You're either being naive or in denial. What areas were hundreds of years ago does not matter...this is 2023.
Prighozin was Putin’s attack dog only weeks ago. I’m unlikely to heed his advice or suggestions now just because there was some internal pissing match between him and his dictator buddy. It doesn’t absolve him of anything or make him suddenly reliable. It’s like liberals lining up to fellate any Republican who defects from Trump. It makes no sense. They are still corrupt assholes. So is Prighozin. As far as my capacity for caring about Ukrainians goes, I care to the extent where I’d like to not see any more dead. I think it’s unfortunate the Ukrainian government’s ego has been artificially inflated to the extent where they thought it’d be wise to take on a superpower with other countries money and supplies. If they would have not been pumped up by the United States they would have been forced to make a deal, less people would be dead and Americans with no healthcare wouldn’t be funding a proxy war 10,000 miles away while our country literally crumbles around us.
It very much matters. The areas NATO has encroached upon are the lands Russia has been invaded through multiple times going back to at least Napoleon. It is the literal sole cause and effect of this current conflict. You saying it doesn’t matter proves a fundamental lack of understanding and it’s why I don’t respond to many of your posts on the subject.
There was never really a chance for Ukraine to win unless NATO got directly involved (which might escalate to nuclear). As they say, war either ends in a negotiation settlement or with the total destruction of one side. So why not skip the fighting? The US didn't want to skip the fighting, they wanted to weaken Russia using the blood of Ukranians as pawns. It's also nice for the military industrial complex. Lots of munitions and equipment to replace now. People just won't listen or let it sink in that Ukraine was attacking civilians in the Donbas region, and that most of the people there want to join with Russia. So why is anyone morally outraged that Russia has set up a protective line around that region? The response I always here is "But Russia bad, Ukraine good". It's like half our population are NPCs.
NATO hasn't encroached upon any areas. Literally none. Whereas Russia has. So your framing of the situation is, shall we say, bass-ackwards. barfo
So using your logic, England would be also justified by trying to invade America to take back land it owned back in the 1700s?...oh wait, that already happened, it was called the War of 1812. "Napoleon"?... once again, as I pointed out earlier "In 1954 Nikita Khrushchev gave Crimea as a "gift" to the republic of Ukraine ...Putin decided that he wanted Crimea back, and more." Nearly every statement/link, etc., you've provided has either been debunked or shown to be inaccurate...but yeah, according to you, I'm the one who "lacks understanding"?
NATO was formed many years ago for this very reason and because of Russi'a aggression NATO has grown even stronger since this started. ...and who said the people of Donbas want to join Russia?...How was that decided, by a legit vote?...or because Russia said so? "When the responses are weighted by the estimated total population on either side of the line of control in the Donbas before the war (1.7 million in the Kyiv-controlled zone and 2.1 million in the separatist republics), more people preferred to remain in Ukraine (42 percent) than be annexed to Russia (31 percent)." https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...raine-donbas-donetsk-luhansk-public-opinion/#
This piece from CNN has a video from drone itself hitting the russian ship. Some reports of a second boat hit and also report of refinery being hit by drones in Crimea.
I'm not going to respond to this. I am here to try to keep reminding people what is happening in Ukraine. If I wanted to quibble politics I would be on a different thread.
You might want to read up on the Russian Kyiv convoy. I took this as a significant suggestion that they were attempting to overthrow Ukraine... but maybe I'm just being dramatic... Seriously, Russia's goal here is to regain all of the territory and populations that were controlled by the USSR. If they can't do that they will cease to be a world power within 20 years. They think they need to control the passes that Ukraine controls, and they'll need control of the land, as well as Ukraine's population (since Russia doesn't have enough young people) in order to maintain control of those passes long term.
Look at the way the people of Ukraine voted for president by region. It's very polarized, in the East, they favored the president Yanukovych, who was that was ousted in the 2014 Maidan coup. Do you really believe their anger was just "Russian propaganda"?
lol...Wikipedia? ...that map/chart is from 2010. And now you're talking about politics, not the war. But yeah, if some Russian "elections" are bogus why should anyone believe that they're not all bogus? Did you even read the part that says; "The poll did not claim to have scientific precision, but was carried out to get a basis from which to judge the outcome of the referendum, given that independent observers were not present to monitor it." Besides, if you look at the US, we're pretty polarized ourselves....want a map?
