NimdaQA @ NimdaQA @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 137Joined 5 days ago
I never had a wife. I am an unemployed loser. So I think you have a hard time reading vibes.
Nope. Russia followed Minsk II. Ukraine did not.
Even Ukraine admitted that the vast majority of Separatists were Ukrainians. The Victory Day Massacre occured before Girkin's intervention. Protestors showed their passports to Vice News showing that they were in fact Ukrainian. Do you want me to PM you the video of the AFU and Azov firing into a crowd of unarmed protestors? People also like to quote Girkin to prove that Russia started the War in the Donbas forgetting the rest of the quote. He acknowledged the movement started before he intervened. What he did say is that it would have been crushed without his support naming the Victory Day Massacre as evidence for this where the AFU put down unrest by simply shooting everyone in the crowd. Russia did provide support to them. Yes. They provided intellgence and leadership with Girkin becoming the leader of the DPR. Russia provided weapons. But the movement was ultimately organic. Russian forces did not storm Ukraine in any significant number until 2015 when they thrown BTGs into Ukraine to stem the tide when DPR and LPR forces were being pushed back.
No they weren't. Before the annexation of Crimea, Ukraine underwent a violent coup against the democratically elected government where Ukrainian ultranationalists burned down an entire building filled with dozens of unarmed protestors who were against this illegitimate coup conducted by said ultranationalists.
Maybe Ukraine should not act like Georgia. I.E, conducing massacres against civilians during a civil war.
Ukraine has not been sovereign since 2014 imo. The democratically elected government got overthrown by a violent coup leading to massive amounts of unrest in Eastern Ukraine leading to this new illegitimate government conducting massacres like the Victory Day Massacre where they fired into an entire crowd.
Russia does not have a wartime economy. They are only spending 6% of their GDP on their military which is comparable to the US or Poland in terms of percentage of GDP. EU has given up far more than just a portion. UK has supplied Ukraine with all of its SPGs. Poland supplied Ukraine with half of its SPGs. The US has supplied Ukraine with 15% of its entire ATACMS stockpile (a missile which is no longer produced and does not yet have a viable alternative due to PRSM still being in low-rate production) as of six months ago. The EU has given up a significant portion of their ammunition to Ukraine. The only thing they did not give is tanks because Ukraine already had a thousand tanks at the start of the war (half of which were modern) which is more tanks than the amount that France, Germany, and the UK have combined.
Most of the Russian military is not in Ukraine per my other comment.
- Oryx states otherwise. Russia has only lost 127 T-90Ms despite producing 240-360 in 2023 and likely double that this year. Russia has only lost 789 T-72BA and T-72B3 tanks after three whole years of war despite having 2,650 of them at the start of the war with hundreds of older T-72Bs being taken out of storage and modernized to replace losses.
- Storm Shadow is not a ballistic missile but a cruise missile. Only 3,000 have been produced after 2 decades while Russia produces more than 500 Kh-101 air-launched cruise missiles per year. And the Kh-101 is much longer range.. Including other air-launched cruise missiles, Russia is producing around a thousand per year. Production has also been outpacing use.
- Ukraine has a wartime economy spending 30% of its GDP. Russia meanwhile is only spending 6% of its GDP on the military (comparable to US and Poland in terms of percentage of GDP.
I am not aware of myself being an orangutan.
Again, Rude.
I suggest taking a deep breath.
It stopped being a sovereign nation after the illegitimate coup which occured in 2014.
- The post-Maidan government conducted massacres in Eastern Ukraine against unarmed protestors like in Mariupol where the AFU alongside Azov fired into an entire crowd. Russia justified its annexation of Crimea because it made an agreement with the legitimate government of Ukraine before Maidan to continue their lease over Sevastapol. Russia stated that the formation of this illegimate government threatened military infrastructure in Crimea which they rightfully owned due to an agreement with the previous government. Russia also named the massacres that were being conducted in Eastern Ukraine to annex Crimea to safeguard the lives of people in Crimea.
- You mean a civil war broke out between the new illegitimate government and those in Eastern Ukraine who supported the legitimate government. Russia did provide support to them that is true I guess.
- Due to Ukraine's violations of Minsk II.
Your article basically stated that western countries are not willing to protect Ukraine. So what is the point of Ukraine trying to join NATO? That is the entire reason why this war started alongside Ukraine's violations of Minsk II. So Ukraine could have simply prevented all of this nonsense by simply trying to not join NATO which they won't join anyways.
Also love how you bring up a biased source.
- The Budapest Memorandum only applied to the legitimate government of Ukraine. Russia does not consider the government of Ukraine post-Maidan to be legitimate for obvious reasons. Maidan was a violent coup against the democratically elected government with the post-Maidan government launching massacres against anti-Maidan protestors in Eastern Ukraine. It was also first violated by the United States who sanctioned Belarus which was explicity prohibited under the Memorandum.
- Minsk I was violated by both sides. Even Ukraine admits this. This is why Minsk II was created because no one followed Minsk I.
- Minsk II was violated by Ukraine not Russia. The agreement explicity stated that elections come first and then withdrawal. Ukraine wanted Russia to withdraw first before allowing elections in the DPR and LPR which is against the agreement.
- The rest of those agreements are mainly between the US and Russia. Both of them violate it. US continued to develop nuclear weapons despite of the New START Treaty which is one of the reasons why Russia withdrew from it. The US illegitimately removed the accountability under the Treaty about a hundred strategic offensive arms. Both sides violated the Open Skies treaties. Treaties between Russia and the US are irrelvant when talking about Russian treaties with Ukraine.
And what would Ukraine have to give Putin in return? The thing is Putin started the war! Putin started the war because Ukraine was daring to enter NATO which you could literally only hate if you actually wanted to fuck with some country!
Putin's reasons for starting the invasion was multifold. Ukraine was to cease NATO membership plans; downsize its military forces; forbid foreign countries from hosting military bases; and pay reparations. In return, Ukraine would be allowed to keep all of its territory, Crimea would be negotiable after 10-15 years, they would be allowed to join the EU, AND Russia would allow several NATO members to guarantee Ukraine's soveriengty. This means that Ukraine would get the main benefit of joining NATO (protection) without the ability to act as a base for NATO soldiers and weapons that can be used for offensive purposes against Russia.
NATO looked like the next coming of the Axis powers to Russia and can you blame them? It practically surrounded them. Perhaps you would be more understanding if you would think about what if Mexico, Cuba, and Canada was part of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War? You can say that this is Russian propaganda and you can be right but you forget that Russia and its people unironically believe in their own propaganda that NATO is out to get them.
TLDR: Russia would have allowed Ukraine to invoke Article 5 if invaded but not base NATO weapons and soldiers during peacetime that can be used for offensive purposes.
Their “terms” aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. They’ve never honored any agreement they’ve made with Ukraine, and as long as Putin is in power they never will.
Except, there are multiple problems with your logic.
Had Zelenskyy accepted Putin's offer in 2022, future Russian aggression would encounter a problem, the peace treaty would have the US and the UK, as guarantors, who were obliged to assist Ukraine in case of aggression against it. While the Russian Federation attempted to add on another condition where all guarantor states including Russia itself would have to agree to intervene in Ukraine possibily giving Russia the ability to veto other countries from aiding Ukraine in the event Russia broke the agreement, they were likely willing to drop that condition. Throughout the negotiations, Russia was actually dropping many of their previous demands and compromised with Ukraine on multiple occasions (unlike Zelenskyy who didn’t even invite Putin to his peace summits, kinda like the Russia-US peace summits rn).
And that previous agreements were also broken by both sides:
Budapest Memorandum was made null and void in 2013 when the US sanctioned Belarus which was explicitly prohibited in the agreement.
Minsk II was made null and void after Ukraine not only refused to implement them but created laws that violated the agreement and this is more or less the main reason 2022 invasion happened.
Minsk I "agreement quickly broke down, with violations by both sides."
Nope, Ukraine would have kept all of its land had they accepted Putin's offer in 2022. Even the status of Crimea was to be negotiable after 10-15 years.
Putin's peace treaty would have the US and the UK, as guarantors, who were obliged to assist Ukraine in case of aggression against it.
Try again.