Russia invades Ukraine

[DarloRich]

When one deals with a large and powerful wild animal such as bear, which then reacts in a predictable way, of course that animal is directly responsible for its actions, but knowing how a wild animal is likely to behave, it is desirable to take steps not to provoke it recklessly. NATO and the EU have deliberately poked the bear by their stupid policies of liberal interventionism/expansionism.

this is nonsense - no-one has been forced to join the EU or NATO.

Perhaps you should reflect on why eastern European countries don't want to experiance the warm embrace of the Russian sphere of influence once again. Why, after 40 years of forced marriage did they seek an alternative path away from Russian influence/control? Surely, if as you seem to think, Russia is so wonderful, these eastern European states would be lining up to join a 21st century Warsaw pact. Why aren't they?

However you try to excuse Russian aggression it is they who decided to invade Ukraine and attack the people and fabric of that country because they didn't like who Ukraine wanted to be friends with.

Despite the mounting evidence of awful behaviour ( the targeting of civilians and the destruction of cities) people like you seek to excuse or apologise for an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country. I wonder why you continue to peddle this silliness when anyone with eyes to see knows the truth.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It would be a valid argument only if you hold that the EU/NATO have been acting solely with the intent of provoking Russia.

To carry the 'dealing with a dangerous animal' analogy a bit further... I agree that going out looking for the bear and poking it with sticks is a bad idea, but that doesn't mean that you never go out into the woods to pick fruits and gather mushrooms, simply because that's where the bear lives.

Agreed.

On the subject of 'poking the bear' I wonder whether either @daodao or @John Luxton could remind us on what occasion NATO has sent teams into Russia to poison residents of Russia with polonium or novichok? Or on what occasion NATO has sent undercover soldiers into somewhat-Russian-friendly countries to destabilise and set up NATO-aligned rebel Governments in regions of those countries? Or how many times NATO-sponsored cyber-attacks have targetted Russian infrastructure, or how many times NATO has sought to hijack social media within Russia in order to spread fake news? Or how many times NATO military jets have provocatively flown up to Russian territory without emitting transponder signals to identify themselves?

Who is it again doing the poking?

 

[Annetts key]

Please Google what a unitary state is before trying to dispute a fact. Westminster parliament is the UK's supreme authority and devolution to regions or entities is within its gift. No serious person thinks the UK is anything other than a unitary state.

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact, which you can look up at your leisure.

I would describe the U.K. situation as complex as it’s not as simple as a straightforward unitary state. In fact, the monarch and the privy council have certain powers. Yes in practice the privy council carry out the government’s instructions, as normally the PM and the cabinet are appointed to the privy council.

Also take the rather different Scottish legal system for example, which has parts that go back to before 1707.

 

[Giugiaro]

Because NATO and the EU have forced Eastern European governments to seek membership.

OK, now that's going a bit too far.
Would you say the same if Trump took the US out of NATO in recent years?

In 2012 the Russians had a favourable view of the EU, a good portion even thinking of EU membership, while having the polar opposite view of NATO.
It seemed to indicate at the time that the Russian people looked at the EU and NATO as two independent things.

Russia was invited by Poland and Sweden to join the Eastern Partnership in May of 2008, before it was established in 2009. Putin refused the offer.
At this time Putin was already anti-EU, and considering his position of holder of the Russian keys of Power, this paragraph is quite insightful:

The association of the former Soviet republics with the European Union would pose a real threat to Russia’s influence in the region. This is because the association agreements require the signatory states to ali ne their legal and economic systems with EU standards. The agreements contain over half of the requirements of the EU's acquis communautaire. Their implementation would therefore begin to differentiate Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia and Georgia from the rest of the region, which continues to follow Soviet-style rules of governance. Consequently, Russia would find it much more difficult to influence the states associated with the EU, as it could no longer take advantage of the current lack of transparency in decision-making that plagues former Soviet republics. Similarly, Russian businesses would also have to start competing on an equal footing against international players, as they would no longer be able to rely on their familiarity with the post-Soviet economic system, or benefit from numerous informal ties and networks.

Source: Centre for Eastern Studies

Putin wants cooperation in his own way. Because he is accountable for any loss in influence the Russian Oligarchs may have in ex-Soviet states.

 

[najaB]

I would describe the U.K. situation as complex as it’s not as simple as a straightforward unitary state.

The UK is a unitary state - there is only one UK government. Within that unitary state we have devolved administration.

Devolution has many similarities with federalism but they aren't the same thing.

 

[Annetts key]

Putin wants cooperation in his own way. Because he is accountable for any loss in influence the Russian Oligarchs may have in ex-Soviet states.

The Russian Oligarchs must be overjoyed with Putin now then, what with the E.U. and various other countries competing with one another to see who can implement the greatest number of sanctions, thus making business and life more difficult for them…

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2022 ==

The UK is a unitary state - there is only one UK government.

So please, define exactly the “U.K. government”. Which particular bit do you mean?

 

[ainsworth74]

It's paywalled but the Wall Street Journal is reporting that members of the Ukrainian negotiating team and Roman Abramovich developed symptoms consistent with poisoning following peace talks on 3/4 March:

Roman Abramovich and Ukrainian Peace Negotiators Suffer Symptoms of Suspected Poisoning​

The Russian oligarch and others developed symptoms they blamed on hard-liners in Moscow who they say want to sabotage talks to end the war​

Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich and Ukrainian peace negotiators suffered symptoms of suspected poisoning after a meeting in Kyiv earlier this month, people familiar with the matter said.

Following the meeting in the Ukrainian capital, Mr. Abramovich, who has shuttled between Moscow, Lviv and other negotiating venues, as well as at least two senior members of the Ukrainian team developed symptoms that included red eyes, constant and painful tearing, and peeling skin on their faces and hands, the people said.

Roman Abramovich and Ukrainian Peace Negotiators Suffer Suspected Poisoning

The Russian oligarch and at least two senior members of the Ukrainian team developed symptoms that people familiar with the matter blamed on hard-liners in Moscow who they said wanted to sabotage talks to end the war.

www.wsj.com

 

[DarloRich]

It's paywalled but the Wall Street Journal is reporting that members of the Ukrainian negotiating team and Roman Abramovich developed symptoms consistent with poisoning following peace talks on 3/4 March:

Roman Abramovich and Ukrainian Peace Negotiators Suffer Suspected Poisoning

The Russian oligarch and at least two senior members of the Ukrainian team developed symptoms that people familiar with the matter blamed on hard-liners in Moscow who they said wanted to sabotage talks to end the war.

www.wsj.com

Must be something they ate. Wont be our russian friends

 

[AlterEgo]

Mr Abramovich, what is he doing there? He is a kind and gentle soul and nothing to do with the Russian government...

 

[DarloRich]

Mr Abramovich, what is he doing there? He is a kind and gentle soul and nothing to do with the Russian government...

Surely: concerned citizen working in an entirely personal capacity to further the cause of peace.

(Is his mother not ukranian hence why they asked him to help?)

 

[John Luxton]

Agreed.

On the subject of 'poking the bear' I wonder whether either @daodao or @John Luxton could remind us on what occasion NATO has sent teams into Russia to poison residents of Russia with polonium or novichok? Or on what occasion NATO has sent undercover soldiers into somewhat-Russian-friendly countries to destabilise and set up NATO-aligned rebel Governments in regions of those countries? Or how many times NATO-sponsored cyber-attacks have targetted Russian infrastructure, or how many times NATO has sought to hijack social media within Russia in order to spread fake news? Or how many times NATO military jets have provocatively flown up to Russian territory without emitting transponder signals to identify themselves?

Who is it again doing the poking?

I seem to recall Britain was once pretty good at despatching traitors, some of which were only people of different opinions to the mainstream, yes we may have gone through the show trial e.g. William Joyce, John Amory, Padraig Pearce, James Connolly.

I am not defending what the Russians as their actions affected others BUT just putting things into perspective we may have moved on a bit compared to the Russians but we have done it too. Then of course there are those people who the secret service may deal with - that we never know about. There were questions about a certain doctor not that many years ago wasn't there?

The fact is we only get one version of the news - ours. Thing the last two years has taught me as a consequence of Covid is to always ask questions and Never blindly believe your own side - but come to your own conclusions.

 

[Spamcan81]

this is nonsense - no-one has been forced to join the EU or NATO.

Perhaps you should reflect on why eastern European countries don't want to experiance the warm embrace of the Russian sphere of influence once again. Why, after 40 years of forced marriage did they seek an alternative path away from Russian influence/control? Surely, if as you seem to think, Russia is so wonderful, these eastern European states would be lining up to join a 21st century Warsaw pact. Why aren't they?

However you try to excuse Russian aggression it is they who decided to invade Ukraine and attack the people and fabric of that country because they didn't like who Ukraine wanted to be friends with.

Despite the mounting evidence of awful behaviour ( the targeting of civilians and the destruction of cities) people like you seek to excuse or apologise for an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country. I wonder why you continue to peddle this silliness when anyone with eyes to see knows the truth.

Probably because the OP thinks that Russia is some sort of socialist utopia and not the fascist dictatorship it is.

 

[NSEFAN]

To carry the 'dealing with a dangerous animal' analogy a bit further... I agree that going out looking for the bear and poking it with sticks is a bad idea, but that doesn't mean that you never go out into the woods to pick fruits and gather mushrooms, simply because that's where the bear lives.

On the subject of bear analogies, the whole thing has a similar vibe to ‘How should women make sure they aren’t raped’. Perhaps such behaviour from the aggressor is ‘just how they are’, maybe it’s ‘just how their ancestors were, we can’t expect them to think differently’, or ‘well it’s not thaaat bad, just dress more modestly and don’t talk too much about NATO. Otherwise you-know-who might get a bit hot under the collar and have to teach you a lesson for leading him on!’

The real elephant in the room is the rapist, who shouldn’t be raping in the first place. Reducing humans to animalistic analogies is an easy way to dismiss their bad behaviour towards others, and also an easy way to dehumanise a whole country, who might have all manner of opinions about their leadership is being a massive ****.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I agree with you to the extent of being very concerned about what Russia and Putin are doing. And I hadn't realised there were elections in Hungary coming up. Yes, that's something we should pay attention to.

It is a major worry of mine. Hungary is important for quite a few reasons, but one major issue is the unresolved historical grievances against her neighbours. In particular, parts of Ukraine and Romania have large Hungarian minorities, and Fidesz have very carefully cultivated the cult of Orban there. If Orban wins, one frightening prospect is that a Ukrainian loss will result in Hungary 'going rogue' and claiming part of the country for themselves. Orban will have nearly nothing to lose at that point, as none of her neighbours are capable or willing to mount an offensive attack to defend Ukraine in this circumstance.

But I think you're in dangerous ground talking about 'Russian mentality'. We've seen lots of brave Russians opposing the war and being arrested for doing so. The very fact that Putin's regime cracks down so severely on dissidence shows that they fear those Russian citizens who do believe in democracy. Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and Georgia all spent about 70 years living as part of the same country as Russia and being ruled by the same Soviet Government, so would be likely to have to a large extent inherited the same political mentality as Russia - yet they all transitioned to democracy.

In fairness, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia are rather unstable democracies. The Baltics are stable, but they were very much held by the hand by Finland and Sweden during the 1990s to make sure that they didn't stray from the path.

However, there is clearly something different about Russia. While I don't like to speculate, there is the point that Russia is not really a single country at all, but a disparate collection of peoples who have little in common with each other. That lends itself to single party rule and a strongman leader, as Yeltsin was a textbook case of an incompetent leader who was leading the country to absolute ruin.

Belarus didn't, and it's clear that was entirely due to the path chosen by the guy who won the first elections there. Russia did have a democratic period for about 10 years after the collapse of the USSR, but that went badly wrong leading to an economic collapse that - as I understand it - wasn't shared to the same extent by the other ex-USSR countries and appears to have resulted largely from the well-meaning incompetence of Boris Yeltsin. It wasn't inevitable that Putin would become Russia's president, and I don't see any significant reason to doubt that the way Russia and Belarus took a different path from other European ex-USSR states was mainly because of the choices of those individuals who found themselves in charge during the 1990s and early 2000's.

I wouldn't say Belarus was entirely due to Lukashenko. The country was quite reluctant to embrace any kind of democracy, and I think that was partially due to the uncertain and insecure status of the country. Unlike the other European Soviet states, Belarus was an artificial creation, and perhaps it explains why they never really shook off the Soviet mentality. But yes, Russia went to pieces during Yeltsin's rule, despite the West being quite willing to oversee the reconstruction of the country. It wasn't entirely his fault, but he should have stepped aside after thwarting the 1993 coup.

But more to the point, I think it's mistaken (and borderline racist) to effectively write off an entire population because of the failings of their leadership. I don't want to see Russia broken up - I want to see it restored to democracy so it can rightfully take it's place amongst civilised and free countries.

IMO, I would be happier with Singaporean-style 'democracy' there. The democracy experiment ended badly in Russia, and there is some evidence that they prefer to have a strongman in power, as it also stops warring and feuding between individual parts of the country. You're right, it is borderline racist to write off an entire country in that way, but I think we also need to be pragmatic about what can be realistically achieved there. If there's no will for democracy and the people are content with a strongman ruler, shouldn't we try and encourage them to at least have a strongman who doesn't go starting wars?

Strangely enough, I think Lukashenko would actually be a good ruler for a country like Russia. His anti-war views and general competence in running the economy would fit Russia well, and it's worth remembering that Belarus has never really pulled any stupid stunts with her neighbours under Lukashenko, minus the one issue with the Ryanair flight recently.

 

[Falcon1200]

Have you watched the video, if only from 43-46 minutes? It explains who Professor Mearsheimer believes is ultimately responsible.

What for ? Surely nobody, not even the Putin apologists, can deny that it is Russian armed forces who have invaded Ukraine and are destroying its cities, its infrastructure, and killing its population. It deeply concerns me that some seem to believe that Russia is somehow the innocent party and was therefore forced by NATO, against its will, to embark on its murderous and destructive course.

 

[Giugiaro]

If Orban wins, one frightening prospect is that a Ukrainian loss will result in Hungary 'going rogue' and claiming part of the country for themselves. Orban will have nearly nothing to lose at that point, as none of her neighbours are capable or willing to mount an offensive attack to defend Ukraine in this circumstance.

Oh, it would be nice if Portugal decided to claim territory everywhere Portuguese expats are.

Copy and paste text, and replace Portugal/Portuguese with any other country/national.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2022 ==

On the subject of bear analogies, the whole thing has a similar vibe to ‘How should women make sure they aren’t raped’. Perhaps such behaviour from the aggressor is ‘just how they are’, maybe it’s ‘just how their ancestors were, we can’t expect them to think differently’, or ‘well it’s not thaaat bad, just dress more modestly and don’t talk too much about NATO. Otherwise you-know-who might get a bit hot under the collar and have to teach you a lesson for leading him on!’

The real elephant in the room is the rapist, who shouldn’t be raping in the first place. Reducing humans to animalistic analogies is an easy way to dismiss their bad behaviour towards others, and also an easy way to dehumanise a whole country, who might have all manner of opinions about their leadership is being a massive ****.

Treating Russia as a wild animal isn't right. Russians are human beings that live and suffer like us. And so they need to be morally evaluated the same way.

I learned in school that "even if you have a point, you lose all reason when you start beating on others".
Russia might have had a point. It lost it once the death toll started.

 

[John Luxton]

What for ? Surely nobody, not even the Putin apologists, can deny that it is Russian armed forces who have invaded Ukraine and are destroying its cities, its infrastructure, and killing its population. It deeply concerns me that some seem to believe that Russia is somehow the innocent party and was therefore forced by NATO, against its will, to embark on its murderous and destructive course.

What it is is some people can understand why the Russians have done this. I always believe in keeping an open mind.

Understanding why the Russians have done it does not equate to supporting what they are doing on the ground.

Looking at the background of Prof Mearsheimer his politics appear to American democrat he isn't a right wing Trumpite. Apparently he supported Bernie Sanders.

Don't forget that film is several years old although it is highly relevant to what has happened.

 

[takno]

What it is is some people can understand why the Russians have done this. I always believe in keeping an open mind.

Understanding why the Russians have done it does not equate to supporting what they are doing on the ground.

Looking at the background of Prof Mearsheimer his politics appear to American democrat he isn't a right wing Trumpite. Apparently he supported Bernie Sanders.

Don't forget that film is several years old although it is highly relevant to what has happened.

I don't think you have to be a Trump-ite to view things through a purely US lens. I didn't get the impression from the video that he had any interest in the people of Ukraine, or their hopes and ambitions, at all. He cobbled together a couple of slides to dismiss them as divided and then proceeded to regard them as being pawns in a game of superpower wars. Even if he was technically right about some things he still fundamentally didn't say anything useful

 

[najaB]

What it is is some people can understand why the Russians have done this. I always believe in keeping an open mind.

Understanding why the Russians have done it does not equate to supporting what they are doing on the ground.

There's a lot of evidence to support the notion that it isn't about what "Russia" has done but rather about what Putin has done.

 

[brad465]

Abramovich was probably poisoned by accident and Ukrainian negotiators being the targets. It'll be interesting to see if this convinces him to change allegiance/distance from Putin (won't hold my breath yet though). Altogether though this further highlights how the Russian regime absolutely cannot be trusted and must be isolated to the absolute hilt. They don't do "rules", "international laws" and "social norms". Enough appeasement, more pariah/shutting out of the rest of the world. Any country that doesn't agree (like India and China somewhat) should get the same treatment. If the economy suffers, tough, we should have thought about that before pursuing unchecked globalisation.

 

[John Luxton]

I don't think you have to be a Trump-ite to view things through a purely US lens. I didn't get the impression from the video that he had any interest in the people of Ukraine, or their hopes and ambitions, at all. He cobbled together a couple of slides to dismiss them as divided and then proceeded to regard them as being pawns in a game of superpower wars. Even if he was technically right about some things he still fundamentally didn't say anything useful

i thought is broadly similar to the situation that prevails in Northern Ireland where the areas near the border with the republic tend to be more republican than those away from the border. Borders are often arbitrary lines which don't always recognise reality on the ground. It has been quite clear for some time that there has been some areas of Ukraine which think themselves as being Russian - hence the Russian separatist groups.

I imagine to most westerners especially older people who recall the cold war years we never thought of Ukraine as being anything other than Russian and never differentiated between what was the USSR and Russia. To all intents and purposed I can't recall the media being any different.

 

[ainsworth74]

I imagine to most westerners especially older people who recall the cold war years we never thought of Ukraine as being anything other than Russian and never differentiated between what was the USSR and Russia. To all intents and purposed I can't recall the media being any different.

I'm unclear of the relevance of what westerners old enough to remember the Cold War not considering Ukraine as distinct from Russia. However those same people from that era in Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to go their own way in 1991 in a referendum on the issue. So clearly they did see themselves as different. As they still do.

 

[yorksrob]

I guess we still do a lot of business with China in spite of their behaviour.

Probably. I'm no fan of China, but they haven't started a war in Europe yet.

 

[Annetts key]

i thought is broadly similar to the situation that prevails in Northern Ireland where the areas near the border with the republic tend to be more republican than those away from the border. Borders are often arbitrary lines which don't always recognise reality on the ground. It has been quite clear for some time that there has been some areas of Ukraine which think themselves as being Russian - hence the Russian separatist groups.

I imagine to most westerners especially older people who recall the cold war years we never thought of Ukraine as being anything other than Russian and never differentiated between what was the USSR and Russia. To all intents and purposed I can't recall the media being any different.

Just looking at this another way, where I used to work (a place where there is less than 60 staff), although it’s in England, there were Scottish, Irish and Welsh as well as English staff. Having some from the adjacent country was understandable, as it’s not that far from a ‘border’. But to most people from outside the U.K. (obviously not all), this may be strange.

Not being educated about the differences between the former USSR states and their people is not really a basis for understanding the situation, let alone anything else.

You should have already (assuming you have watched enough of the news) know that some Ukrainians have family in Russia, some Russians have family in Ukraine and some Ukrainians have family elsewhere in the world.

So yes borders often are drawn up and don’t always take account of where local people want them. But the way to sort that out is through peaceful negotiation. Not war. War makes it a lot worse. No one wants to give up land that has been fought over.

But better yet, it’s even better if borders are ‘soft’ administration types rather than hard checkpoint type borders. Like we now have between the two different countries on the Island of Ireland.

Because in the real world, people don’t really want to have to worry about a line drawn on a map by someone in a city far away from them.

But that does not mean that they don’t have their own identity, or their own values, traditions etc.

And just because one country wants to improve itself, why should it be held back by another country?

 

[John Luxton]

I'm unclear of the relevance of what westerners old enough to remember the Cold War not considering Ukraine as distinct from Russia. However those same people from that era in Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to go their own way in 1991 in a referendum on the issue. So clearly they did see themselves as different. As they still do.

I think its a matter of perception.

How I recall it in the first half of my life before the "wall came down" was that there was an Russian occupied or dominated Eastern Europe and then there was Russia / Soviet Union which lay beyond. I don't think most westerners even thought of Ukraine as being anything different than perhaps a state of the USA, and perhaps not even that.

It is clear that not all Ukrainians see themselves as being separate from Russia - hence the Russian separatist faction - though some obviously do want to be separate.

Hence we have this mess!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It is clear that not all Ukrainians see themselves as being separate from Russia - hence the Russian separatist faction - though some obviously do want to be separate.

Saying 'some' seems a bit misleading. In the 1991 independence referendum the result was 92.3% for independence. What % would it have to be before you acknowledged 'almost all' or even 'most'?

 

[najaB]

I don't think most westerners even thought of Ukraine as being anything different than perhaps a state of the USA, and perhaps not even that.

They would have been correct in that assumption. Though notionally independent, in reality the Republics of the USSR were more tightly controlled from Moscow than US states are by Washington.

 

[Cloud Strife]

They would have been correct in that assumption. Though notionally independent, in reality the Republics of the USSR were more tightly controlled from Moscow than US states are by Washington.

No, they weren't that tightly controlled. It's a common view, but after Stalin, you started to see serious amounts of competition and conflict between the All-Union structures and the individual republics (with the exception of Russia). There are books that explain this in quite a lot of detail - Midnight in Chernobyl is one, but in general, there were issues with the division of power. There are numerous examples of this, but for example, Bryukhanov (director of ChNPP) had political power within SredMash, but not much power within the Communist Party of Ukraine. That was reflected in living conditions - Bryukhanov had a large apartment in Pripyat, but the local party boss (I forget his name...) had one of the very few houses within the city. Political control over Pripyat was also administered by Kyiv, not by Moscow.

It would take a lengthy novel to explain it all, but in general, Moscow exerted control over key infrastructure and facilities, but the individual republics could and did run things their own way within the laws of the Soviet Union. So, Kyiv had no say in the location of ChNPP, but the design and construction of Pripyat was carried out by Ukrainians working for the Ukrainian SSR. Of course, there wasn't huge amounts of autonomy, but there were still differences between the Republics.

It is clear that not all Ukrainians see themselves as being separate from Russia - hence the Russian separatist faction - though some obviously do want to be separate.

The "Russian separatist faction" only exists because it's financed from Russia and controlled by Russia. Look at the mysterious deaths of many people in leadership positions in the DPR and LPR as an example, or the fact that the entire Donbas secession was led by an FSB officer - "Igor Strelkov", or to give him his real name, Igor Girkin. Also, don't make the mistake of assuming that ethnic Russians want to live in Russia, especially now that they've been bombed and subject to ethnic cleansing. The independence referendum in 1991 made it very clear that there was little support for staying in a state with Russia after what Russian forces had done to them in the 1920s and 1930s.

If Russia pulls out of the Donbas, Ukraine will walk into it within hours.

 

[takno]

I think its a matter of perception.

How I recall it in the first half of my life before the "wall came down" was that there was an Russian occupied or dominated Eastern Europe and then there was Russia / Soviet Union which lay beyond. I don't think most westerners even thought of Ukraine as being anything different than perhaps a state of the USA, and perhaps not even that.

It is clear that not all Ukrainians see themselves as being separate from Russia - hence the Russian separatist faction - though some obviously do want to be separate.

Hence we have this mess!

Watching too much Russia Today, or YouTube videos you lack the context to properly evaluate, doesn't really cut it as building an unbiased opinion tbh. You're buying into a lie about the separatist feelings of more than a tiny minority of Ukrainians. Sure there are a bunch of Russian speakers, and people with Russian grandparents, but there's almost no evidence of any significant contiguous mainland area where a majority of people want to succede from Ukraine.

These are modern Europeans, wanting to be part of a western democracy. If Russia don't like it then tough

 

[John Luxton]

Watching too much Russia Today, or YouTube videos you lack the context to properly evaluate, doesn't really cut it as building an unbiased opinion tbh. You're buying into a lie about the separatist feelings of more than a tiny minority of Ukrainians. Sure there are a bunch of Russian speakers, and people with Russian grandparents, but there's almost no evidence of any significant contiguous mainland area where a majority of people want to succede from Ukraine.

These are modern Europeans, wanting to be part of a western democracy. If Russia don't like it then tough

Have not watched RT for ages and the only YouTube video watched was the one referred to in this thread thus I don't think my views were biased by any media exposure. To be honest I have only just started to re-engage with British TV news in the past week or so. I chose to disengage due to the biased one-sided Covid reporting which silenced alternative strategies

However, having observed what has gone on here in the past two years I doubt I will ever trust our news to anywhere near the extent I once did.