1. This is not easy to answer in a few words. However, I will try. The western world. primarily the USA and UK have been using Ukraine as a kind of battering ram to shake up Russia. Outright war is unthinkable (or should be) but since that is out of favour since the series of catastrophically expensive regime change wars in the Middle East, war by other means has become the favoured tactic. Pressure of all possible kinds from financial undermining to economic sanctions to covert activities fomenting protest movements in target nations have become the most favoured weapons. In this regard Ukraine was a perfect weapon to use against Russia. The anti-Russian feeling was already there with a sizeable minority of Nazi-legacy fanatics existing and having been taken into the Ukrainian army and national guard. Fanning those flames against Russia was a no-brainer therefore. So the entire western world almost got behind it. The people of eastern Ukraine, in the Donbass, were targeted in 2014. They had mounted a peaceful takeover of the administration centres there. The response of Kiev was to send the Ukrainian military in and many of the Nazi-legacy freaks went also. The result was that mortars were set up all around what the west Ukrainians refer to as the 'Moskals' (Russian's) villages, towns and cities and began firing random shells into them. These most often hit the highest buildings, residential blocks of which there are many from the Soviet era, hospitals, schools and so forth. Those that missed these fell at random among urban conurbations, town centres, modest single-storey homes and the streets. Around 14,000 people have died as a result of Kiev reacting with violence there, the majority of them undoubtedly civilians. These are some of the potent reasons for why Russia required to deal with a situation that was only worsening with Kiev rejecting the peace process agreed to at Minsk in 2015. There is so much more to this but the above is at least an outline for you.
This seems quite a one sided account of events to me, but for the sake of argument let's grant that's all true. The points you make here have have to do with Russia protecting people in the Donbas, whereas the claim in your article is that this helps Russia's security... I have to admit I find that a bit of a stretch
2. The West would not be at all fine and has not been at all fine with Russia keeping the Donbass and Crimea. In my view this is just part of the attitude which had its genesis in the hours after 9/11. In my considered judgement it was agreed in those hours that every single entity not cooperating with the USA in its now absolute need to be global hegemon in a unipolar world with full spectrum dominance at its command had to be eliminated and replaced. Without exception. There have been many targets and many interventions by the USA subsequently, but none as big or as able to fight back as Russia. No gains whatsoever were to be allowed any of the targeted nations. And of course Russia was not to be the last. China will be the biggest challenge of all if Russia does not completely stymie the 9/11 goals completely through what I foresee as its ultimate victory in and over a Ukraine war fuelled and weaponized to the hilt by the West led by the USA and UK. It is war. In a war you grant your enemies no victories. Allowing Russia to take the Donbass and keep Crimea would certainly be Russian victories.
I'm afraid you are looking at this through a lens that needs sharpened by greater research deej1. I hope you'll undertake what would be quite a task, but one that would ultimately allow you to have a far greater understanding of the underlying issues. It would not come best from myself but from sources that are available if you choose to look. Meanwhile I would recommend the following short video which depicts some of the related backdrop to this long and convoluted history that is now shaking Ukraine to its core.
No. If getting along was possible, there would be no fighting.
Russia has spent a CENTRURY trying to get along, and has been invaded repeatedly, and most recently had NATO growing closer and closer despite specific assurances that this would never happen.
NATO is an explicitly hostile military alliance with the specific target of: Russia.
the west has staged colour revolutions all over the world, including recent attempts on Russia's border, not just Ukraine, but Georgia, Kazakstan, and Uzbekistan.
No, getting along is not possible.
China just wants to get along, and look what's happening to them.
The invasion is not your typical invasion/conquest. It's beating your enemy to the punch.
Nato's explicitly defensive. Countries want to join because they fear Russia invading them if they don't play to Russia's tune. Which is exactly what's happened to Ukraine.
The idea that it's beating anyone to the punch is just silly. Russia has not been invaded since the Nazi's 80 years ago. No one but no one wants to invade Russia now. Even if they did, Russia has lots of nuclear weapons.
Russia and China don't want to 'just get along'.... because getting along without fighting is very possible. Just don't start a war.
See, NATO expansion is WHY Russia launched the operation.
Not the reverse.
Or to put it another way 'Nato expands to solve problem cause by nato expansion.'
'Preemptive self defence' is the language Russia used, and the precident was set... by Nato.
Russia and China are happy to get along without war. It's the west that does not. Why?
Because China, and Russia to a lesser extent, are RISING.
In peacetime.
USA is crumbling.
So if they don't swing their weight around now, they won't have it to swing around later.
And her's the thing: there is no war.
It's not just a marketting exercize, this really IS a special militaryt operation.
IF this was a war, there would be a LOT more dead, and a lot more destruction, and it would be faster.
This is what a fight looks like, when one side is professional, and also trying very hard not to kill civvies.
Remember, the typical casualty ratio in war is 1:1 mil/civ. For every killed soldier on either side, one civ als dies.
This war is more like 7:1. 7 dead soldiers, for every 1 civ.
IT's also why any cities are still standing in the west.
Yes, beating them to the punch.
Because the anti-russian military alliance that destroyed Yugoslavia, Libya, and Iraq promised never to move one inch east. And then moved east 17 times.
And now is trying to get on Russia's border.
Strange that the only time Russia invaded, is in direct response to nato expansion, huh?
If only they had tried to deal with it diplomatically, for 8 straight years.
Basically, the problem here is that ALL of your assumptions of the situation are WRONG.
But Nato didn't expand just now? They actually told Ukraine maybe later. They did this to keep Russia happy. They also have a principle that countires are free to make their own alliances - they won't brake that principle to promise Russia something.
The one inch east thing is nonsense. One guy said it in one meeting relating specifically to East Germany and it then explicitly wasn't included in the actual agreement signed. Russia new this when they signed the agreement. They know like everyone else that you need actual international agreements as future governments and governments of other nations can't be bound by what one guy said in one meeting. Russia were also fairly okay with previous expansions.
It's definitely a war. There's higher soldier casualties because it's a war.
Personally I was against the Iraq war and not sure on the others. But the idea they equate to a threat of Russia being invaded is just silly...
1. Why does Russia securing the Donbas ensure its security, in perpetuity or otherwise?
2. I'm pretty sure the West would be fine with Russia keeping the Donbas and Crimea.
1. This is not easy to answer in a few words. However, I will try. The western world. primarily the USA and UK have been using Ukraine as a kind of battering ram to shake up Russia. Outright war is unthinkable (or should be) but since that is out of favour since the series of catastrophically expensive regime change wars in the Middle East, war by other means has become the favoured tactic. Pressure of all possible kinds from financial undermining to economic sanctions to covert activities fomenting protest movements in target nations have become the most favoured weapons. In this regard Ukraine was a perfect weapon to use against Russia. The anti-Russian feeling was already there with a sizeable minority of Nazi-legacy fanatics existing and having been taken into the Ukrainian army and national guard. Fanning those flames against Russia was a no-brainer therefore. So the entire western world almost got behind it. The people of eastern Ukraine, in the Donbass, were targeted in 2014. They had mounted a peaceful takeover of the administration centres there. The response of Kiev was to send the Ukrainian military in and many of the Nazi-legacy freaks went also. The result was that mortars were set up all around what the west Ukrainians refer to as the 'Moskals' (Russian's) villages, towns and cities and began firing random shells into them. These most often hit the highest buildings, residential blocks of which there are many from the Soviet era, hospitals, schools and so forth. Those that missed these fell at random among urban conurbations, town centres, modest single-storey homes and the streets. Around 14,000 people have died as a result of Kiev reacting with violence there, the majority of them undoubtedly civilians. These are some of the potent reasons for why Russia required to deal with a situation that was only worsening with Kiev rejecting the peace process agreed to at Minsk in 2015. There is so much more to this but the above is at least an outline for you.
This seems quite a one sided account of events to me, but for the sake of argument let's grant that's all true. The points you make here have have to do with Russia protecting people in the Donbas, whereas the claim in your article is that this helps Russia's security... I have to admit I find that a bit of a stretch
Both are true.
How is Russia going to be more secure after all this?
2. The West would not be at all fine and has not been at all fine with Russia keeping the Donbass and Crimea. In my view this is just part of the attitude which had its genesis in the hours after 9/11. In my considered judgement it was agreed in those hours that every single entity not cooperating with the USA in its now absolute need to be global hegemon in a unipolar world with full spectrum dominance at its command had to be eliminated and replaced. Without exception. There have been many targets and many interventions by the USA subsequently, but none as big or as able to fight back as Russia. No gains whatsoever were to be allowed any of the targeted nations. And of course Russia was not to be the last. China will be the biggest challenge of all if Russia does not completely stymie the 9/11 goals completely through what I foresee as its ultimate victory in and over a Ukraine war fuelled and weaponized to the hilt by the West led by the USA and UK. It is war. In a war you grant your enemies no victories. Allowing Russia to take the Donbass and keep Crimea would certainly be Russian victories.
This also seems a bit of a stretch to me. Russia could just not invade people and we'd all get along fine :)
I'm afraid you are looking at this through a lens that needs sharpened by greater research deej1. I hope you'll undertake what would be quite a task, but one that would ultimately allow you to have a far greater understanding of the underlying issues. It would not come best from myself but from sources that are available if you choose to look. Meanwhile I would recommend the following short video which depicts some of the related backdrop to this long and convoluted history that is now shaking Ukraine to its core.
https://youtu.be/KqjWmadJatA
C'mon pal, you can do better than that.
Take it or leave. It's up to you now. Do well.
No. If getting along was possible, there would be no fighting.
Russia has spent a CENTRURY trying to get along, and has been invaded repeatedly, and most recently had NATO growing closer and closer despite specific assurances that this would never happen.
NATO is an explicitly hostile military alliance with the specific target of: Russia.
the west has staged colour revolutions all over the world, including recent attempts on Russia's border, not just Ukraine, but Georgia, Kazakstan, and Uzbekistan.
No, getting along is not possible.
China just wants to get along, and look what's happening to them.
The invasion is not your typical invasion/conquest. It's beating your enemy to the punch.
Nato's explicitly defensive. Countries want to join because they fear Russia invading them if they don't play to Russia's tune. Which is exactly what's happened to Ukraine.
The idea that it's beating anyone to the punch is just silly. Russia has not been invaded since the Nazi's 80 years ago. No one but no one wants to invade Russia now. Even if they did, Russia has lots of nuclear weapons.
Russia and China don't want to 'just get along'.... because getting along without fighting is very possible. Just don't start a war.
Libya, Iraq, and Yugoslavia disagree.
Funny, but the order of causality is wrong.
See, NATO expansion is WHY Russia launched the operation.
Not the reverse.
Or to put it another way 'Nato expands to solve problem cause by nato expansion.'
'Preemptive self defence' is the language Russia used, and the precident was set... by Nato.
Russia and China are happy to get along without war. It's the west that does not. Why?
Because China, and Russia to a lesser extent, are RISING.
In peacetime.
USA is crumbling.
So if they don't swing their weight around now, they won't have it to swing around later.
And her's the thing: there is no war.
It's not just a marketting exercize, this really IS a special militaryt operation.
IF this was a war, there would be a LOT more dead, and a lot more destruction, and it would be faster.
This is what a fight looks like, when one side is professional, and also trying very hard not to kill civvies.
Remember, the typical casualty ratio in war is 1:1 mil/civ. For every killed soldier on either side, one civ als dies.
This war is more like 7:1. 7 dead soldiers, for every 1 civ.
IT's also why any cities are still standing in the west.
Yes, beating them to the punch.
Because the anti-russian military alliance that destroyed Yugoslavia, Libya, and Iraq promised never to move one inch east. And then moved east 17 times.
And now is trying to get on Russia's border.
Strange that the only time Russia invaded, is in direct response to nato expansion, huh?
If only they had tried to deal with it diplomatically, for 8 straight years.
Basically, the problem here is that ALL of your assumptions of the situation are WRONG.
So all your conclusions are also wrong.
But Nato didn't expand just now? They actually told Ukraine maybe later. They did this to keep Russia happy. They also have a principle that countires are free to make their own alliances - they won't brake that principle to promise Russia something.
The one inch east thing is nonsense. One guy said it in one meeting relating specifically to East Germany and it then explicitly wasn't included in the actual agreement signed. Russia new this when they signed the agreement. They know like everyone else that you need actual international agreements as future governments and governments of other nations can't be bound by what one guy said in one meeting. Russia were also fairly okay with previous expansions.
It's definitely a war. There's higher soldier casualties because it's a war.
Personally I was against the Iraq war and not sure on the others. But the idea they equate to a threat of Russia being invaded is just silly...