying to distract from what is happening on the ground.

A simple question for you: do you condemn Putin, support Ukraine and want the invasion defeated?
 
Do you deny that Yushschenko was poisoned during the electoral campaign against Putin's chooen stooge? Because of course Putin has no form for poisoning people he doesn't like...

'Heading towards NATO" would be an incentive for a normal country to offer an improved relationship - trade, diplomacy, investment - to maintain neutrality. Instead Russia sent in the tanks. Again, something Russia has no form for doing against nearby countries doing things it doesn't like.
You must have been privy to the negotiations that have gone on leading up to this? I don't see the content being debated anywhere.

As for poisoning, I keep an open mind who was responsible.
 
Why would I need to make my mind up? I'm not involved. There is no analysis of the situation that lead to this in our media It's all just one-sided. If you're happy for that, then that's up to you. Berating people who prefer more balanced analysis of the issues is also your choice.
There is tremendous analysis. The Economist and Guardian have been doing very good analysis for years.

“Balanced analysis” doesn’t mean having to give two different opinions. A pen may be blue but one person may lie and say it is red. It is not balanced to say it might be red as the truth is it is blue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top