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...
Look up the USA's attitude to foreign powers having influence in its "back yard" dee1. It's called 'The Monroe Doctrine' and was exemplified by its reaction when the Soviet Union worked with Cuba, placing missiles on the island. The U.S. elite has STILL not got over that.
On what Gorbachev was told about NATO not expanding an inch to the east perhaps read the following article based upon the release of 'declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.'
'Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”.
NATO's aggressive and violent impulses have been seen on many occasions from the Balkans to Libya. Russia cannot accept assurances from known liars. Some day I hope you will come to recognise that this is an eminently sensible policy.
The USA would not tolerate any similar heavily-armed foreign entity on its doorstep.
Thank you very much dee1. I took an informal "masters degree" on Ukraine from December 2013 until 2018 studying every available detail I could find. This is my primary subject these days... and the approach both the West and Russia have taken to the events of those days and since of course.
I'm a senior US military officer and swimming against the tide. Every time I hear one of our leaders say the "unprovoked attack of the Ukraine by Russia", I cringe. Every time I show them evidence to counter their statement, I get rebuffed, am accused of being a "Russian apologist", and a little part of me dies. It seems that everyone gets their education from CNN.
In democracies, governments change. They are not bound by what people have said previously. Similarly, the head of one state cannot give assurances on behalf of the other. Hence, international legal agreements. Russia and everyone else knew this. They asked for it to be in the agreement and the otherside said no - therefore no agreement.
And all this was to do with East Germany... and didn't go in the agreement for East Germany. To turn around and say that the thing that didn't go in the agreement for East Germany now applies to all these other states is just silly.
There are two states, one is trying to take the other's land, they are fighting and killing each other. Seems like a war to me.
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...
Look up the USA's attitude to foreign powers having influence in its "back yard" dee1. It's called 'The Monroe Doctrine' and was exemplified by its reaction when the Soviet Union worked with Cuba, placing missiles on the island. The U.S. elite has STILL not got over that.
On what Gorbachev was told about NATO not expanding an inch to the east perhaps read the following article based upon the release of 'declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.'
'Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
NATO's aggressive and violent impulses have been seen on many occasions from the Balkans to Libya. Russia cannot accept assurances from known liars. Some day I hope you will come to recognise that this is an eminently sensible policy.
The USA would not tolerate any similar heavily-armed foreign entity on its doorstep.
You have a very interesting take on all these things Aearnur :)
Thank you very much dee1. I took an informal "masters degree" on Ukraine from December 2013 until 2018 studying every available detail I could find. This is my primary subject these days... and the approach both the West and Russia have taken to the events of those days and since of course.
Love your work.
I'm a senior US military officer and swimming against the tide. Every time I hear one of our leaders say the "unprovoked attack of the Ukraine by Russia", I cringe. Every time I show them evidence to counter their statement, I get rebuffed, am accused of being a "Russian apologist", and a little part of me dies. It seems that everyone gets their education from CNN.
I will not give up.
Nato has been expanding for decades.
And when senior officials give specific reassurances to heads of state, it's not just some guy saying something.
And they defacto expanded to Ukraine.
It's not a war.
A war is a specific thing, not just any time people fight and get killed.
This is a special military operation, not a war.
That's not just marketing speak.
It's not fought like a war, it does not have war goals.
In democracies, governments change. They are not bound by what people have said previously. Similarly, the head of one state cannot give assurances on behalf of the other. Hence, international legal agreements. Russia and everyone else knew this. They asked for it to be in the agreement and the otherside said no - therefore no agreement.
And all this was to do with East Germany... and didn't go in the agreement for East Germany. To turn around and say that the thing that didn't go in the agreement for East Germany now applies to all these other states is just silly.
There are two states, one is trying to take the other's land, they are fighting and killing each other. Seems like a war to me.
Like i said: you don't know what war is.
War is not when tank.
If things get worse in Ukraine, THEN you'll see real war.
Special Military Operation is not war. It's not marketing speak either.
This is closer to a real police action than actual war.
No, democracy is not when government changes. Democracy is when the people speak, and policy changes.
I.E: not the west.
Do you think Russia's more or less democratic than 'the West'?