You really have no knowledge beyond Russia. You ignore that Ukraine started this whole mess by basically outlawing the Russian language in government buildings & schools. .
But even more glaring is your omission of 2 Minsk accords that were signed but never implemented & hostilities erupting in eastern Ukraine, For 8 years Putin tried to get the International Community to find a peaceful solution. When Angela Merkle stepped down se bragged that there was never any intention to honor the Minsk Accords. that they were just to buy time to arm & train Ukraine.
If that were to happen at our border, we would stage a full out attack, and you know darn well that is what would happen.
So, you are actually ill informed, beyond Russia invaded, which they had every right to protect themselves.
You are correct that neither nation is a NATO nation, but they kept promising Ukraine that they would become a NATO nation. That is without question for anyone with a thinking brain, a threat that Putin was not going t tolerate as he stated in 2008.
It was a worthless war to start, because it may just destroy this nation in the process, but apparently that is of no concern to you.
“When Angela Merkle stepped down se bragged that there was never any intention to honor the Minsk Accords. that they were just to buy time to arm & train Ukraine.”
Er, not quite. Because Merkel desperately wanted Putin to deliver on the one thing the agreements expected him to do, and Putin made it clear he wasn’t going to do it.
Therefore, the Minsk agreements were derailed by Moscow’s bad faith, and they were so unenforceable that it would’ve been an injustice to expect the invaded country to sign its own death warrant by ticking boxes off on the checklist for Minsk.
As soon as Putin made it clear that at Minsk Moscow had signed up to tick just one checkbox despite knowing full well that Moscow had no intention of ever ticking it, Merkel’s position changed.
You cannot keep giving a complete welcher the benefit of the doubt, especially when the welcher does something that brazen. It was PUTIN’S RUSSIA that had no intention of honoring the Minsk Accords, just as it was PUTIN’S RUSSIA that had no intention of honoring the Budapest Memorandum, just as it was PUTIN’S RUSSIA that had no intention of honoring the Belovezha Accords.
Merkel’s changed position was a result of her coming to terms with Russia’s “new geopolitical realities” (that’s how Putin describes it himself.)
The “new geopolitical realities” are that, over and over again, the Russian state’s signature on any peace treaty or border agreement or any other non-aggression accord is simply not worth the ink. If Putin wants your land, no agreement you sign will deter him from doing whatever he wants to get your land.
Despite her reluctance to accept that truth, eventually Merkel had to concede that time after time, Putin has made it clear that there isn’t a single treaty, accord or ceasefire agreement with Putin’s signature on it, that Putin will not break the minute it becomes expedient to do so.
It has been claimed many times but that does not make it true. The protests against Yanukovych were spontaneous and genuine, not the product of CIA agitation. He was removed not by a CIA coup, but by the democratically elected parliament after he panicked and fled the country, abandoning his office. Subsequently there have been two national elections, something that the Russian apologists always leave out. The last two presidents of Ukraine were elected by the people, not installed by the west.
He was actually going to sign both trade agreements, but the EU threatened that if Ukraine accepted Russia's trade agreement, they would rescind their offer.
What you are conveniently leaving out is the economic blockade that Russia had imposed on Ukraine in opposition to the EU deal. The Russians have been no boy scouts in all of this.
You really have no knowledge beyond Russia.
So, you are actually ill informed, beyond Russia invaded, which they had every right to protect themselves.
A typical leftist ploy that has no place on Free Republic. If you read my former posts, which I believe you familiar with, you will know that I am well aware of all the points you raised and have addressed all of them many times. It is not a question of ignorance, but that I disagree with your characterization of events. While trying to claim the high ground, alleging ignorance of the other party is actually a lazy man's response, a shield behind which he does not have to make logical arguments.
But even more glaring is your omission of 2 Minsk accords that were signed but never implemented & hostilities erupting in eastern Ukraine.
They were never fully implemented not because of the Ukrainians, but because of the Russians. Ukraine actually fulfilled its obligations by passing a law twice granting Donbas autonomy, and by preparing to conduct the required referendum. Russia broke the accords by failing to withdraw its forces, failing to hand the border over to Ukraine, and by blocking the aforementioned referendum.
Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that there would never have been a need for the accords if Russia had not invaded in the first place. I am always amazed at the position that Russia can seize Ukrainian territory but it is somehow illegitimate for Ukraine to gain it back.
You ignore that Ukraine started this whole mess by basically outlawing the Russian language in government buildings & schools.
Ukraine did no such thing. All it did was mandate that government activities and school instruction should be done in Ukrainian. Russian apologists are always exaggerating the extent of Ukraine's language law. They also ignore the fact that, in compliance with the Minsk accords, they also passed a law granting Donbas autonomy. In any case, this is a question of internal Ukrainian politics, and is none of the business of Russia. Would you be opposed to a law mandating the use of English in government activities and in school instruction? Would Mexico be justified in invading the US if there were such a law?
You are correct that neither nation is a NATO nation, but they kept promising Ukraine that they would become a NATO nation. That is without question for anyone with a thinking brain, a threat that Putin was not going t tolerate as he stated in 2008.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, Ukraine was barred from joining NATO by the NATO charter itself as long as there was a territorial dispute with Russia. And again, you are failing to answer the question that I posed, if this is about NATO expansion, why did Putin reject Zelensky offer of no NATO?