Quote (ferdia @ 9 May 2022 15:45)
That video might be removed djunior so well here is a brief ~ Putin's Speech Key Take Away:
"An absolutely unacceptable threat was created for us, and moreover, just next to our borders...bla bla bla neo-nazi's...I repeat, we saw how the military infrastructure was being developed, how hundreds of foreign advisers began to work, there were regular deliveries of the most modern weapons from Nato countries. The danger grew every day. Russia has preemptively repulsed an aggression. it was a forced, timely, and the only correct decision."
OK so basically nothing about long term plans. he spoke about WW2, and addressed those soldiers currently fighting. His rhetoric implied this was a do-or-die moment for them, they were not going to suddenly stop. so yea months more to go.
does anyone else have another view of the speech? the narrative being provided is that ukraine was building up an army for years (true) and that ukraine would invade russia (im not qualified to explore that). ultimately this war was a long time coming but it appears to have been inevitable for a long time. I guess more knowledgeable people will look over that with a fine tooth comb and write books about it, for me to read, in a few years time.
What's interesting is that the narrative shifted slightly. First, it was an imminent attack by the "Ukrainian fascists" on ethnic Russians in Donbass. Then, it was the "denazification" of Ukraine. Now, it's an imminent NATO attack on Russia and Crimea. Putin can't even keep his own propaganda consistent.
And yes, Russia had been preparing for this war for years, so the narrative that there was a concrete, recent troop buildup in Ukraine which threatened to attack/invade Russia and thus forced them to act now, is obviously bogus.
Quote (Djunior @ 9 May 2022 16:08)
All of those that are screaming Russia bad are wrong, the truth (history, cannot be denied) is that NATO has basically taken all former Warsaw Pact countries despite "security promises". Putin clearly states in that vid I posted that Russia always wanted security for both sides. And here it comes:
If NATO (the West) had been smart enough to respect security for both sides instead of expanding East and installing missile shields etc etc then this war wouldn't have happened.
NATO hasn't stolen these Eastern European countries from Russia, it were these countries which desperately wanted to join NATO asap so that they don't have to go back to Russia ever again.
Russia is not
entitled to a sphere of influence or a neutral buffer zone. The Eastern European countries, including Ukraine, are sovereign nations who can decide for their own whether they want closer ties with the West or with Russia. Rejecting the NATO and EU membership applications of Eastern Europe to not provoke Russia would essentially have meant that NATO/the EU accept Putin's doctrine of the limited sovereignty of Russia's neighbors.
Furthermore, your theory that keeping Eastern Europe neutral would have prevented the war is tenuous at best in the face of history. During a summit in 2007 or 2008, Ukraine wanted to join NATO. In the end, Germany and France decided against it because they didn't want to provoke Russia or increase tensions in the regions. They opted for appeasement. - and look where it got us.
At the end of the day, what we saw in Ukraine since at least 2004, if not earlier, was a tug-of-war between the West and Russia over the future alignment of Ukraine. In 2013/14, culminating in the Euromaidan revolution, the West prevailed. A majority of Ukraine's political class and civil society chose closer ties with the EU over closer ties with Russia, leading to Russia annexing Crimea and stoking separatism in Donetsk and Luhansk. As a frozen conflict, this status quo would have been good enough to prevent a Ukrainian NATO or EU membership... but this wasn't good enough for Putin either.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 9 2022 09:34am