Brazil’s Lula slams UN over war in Ukraine
Brazil’s Lula slams UN over war in Ukraine
Brasilia, Aug 2 (EFE).- The war in Ukraine proves that the world needs a new system of global governance, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Wednesday. In his first press conference with foreign journalists since he took office on January 1, Lula said the United Nations had failed to...
You're viewing part of a thread.
I mean, it's the speech in which he lays out to his people why they're going to war. He'd be hard pressed to justify the SMO to all the soldiers if they didn't have all those well known grievances, don't you think?
Edit: wait, aren't things government officials say not valid sources for what the government thinks or wants now? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this one. Do you know of a valid-er source for what the Russian government and military wanted as guarantees to not have this war?
Well known grievances? I simply cannot agree with you there. Those are points for which we only have the Russian governments word, and dozens of denials from other governments across the globe.
Not to mention, the reasoning for the war has changed dramatically over and over, from "stop the Nazis!" To "oh they were totally going to join NATO and attack us!!!" To "The security of Europe!" And now "they were gonna get nukes!"
Never mind the fact that the Ukraine already gave up their nukes in exchange for Russia's assurances they wouldn't do exactly this. Or the fact that NATO obviously doesn't need the Ukraine as members since Russia can't even win a land war with a military a fraction of their size right across the border. Or any of the other facts Russia has bald faced lied about repeatedly.
Given the above factors I find it highly unlikely Putin was looking for or interested in any diplomatic out. He was looking for an excuse.
Not to mention, the reasoning for the war has changed dramatically
- Refuses to read Russia's official justification for war
- Claims not only to know Russia's justification, but that it's repeatedly changed
Not to mention, the reasoning for the war has changed dramatically over and over, from "stop the Nazis!" To "oh they were totally going to join NATO and attack us!!!" To "The security of Europe!" And now "they were gonna get nukes!"
All three are on the speech from the very beginning, no change there. But here's some English sources in order.
Join NATO: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-nato-has-become-flash-point-russia-ukraine
Nukes: https://ria-ru.translate.goog/20220301/ukraina-1775795745.html
You're free to believe those grievances are not based in reality, but to claim that those grievances were not well known ever since beginning of the war to the Russian public is either dishonest or just lazy.
Russia can't win a land war
You people keep saying that, and yet Russia seems to be winning this war for like 16 months now. Ukraine in NATO means nukes within minutes of Moscow and Russia completely surrounded on the western borders except for Belarus, it is definitely something I would want if I were NATO.
Putin was looking for an excuse
An excuse for what, exactly? What, in your perspective, does Russia, both the government and the people, gain from taking part in this war that is so much more important to them that what was officially in the speech declaring the SMO in the first place?
Even if you believe Putin personally hates Ukrainian people or something and would risk his entire government just for that, those grievances are the basis of the rhetoric used for justifying the war internally, and guarantees from NATO about those (remember why we started this discussion?) would take a lot of the wind out of the sails of any war effort. War is just the extension of politics.
Dude, your Nazi reference article title literally says "Ukraine's Nazi problem is real, even if Putin's 'denazification' claim isn't". For starters he is very vague about the nazism part. You can find Nazis in any part of the world and while that is unfortunate that is not justification for one country to invade another. Now maybe if there were Nazis in the governing apparatus, then maybe. And I can see someone saying "well, that's Azov brigade. so Putin was right". Except that's not entirely true. While the original founder of the volunteer battalion was a known to have ties to nazis in both Russia an Europe he was removed from command before the battalion was formally incorporated into the national guard. But then you could follow up that while the leader was removed the members of Azov are still nazis. "Paradoxically—at least for purveyors of Kremlin propaganda, which holds that Ukrainians have been oppressing ethnic Russians—most Azov members are in fact Russian speakers and disproportionally hail from the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine.. Why would Ukrainian "nazis" be Russian speakes, especially if they're supposedly oppressing Russians? Doesn't really make sense. So the entire premise of going to denazify Ukraine is false.
As for joining NATO. Do you know who is the biggest motivator for countries joining NATO? Russia. Poland and the Baltics joined because of the historical precedent Russia has set. Poland famously was ripped apart by the secret MRP pact between Nazi Germany and the USSR. And the Baltic states publicly stated they want neutrality, which just lead to the USSR giving them an ultimatum: join voluntarily or we will invade. There's a reason baltic states consider their time in the USSR as a time when the country was occupied by foreign forces. Since the collapse of the USSR, despite what Putin says, Russia has chosen to not have good ties with it's neighbors. Literally the reason Finland joined NATO and Sweden is in the process of joining is because out of nowhere Russia decided to threaten those two countries (who so far have had no intention of joining NATO). And of course Ukraine. I can't find it right now, because it's a very specific thing to search for, but there are polls done in Ukraine about joining NATO and around 2014 those polls went pretty quickly from not wanting to join NATO to wanting to join NATO. What happened between not wanting to join NATO and wanting to join NATO? Just the annexation of Crimea and the Russian backed war in Donbas. The one country keeping NATO relevant is Russia themselves. Prior to the war in Ukraine there was a growing sentiment if NATO is even necessary anymore, but the war in Ukraine justified the existence of NATO to many of its members.
And your nuke reference doesn't work so I can't really comment about it. If it's about the statements from the Ukrainian ambassador and Zeleneskii about maybe reconsidering the budapest memorandum in regard of giving up nuclear power if security guarantees are not met. That was a maybe and if Russia was actually worried about that, then perhaps they should've acted in accordance to the Budapest memorandum and not annex Crimea? Once again we get back to Russia creating this situation in the place.
Those grievances are either false or indirectly created by the Russian interference. I don't see how anyone could take those grievances seriously.
You people keep saying that, and yet Russia seems to be winning this war for like 16 months now. Ukraine in NATO means nukes within minutes of Moscow and Russia completely surrounded on the western borders except for Belarus, it is definitely something I would want if I were NATO.
Except that's not entirely up to NATO is it. Every single neighbor of Russia could choose not to join NATO. Ukraine didn't want to join until Russia annex Crimea, Finland and Sweden didn't want to join until Russia threatened them. This "net" around Russia is because of Russia and not because NATO wants this. If we talk about NATO as an extension of American imperialism then American has bigger problems than Russia, primarily China. If there's any part where the US would want to increase its military presence it would be on the eastern coast of Asia, not eastern Europe.
An excuse for what, exactly? What, in your perspective, does Russia, both the government and the people, gain from taking part in this war that is so much more important to them that what was officially in the speech declaring the SMO in the first place?
To regain part of their imperial hegemony that they lost to the EU during euromaidan? Ukraine was in the backpocket of Russia until the maidan revolution, do you really think Russia wouldn't want that power back? This was their shot before Ukraine joins NATO, because Russia can't touch them once they're in NATO (which is why they haven't tried to take the Baltics back, as it's another region I'm sure they'd want back). I think it's obvious they'd do that, because they did go into Belarus (and I think also into Afghanistan) to quell the upcoming revolution there. Russia is the living example of "War is just the extension of politics".
Cool, at least you now acknowledge that those claims have been known since before the SMO and therefore that guarantees over it would have helped prevent it happening even if Putin really wanted it by taking away wind from the sails of the government.
First source
It doesn't go into much detail other than "they say they're not racist, some Jewish people even drink with them sometimes." Yeah, there is disagreement over the role of the Nazis, and the first source I provided was specifically one that shows that there are indeed Nazis not only in society but as part of the government, even if I disagree with some of their conclusions there. Azov is a far-right paramilitary that has been specifically targetting Russian-majority regions like Donetsk since 2014 when they tried to become an independent republic after the 2014 coup. Have something from the time talking about their war on a separatist group, which is not very nice in my opinion.
Besides not having anything of substance other than "they're nice lads to me personally," your source also includes this line, which I think is a terrible look no matter who is saying it.
On average they speak better Russian than the Russian invaders.
Not only is "speaking better " a really weird way to put it, but just because they know a language doesn't mean the represent the people there, specially since both Donetsk and Luhansk voted to become independent before they went there. Either way, the fact that there is a paramilitary with explicit Nazi symbology occupying a separatist region and destroying monuments to those who killed the Nazis in the first place, while also celebrating known Nazi collaborators like Bandera should at least be cause for concern.
NATO
The USSR and the Russian Federation are entirely different things. In fact, the guy who made Putin who he is now is Yeltsin who is famous only for illegally dissolving the Union and selling out the entirety of the country. To skip over that and pretend they are a continuous government is misleading. You are probably referring to this article in which it's shown that NATO was seen as a threat in eastern Ukraine. After the Euromaidan coup, those eastern regions promptly either tried to get independence (Donetsk/Luhansk) and have been at war with Ukraine since, or in the case of Crimea have joined Russia and have very high polling opinions of their own referendum. And we must always remember that NATO has backed the 2014 coup, which is a common cause for the Crimean annexation that people often ignore. Guarantees such as removing Azov members from the government and military and banning Nazi symbology (instead of the currently banned communist ones) could have helped de-escalate the conflict.
faulty source on nukes
No idea what happened there, Google failed me. Here's a fixed one on yandex. I'm not sure on the official "why" of getting nukes in Ukraine, but it was something that was discussed at the time, and is a huge threat to the Russian national security, specially considering the previously ongoing Donbass war. Imagine if during the Cuban missile crisis Cuba was actively at war with Puerto Rico or something of the sort. Guarantees such as "Ukraine will never have NATO nukes" would have been great de-escalation tactics.
Not only NATO's fault
Yes, it also depends on both the government of Russia and Ukraine, but most notably not the Ukrainian people. There has been no referendum on joining NATO since the promise in 2014. Russia could've chosen to de-escalate, but the NATO-backed Ukrainian government could also have tried to de-escalate themselves. That's what the "guarantee" you were so flabbergasted about a while back could've been.
If we talk about NATO as an extension of American imperialism then American has bigger problems than Russia, primarily China.
Yes, which is why NATO is not participating directly in this conflict, but using it as a proxy war to throw western ukranians at eastern ukranians with minimal cost to their own personnel. This war is basically a risky investment for them, if it succeeds, great, if it doesn't they cut their losses and leave Ukraine in shambles, and it won't impact them at home much. Specially the USA who won't have to deal with the blowback from the Azov battalion like the EU will.
But either way it doesn't matter much because NATO can act in two fronts at once. They are still acting in the South China sea while this war is ongoing, though it doesn't fit as neatly into the news cycle. In the case of Ukraine, Ukraine itself along with the EU can focus there more, while in China they can better use the resources from Australia and Japan. They're big enough to do multiple things at once.
Those grievances are either false or indirectly created by the Russian interference. I don’t see how anyone could take those grievances seriously.
Those grievances are the moral justification for the war, whether you believe that they are based in reality or not. Although I don't have hard data on this at hand, I think it's very likely that the Russian foot soldiers at least believe these grievances on some level, and such a risky SMO would not happen without military support. By making guarantees such as "1) Azov is disbanded, 2) Ukraine won't join NATO, 3) the war on Donbass will end, 4) no nukes for Ukraine," the Russian government would have a much harder time getting their people to willingly go to the front lines. Those are just some random ones I can think off the top of my head, but the smart ambassadors probably have some better compromises to be reached. However we both know that NATO has been wanting this war since 2013, since Russia is a critical ally of their enemies such as Syria, China, Cuba, Venezuela and now Niger and compromising would actually reduce the chances of their desired outcomes.
To regain part of their imperial hegemony that they lost to the EU during euromaidan? Ukraine was in the backpocket of Russia until the maidan revolution, do you really think Russia wouldn’t want that power back?
You might want to read this paper on the Maiden massacre before claiming it was a "revolution." Long story short, protesters and police were shot at by snipers from far-right paramilitary groups, which was then covered up by the new government and the NATO-affiliated press, to make it seem like they were murdered by the (democratically elected) government. Then this government which was friendlier with Russia and tried to maintain neutrality got toppled, and US diplomats directed the appointment of the interim prime minister, which led to unrest and revolt in the eastern parts of Ukraine that did not support the coup, including armed insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk, and then we got the Azov paramilitary being sent there to quell this revolt.
Following this rough timeline you can see how the war has very little to do with "USSR imperial hegemony" as if the USSR wasn't always voluntary union from the very start. The official and moral casus belli of this war is still to maintain broader Russian national security and to support the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk (and Crimea), against the encroachment of the NATO-backed government allied with the Azov paramilitary that is known for destroying anti-fascist symbols, banning/imprisoning political opponents and imposing their unpopular government on the separatist eastern regions (PDF), not to mention banning elections.
To call that a "revolution" would mean that things changed for the better and the current government better represents the will of the people. If that were the case they'd be really popular in the east and wouldn't need to send brownshirts to fight there, right? You frame Ukraine-Russia amicable relations as "being in Russia's pocket," but how would you argue against the opposite claim the the previous democratically elected government was just following its democratic mandate of ensuring neutrality and amicable relations with both the EU and Russia, without having to swastika-tattooed soldiers to kill dissenters?
This all started with "what guarantees should be given" and I've shown you some which you have not really refuted. All else is just bonus information to get you thinking a bit more.
I don't think here's anything for me to reply. I think it's pretty obvious you take everything Russia says at face value and without any question of whether it's actually true or not. With the guarantees you even go as far as to say it doesn't even matter whether the concerns are true or not as long as Russians believe it, which means there's nothing even to address because Russians will believe what they want to believe.
And when Russian statements get questioned you drown out the criticism with an information dump that may or may not be related to the actual criticism. It would take me days to go through everything you wrote to explain why something is wrong or why it's not even relevant to the discussion. It's a common disinformation tactic and it would be a waste of my time to respond to that because you're going to reply with another information dump.
I think it’s pretty obvious you take everything Russia says at face value
No, but I acknowledge that Russia has demands, and has had those demands ever since before the war. Also most of the sources I provided were from US-based outlets so claiming that it comes straight from Russia is misleading.
it doesn’t even matter whether the concerns are true or not as long as Russians believe it, which means there’s nothing even to address because Russians will believe what they want to believe.
Hmmmm, no? Russians will believe what they're shown with their own critical view, much like you and me. By having NATO at the very least address those grievances instead of pretending they don't exist (or as they actually did, escalating), it wouldn't surprise anybody that they'd get more galvanised. It's strangely common here to see people who just completely disregard the support for this war from the Russian people. They're human too, y'know.
And when Russian statements get questioned you drown out the criticism with an information dump that may or may not be related to the actual criticism.
And when questions are questioned I answer then. It's not my fault you were so off the mark that I needed to contextualise the whole thing.
It would take me days to go through everything you wrote
Take your time, no rush. You might learn a thing or two, and then I might learn a thing your two from your reply.
It’s a common disinformation tactic and it would be a waste of my time to respond to that because you’re going to reply with another information dump.
It's a common disinformation tactic to provide a fuckton of sourced information that contextualises all that is being said and provides argumentation and conclusion. Come on now, if you don't like forum discussions why did you even come here to discuss something you don't really care enough about?
This one is shorter, how about that?
No, but I acknowledge that Russia has demands, and has had those demands ever since before the war. Also most of the sources I provided were from US-based outlets so claiming that it comes straight from Russia is misleading.
Everyone has demands. I could demand right now that you change your opinion. Does that mean my demand should be taken seriously? No. I have no problem acknowledging Russia has demands. I have a problem taking those demands seriously because every single demand is baseless or self-inflicted.
Hmmmm, no? Russians will believe what they’re shown with their own critical view, much like you and me.
Except their critical view is being twisted by state propaganda. Any Russian inside Russia has to fully reject all major information channels from within Russia to even have a chance for an objective critical view.
By having NATO at the very least address those grievances
Two questions. What grievances? The ones you mentioned or the ones Putin mentioned? Because you brought up slightly difference grievances than Putin. And the second question is how is NATO supposed to address them? For instance the one about Nazis in Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO. The one about nukes isn't actually related to NATO either, it's related to the countries that signed the Budapest memorandum.
pretending they don’t exist (or as they actually did, escalating)
Where precisely did NATO itself escalate the issue. Last I checked NATO itself hasn't done anything except reject the unrealistic proposal Russia presented. It's entirely unrealistic to demand NATO stop it's open door policy in regards to Ukraine, demand NATO forces out of NATO countries and demand that NATO countries themselves refuse to support Ukraine.
It’s strangely common here to see people who just completely disregard the support for this war from the Russian people. They’re human too, y’know.
That's an interesting thing to say, because most vocal Russians on Reddit actually claimed to be against the war and blamed "the west" for demonizing Russian people for supporting the war. I agree that they're human too but clearly the support is not as clear as you make it seem to be.
The rest of the comment is not relevant to the discussion.
Does that mean my demand should be taken seriously?
Yes, it means that I'm aware of your demand and that I choose not to comply because you haven't provided enough justifications. On the other hand I'm de-escalating the situation by showing how the flaws in your reasoning. NATO could've done the same thing, but instead they chose to pretend the coup was a revolution, and all is right in the world. And you are now choosing to not read all the information which I provided, then throwing your arms to the sky and proclaiming that "there's no such information."
Except their critical view is being twisted by state propaganda.
So is ours. Welcome to the internet where bourgeois newspapers do their darnedest to control the narratives. However you don't need to "fully reject" the outlets much as I haven't "fully rejected" mnsbc or other USA news there, just read them critically. They still have the internet and a lot of them speak English, so if they want they can check multiple sources, which is how you actually develop critical views, not by just discarding the ones you don't trust 100% percent. You may notice I didn't outright discard any of your (rare) sources.
What grievances? The ones you mentioned or the ones Putin mentioned? Because you brought up slightly difference grievances than Putin.
You might want to elaborate on that. Since I'm not the President of Russia, I think you should go with the Putin ones of blocking Ukraine from NATO, ending the Donbass war and removing the Nazis from government. It's all in the speech, if you read it.
And the second question is how is NATO supposed to address them?
Read above, but I'm also not the French ambassador so they could think of clever compromises too, so long as they actually acknowledged the Russian moral concerns. They didn't even go that far. (though I could be wrong there, fetch me a source disproving this, will ya).
The one about nukes isn’t actually related to NATO either, it’s related to the countries that signed the Budapest memorandum.
Those weapons would't be developed locally, they'd come from the USA as has been happening in other EU countries. A simple official statement "no, we won't give them nukes" would've been cool I think. Obviously they didn't do it because, again, this war has been a long time coming and NATO wanted it. Ukraine is the one paying the price.
Where precisely did NATO itself escalate the issue.
Read the sources, you'll see that the Maidan coup was backed by NATO, that they have been supplying weapons for the war on Donbass, and that right now they are providing material support for Ukraine, which is not (and probably will never be) a NATO country. There are leaked calls in which US diplomats basically choose who should become prime minister, the previous spitballing of nukes and now even the destruction of Nordstream and the providing of cluster munitions. Since you're not bothering to check the sources I'll only provide the ones you ask for.
It’s entirely unrealistic to demand NATO stop it’s open door policy in regards to Ukraine, demand NATO forces out of NATO countries and demand that NATO countries themselves refuse to support Ukraine.
Not really, Ukraine is not in NATO so they could stop all of those things there. In fact it's possible they stop doing it in a while after this failed counter-offensive of their own volition. It is at least less unrealistic than the Ukrainian government demand that the Russian forces need to pack it up and go home, abandoning all of their costly victories in the war, in order for there to be any peace talks. Always remember that this support started with the Donbass war which has killed thousands and displaced millions, and even Zelenskyy himself has said it was a huge mistake.
That’s an interesting thing to say, because most vocal Russians on Reddit actually claimed to be against the war and blamed “the west” for demonizing Russian people for supporting the war. I agree that they’re human too but clearly the support is not as clear as you make it seem to be.
Oh wow, Russians on reddit, a website that literally banned Genzedong for being critically supportive of the SMO. That certainly doesn't include any biases in your anecdotal experience that need to be accounted for. Apparently the support public opinion on Putin is up since the beginning of the war, but I don't really like statista as a source and search engines are flooded with "Americans think Russia bad" NYT articles so I'm not bothering with that. Feel free to find better sources that give more foundation to your experience, but the proxy speculation I was using for the support is that the Russian military has spent the past 18 months at war while their country receives an absurd amount of sanctions. This is hard to maintain without public support, but I could be wrong.
The rest of the comment is not relevant to the discussion.
The rest of my comment is very relevant to the discussion because apparently you seem to think that providing sources and discussing on an internet forum is "disinformation," which I think is why you don't provide any yourself. I'm sorry to tell you, but if you come here saying nonsense and people provide counterarguments with evidence backing them, you're just wasting everybody's time with your speculations and hearsay if you don't respond on their level. You should probably read before you write.
Well? You were so ready to prove me wrong and I'm still waiting. I've given you days to find the sources for your claims, but I guess it's hard to find sources for made up shit. Maybe you should follow your own advice and read before you write, otherwise you just end up self-owning yourself.
Nah, I actually wrote a thing out but lemmy 0.18.3 was buggy as hell and it didn't post, and it ruined my mood for this. Since you've shown yourself to be so lazy that you couldn't just google the statistics of English speakers in Russia (hint, wikipedia has some easily digestible data), it's pretty clear you're just wasting my time and moving the goalposts, misrepresenting your own sources and generally acting in bad faith, and the comment thread is so hidden that engaging with your bad faith won't even help to reach even actually curious lurkers. No point in it for me really, prove yourself right all you want in an endless thread talking to yourself. Maybe this talking to this lad instead, you both think alike.
As evidence of your nonsense:
Unless you want to provide with a clear source where NATO calls it a revolution I’m going to claim they didn’t, because I couldn’t find where they said that.
What is the official name for that coup, Coup of Dignity?
In that case all should be good considering the US and NATO did respond, NATO also publicly if I may add.
Actually read those and point me where the actual de-escalation is in there. Literally dismiss Russia's claims offhandedly while claiming "changes in transparency" or other political non-statements.
I did, this is false. Your sources stated that the US was backing the coup, not NATO.
Your honour, I didn't kill him, it was my brain who told the finger to pull the trigger.
The latter NATO literally cannot fulfill because that is a decision of individual countries.
Military defence alliance can't control its members, logically.
Russia obviously denies
lmao, find me an official Russian source denying their support for the independence of the eastern republics.
It’s unrealistic to expect that your borders be respected before there can be peace talks?
Yes. Find me a single case in modern history where a peace talk only started (read: not a surrender) only after the winning party abandoned all their military gains. You can probably think of one or two, but that's a good exercise nevertheless.
Funny.
Had to check, you don't even read what your own sources say.
Honestly, go waste somebody else's time with your
nonsense. If you really care that much that none of Russia's demands go answered, go join the foreign legion or something, I've head they even help with student loans. Just dont pester some rando correcting your "what guarantees" vagueposting.
Yes, it means that I’m aware of your demand and that I choose not to comply because you haven’t provided enough justifications. On the other hand I’m de-escalating the situation by showing how the flaws in your reasoning.
In that case all should be good considering the US and NATO did respond, NATO also publicly if I may add.
They try to re-establish some kind of acceptance that Russia has the right to control what neighbours do, or not do. And that's the kind of world we don't want to return to, where big powers had a say, or a kind of right, to put limitations of what sovereign, independent nations can do.
That applies to both Ukraine joining NATO and previous post-soviet countries joining NATO.
NATO could’ve done the same thing, but instead they chose to pretend the coup was a revolution, and all is right in the world.
Unless you want to provide with a clear source where NATO calls it a revolution I'm going to claim they didn't, because I couldn't find where they said that.
And you are now choosing to not read all the information which I provided, then throwing your arms to the sky and proclaiming that “there’s no such information.”
I guess then it should be extremely easy to point where NATO calls it a revolution.
So is ours. Welcome to the internet where bourgeois newspapers do their darnedest to control the narratives. However you don’t need to “fully reject” the outlets much as I haven’t “fully rejected” mnsbc or other USA news there, just read them critically.
I think you're seriously underestimating how strong Russian propaganda machine is. I'm sure you're seen Russia claim that the west betrayed them with the NATO advancement. It's something that maybe you've seen some poor quality western sources also claim, just one example to show that this claim has also spread to the west. That is not true at all. In fact it's deliberate Russian propaganda
Russia's approach to NATO expansion in the first half of 1997 was characterized, on the one hand, by increasing government-sponsored rhetoric in the mass media about possible responses by Moscow to such a step. On the other hand, Yeltsin (who completely controlled all issues concerning Russia's links with NATO) and Primakov understood clearly that Russia
...
When he understood that NATO would expand with or without an agreement with Russia, he agreed to sign the basic agreement, thus demonstrating his continued sense of reality. As soon as Russia stated its readiness to sign the agreement with NATO, several Russian authors who are often used to express the views of the Russian Foreign Ministry, proclaimed that Russia had extracted enormous concessions: There would be no second round of enlargement; NATO would review its strategic concept and would be transformed into an organization more political than military. It was especially stressed that Russia would reject the basic agreement if the issue of admitting the Baltic states into the alliance were ever to be raised.7 There was no doubt that in comments about the NATO agreement, representatives of the Russian government, as well as people in the mass media, sought to portray the agreement as a win for Russia and to ascribe to NATO promises which the alliance had never made (this was especially true of a remark by Yeltsin press secretary Sergei Yastrzhembsky that Russia had made certain that new NATO members would be second-rate participants in the alliance).8
Anyway
They still have the internet and a lot of them speak English, so if they want they can check multiple sources, which is how you actually develop critical views, not by just discarding the ones you don’t trust 100% percent.
Considering the rest of this statement hinges on their ability to speak English my question is, source on a lot of them speaking English?
You might want to elaborate on that. Since I’m not the President of Russia, I think you should go with the Putin ones of blocking Ukraine from NATO, ending the Donbass war and removing the Nazis from government. It’s all in the speech, if you read it.
Well you're the one going around "guarantees this" and "guarantees that" but at no point do you explicitly state what you mean by guarantees. You listed a few but those were presented more like your personal opinion on what they might be, rather than what you claim they are. But I guess you're referring to the speech so I guess that at least gives some clearer context on what you meant.
Read the sources, you’ll see that the Maidan coup was backed by NATO,
I did, this is false. Your sources stated that the US was backing the coup, not NATO.
There are leaked calls in which US diplomats basically choose who should become prime minister, the previous spitballing of nukes and now even the destruction of Nordstream and the providing of cluster munitions.
Source on the spitballing?
Not really, Ukraine is not in NATO so they could stop all of those things there. In fact it’s possible they stop doing it in a while after this failed counter-offensive of their own volition.
The fuck does this even mean? Ukraine is not in the NATO so NATO shouldn't allow Ukraine in at all and also move all of its forces out of the Baltic states and Poland? Or did you mean only the last part of those unreasonable claims, that NATO countries shouldn't support Ukraine? The latter NATO literally cannot fulfill because that is a decision of individual countries.
It is at least less unrealistic than the Ukrainian government demand that the Russian forces need to pack it up and go home, abandoning all of their costly victories in the war, in order for there to be any peace talks.
How is that unrealistic? It's unrealistic to expect that your borders be respected before there can be peace talks? Especially if the entire war is either at a stalemate or slightly in your favor? I'd understand if there's a relatively clear prediction that Ukraine will lose, but that's currently not the case.
Always remember that this support started with the Donbass war which has killed thousands and displaced millions
You mean with the Russian backed coup in Donetsk and Luhansk? Russia obviously denies that but both region are russian-backed. That war is just as much on Russia as it is on Ukraine. A
and even Zelenskyy himself has said it was a huge mistake.
Funny.
Apparently the support public opinion on Putin is up since the beginning of the war, but I don’t really like statista as a source and search engines are flooded with “Americans think Russia bad” NYT articles so I’m not bothering with that. Feel free to find better sources that give more foundation to your experience, but the proxy speculation I was using for the support is that the Russian military has spent the past 18 months at war while their country receives an absurd amount of sanctions. This is hard to maintain without public support, but I could be wrong.
I actually don't have an issue with that, I was just pointing out how there are Russians who would be happy to claim opposite. I'm aware that Russians support the war and in my opinion their refusal to oppose the war makes them also responsible for this war. This isn't a case where they can say it's their government and they couldn't do anything, they don't want to do anything about it either.
