I really doubt that that is the intent. Germany receiving gas through the one remaining pipe of Nord Stream 2 would effectively just mean a return to the status quo ante from early August, when Germany was receiving gas through the (technologically similar) Nord Stream 1 before RUSSIA decided to cut off supplies. Germany's willingness to take Russian gas was never the problem from Russia's pov.

Sending a threat to Europe with regard to their own undersea infrastructure, reintroducing panic and uncertainty into the global gas markets or taking leverage away from internal opposition are more coherent explations for Russia being behind this attack.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 5 2022 01:56am

everything but a full ukraine victory, putins head on a spike, russia handing over all its weapons and being broken up is called "oh my god, you are a pooootin fan" these days

there is no logic debate

They can, and they did. When the EU was making its overture to Yanukovych, Russia offered a carrot and stick to keep him aligned with the east and against NATO, and that included a $15 billion bailout deal of Ukrainian debt and financing their government and energy sector- with the implicit threat of what would happen if he went against them, both militarily and economically. Russia used the economic and soft power necessary to keep Ukraine in its orbit.

America used a color revolution to seize control of Ukraine in response. Direct intervention and violent coup d'etat vs soft power and economic leverage. Thats how this all started. We flipped the board.

If someone does not comprehend this fact, read more.

You're still portraying it as if the euromaidan revolution was completely astroturfed and did not represent a genuine sentiment among at least half the Ukrainian people. You're also conveniently leaving out that the protests only turned violent after Yanukovych's special police violently cracked down on them.

Also, like I've stressed time and time and time and time and time again, you had a split government back then - the president wanted to align with Russia, the parliament wanted to align with the EU. The fact that Russia's ally happened to be the one who held veto power, at least in the short term, does not imply that Russia had "convinced" Ukraine to stay in their fold. Moreover, the question of EU vs Russia alignment was not as salient during Ukraine's 2010 presidential election as many think. Yanukovych mainly won because the previous pro-EU camp around Tymoshenko was perceived as incompetent and corrupt. Your entire argument hinges on this false notion that the fact that Yanukovych was president in 2013/13 proves that a majority of the Ukrainian people prefered to stay aligned with Russia.




Russia is not entitled to the territory they currently hold in Ukraine, neither moraly nor in terms of international law. If they are then, on top of that, also unable to hold this territory military, there is just no reason whatsoever to cede this territory to them like Musk proposed. Similarly, any peace deal which doesn't reduce the risk of Russia doing it again makes no sense for Ukraine - but that's exactly what Musk's proposal implies when it enshrines Ukraine staying out of NATO and the EU and asks Ukraine to not crush the Russian forces on their territory whenever they can.

Simply put, Musk's proposal is ill-timed. It might have made sense 3 months ago when it was uncertain whether Russia or Ukraine would eventually gain the upper hand. It might also make sense again 5 months from now if Russia is able to hold off the Ukrainian offense and the frontline becomes static. But asking Ukraine to stop pushing for a requoncest of their country while they have the momentum is just absurd.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 5 2022 03:33am

i dont disagree with this but both of you are making valid statements. note that i struck through the last sentence noting that was not his argument. Your point is made though and i do agree with it. ultimately Ukraine (normal people) WAS turning EU, but whether that was true or not does not change the fact that Goomshills comments are valid,



This post was edited by ferdia on Oct 5 2022 03:39am

It is his argument as stated in many posts throughout this thread, even if he didn't explicitly say so in his most recent post.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 5 2022 03:35am

removing emotions, ukraine is a chess piece that both sides desperately want, and a tug of war has persisted for decades now. for sure a lot of its peoiple were EU inclined for a long time now (again, decades).

This post was edited by ferdia on Oct 5 2022 03:39am

NATO has been party to this conflict since before the bullets were flying, by virtue of existing and countries lining up to join for its protection. But you've made a fair point, which I'll walk back my stance on.

I still don't think it alters my other points, so yes, a reasonable person can conclude Russia won't use nukes.

And don't get me started on inflation. You're way off base including me with that.

I didn't say that a majority wanted it, although it seems very likely when you look at the amount of resistance that even the pro-Yanukovych provinces in the east put up against the Russian invasion.

Hypothetically, if you today conducted a free and fair referendum in all of Ukraine about whether they would prefer to be ruled by Zelensky and eventually join the EU or by Putin and join Russia, then I think that Zelensky/EU win at the very least 75:25, probably higher.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 5 2022 03:43am