The numbers speak for themselves on who's winning and who's losing the war.
Don't forget, against a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed army.
Also, if one assumes that capturing territory is their only military goal, that does sound bad. It isn't though, right? With Ukraine, their major goal is to ensure that it remains a neutral state whose army and territory can't be used to economically or militarily threaten Russia ever. And their military goals have focused on this task - dismembering the country (which, as you pointed, they have done so by capturing around 20% of its territory, with maybe another 5% still to be occupied?), destroying their economic infrastructure (the captured territory had an impact on Ukraine's GDP loss, 75-80% of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has already been decimated, and their only port was targeted this year - if the war continues, Russia plans to capture Odessa too and convert Ukraine into a land-locked country), destroying Ukraine's military infrastructure (Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine's local missile and drone manufacturing units this year), and by destroying Ukraine's army through attritional warfare (nearly a quarter of Ukraine's army has been killed or injured - sure, way less than that of Russia, but unlike Russia Ukraine can't afford to lose its people).
(In other words, Russia is in no hurry to capture the remaining 4-5% of territory it seeks, because Ukraine will not stop fighting even after that is captured, and dragging the war helps Russia ensure that it can meet its other military goals too).
But ofcourse, why should Europeans care if Ukraine is being destroyed, as long as they kill as many Russians as possible?
> Don't forget, against a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed army.
> Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine's local missile and drone manufacturing units this year
> With Ukraine, their major goal is to ensure that it remains a neutral state whose army and territory can't be used to economically or militarily threaten Russia ever.
It is common knowledge that Ukraine moved most of their Air Force assets to other countries, to prevent its destruction. It was the right move, but also makes them less useful as it isn't immediately available when needed. And it is also factual that Russia has targeted and destroyed most of the local military infrastructure, including drone manufacturing units this year, so that Ukraine now depends on its manufacturing units abroad or foreign imports for its needs. Again, a smart move, which also has its drawbacks.
All these battle tactics, and some battle victories, doesn't change the basic maths of warfare though - even with the limited support from allies, Ukrainian military is outnumbered and outgunned by the more powerful Russian military and thus cannot defeat it alone. That is why they are losing - they have lost soldiers, territory, their citizens, their economic infrastructure and economy incapacitated to the point of no return.
It is also a fact that the cowardice of Europeans is apparent in that they can only offer Ukrainians keyboard warriors who cheer them to fight on with fake propaganda and platitudes, while putting down anyone else as "Russian apologists" for talking common sense. (Comparing Putin to Hitler is laughable. It's also a typical westerner attitude to politics to think in "black and white" - if you are not with me, you are against me and thus my enemy, your reasons be damned!).
> It is a fact that Russia is fighting a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed Ukrainian army.
In other words, 2/3 of NATO (by expenditure) is not participating in supporting Ukraine. The ten largest supporters of Ukraine (by contributions as a share of national GDP) are in fact all countries that share a border with Russia and prefer to help Ukrainians kick Russians on an already established battlefield instead of waiting until their borders get violated too.
> Otherwise, why is Zelensky worried that the US might cutoff intelligence access to it?
> While most Europeans might be ignorant about it, the rest of the world recognizes the simple fact that this is actually a proxy war between western superpowers and Russia (+ China), where neither side actually cares much about Ukraine and sees it as a pawn.
Likewise, popular opinion of Russia has also sharply fallen. South America saw an especially sharp drop, scroll down to "Changes in Disapproval of Russia's Leadership Between 2021 and 2022" chart: https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-re... Researchers summarised: "Despite significant Russian efforts to spread disinformation about the conflict, the massive shift in attitudes toward Russian leadership demonstrates that the geopolitical significance of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not lost on most of the world’s population."
> It is common knowledge that Ukraine moved most of their Air Force assets to other countries, to prevent its destruction. It was the right move, but also makes them less useful as it isn't immediately available when needed.
> All these battle tactics, and some battle victories, doesn't change the basic maths of warfare though - even with the limited support from allies, Ukrainian military is outnumbered and outgunned by the more powerful Russian military and thus cannot defeat it alone. That is why they are losing - they have lost soldiers, territory, their citizens, their economic infrastructure and economy incapacitated to the point of no return.
> Comparing Putin to Hitler is laughable.
> In other words, 2/3 of NATO (by expenditure) is not participating in supporting Ukraine.
In other words, over a period of 4+ years now, various NATO members have trained, armed, supported and financed Ukraine's army to fight the Russians. So, to repeat myself again - it is a fact that Russia is fighting a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed Ukrainian army. And without NATO support, it is apparent that Russia would have achieved all its military objectives in Ukraine a long time ago. That support for Ukraine, within NATO, is also declining is simply because Russia now has the upper-hand in this war, and NATO members are divided on whether it is beneficial for them to continue this proxy war.
> Cutoff from US sources is very painful ...
Yes, cutoff is painful because Ukraine cannot fight the Russians without NATO support, of which the US is the most militarily powerful member. The cutoff also highlights how dependent Ukraine is on NATO members to fight the Russians. And how NATO countries are supporting Ukraine against Russia. So stop arguing or pretending as if you aren't aware that that NATO is involved in this war when you know it very much is.
> Military value of such revenge attacks is near-zero. It is just pure terror against the civilian population ...
That's just normal wartime propaganda - both sides have claimed that civilians are being deliberately "targeted". Sift through this propaganda and you find that both sides are targeting what they believe to be military targets and both sides are dismissive of the collateral damage. Ukraine being the military weaker country is obviously facing the worse end of this war. Zelensky has proved to be a poor leader for Ukraine. In this case, in failing to understand the concept of "escalation dominance" while being manipulated by the Europeans (mainly French, British and German in this case) to pointlessly escalate the war when they were already losing the war.
> Trump's temper tantrums over his inability to force Ukraine to do what he wants clearly disprove the "proxy war" narrative ...
The Trump administration realises that all the benefits of the proxy war that they could get has been derived and, as Russia cannot be economically or militarily defeated, it is best to end the war before Russia starts to benefit from it now.
> here's how the vote went on a UN resolution that condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine..
And how many of those from the Global South has offered anything more substantial than words in this war? We in the Global South understand that this is a proxy war between superpowers, it is dangerous for us to get dragged into it and as it happened because of the foolishness of Ukraine's own leader, it is their own hard political lesson to learn from.
> Likewise, popular opinion of Russia has also sharply fallen. South America saw an especially sharp drop ...
South American countries swing between left and right, and whenever the US backed right- come to power, obviously negative opinions against Russia increases.
> Interesting way to gloss over the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force never had the 674 airplanes and 284 helicopters that the Russian Ministry of Defence claims to have destroyed.
I obviously have no idea where you plucked those numbers from as I have never read anything similar. The sources I have read claim that whatever the Ukrainian Air Force couldn't get out of their country, Russia has been successful in destroying most of it. Note that this also includes what NATO / EU members had donated to Ukraine.
> but the Winter War is considered a Finnish victory, ...
Only an ignorant delusional person would think that a country that had to surrender its territories to the winner of a war, is the "victor" of a war! The only reason Finland retains its independence, government and armed forces is because the pragmatic Finnish leaders capitulated to Russian security concerns, agreeing to all their terms. And Russia reciprocated by not treating them as threat and let them retain its sovereignty on the rest of their territory. The Russians even went on to give them back some of their territory, if I remember right. The propaganda that Russia wants to capture Finland, then, or Ukraine now, is just a western one. Neither the western superpowers or Russia want their territory (except parts of it for tactical military reasons) - what they both want is the allegiance of these country so they provide a buffer and cannon fodder in future wars.
As for Putin and Hitler ....
The closest leader who is similar to Hitler is Winston Churchill. Both were racist imperialists who believed in white superiority and looked down on other races. Remember that Hitler is not condemned for his war time tactics, as the Russian, British and Americans employed similar tactics in targeting and bombing innocent civilians in Germany and Japan. What Hitler is condemned for is the genocide of the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others he considered "inferior". Churchill matched him in this callousness when he created the Bengal famine and let millions of Indians starve to death, even as 10's of millions indians and Africans were also forced to fight for British, in World War 2. European leaders' racism may have been muted to that of Hitler, but wasn't any different really and is apparent in that the French and the British did not want "coloured" soldiers in their victory parades (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm or https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240824-liberation-of-paris-ho... ).
Putin is many thing, but not an extremist like any of these European leaders ...
As for Putin's comment on Poland and Hitler, the context was that Poland had helped Hitler and Germany in the division of Czechoslovakia, but when the Poles refused to give up the Danzig corridor, Hitler, who looked down at the Poles, decided to make an example of them and attack them. (It is interesting to me how encouraging the west is in peddling revisionist history on WW2 so that Russia today can be demonised, and its role in defeating Hitler minimised and forgotten by the current generation).
> And without NATO support, it is apparent that Russia would have achieved all its military objectives in Ukraine a long time ago.
The invasion plan crumbled before Ukraine got any foreign aid worth mentioning. The airborne attack of Hostomel airport was successfully repelled, leading to failure to capture Kyiv, leading to failure to decapitate the military command structure, leading to successful coordinated counterattacks on the overstretched invasion force.
Five years and 1.5 million casualties later, Russia has still not managed to recover where it was a few weeks into the war, because it had no realistic plan B after the surprise attack failed.
> That's just normal wartime propaganda - both sides have claimed that civilians are being deliberately "targeted".
> And how many of those from the Global South has offered anything more substantial than words in this war?
> I obviously have no idea where you plucked those numbers from as I have never read anything similar
Russian war correspondents openly ridicule such statements, as well as comments like yours, according to which everything in Ukraine has already been blown up five times over. Yet the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. Russian official recruitment target is 34k soldiers per month, of which about 29k gets filled. Losses have been 37k this month, expected to reach 50k by the end. Territorial gains since the start of the summer, the most advantageous time of the year, have been 180 sq km in total, which is a rounding error in a country of 603 000 sq km. The numbers speak for themselves.
> The only reason Finland retains its independence, government and armed forces is because the pragmatic Finnish leaders capitulated to Russian security concerns, agreeing to all their terms.
All four got ultimatums demanding military bases on their soil to satisfy Russian "security concerns". Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania accepted the demands. Those bases were then used as staging areas for overthrowing national governments and installing puppet regimes loyal to Moscow that unleashed widespread terror against the local population to keep them under control. These oppressive puppet governments survived for half a century, until the end of the USSR. Latvia suffered the most. By the end of the 1980s, Latvians were on the verge of becoming a minority in their own country due to resettlement policies of Russians into Latvia.
Finland was the only one that refused the demands and took up arms and gained a victory by remaining independent instead of following the tragedy of its southern neighbors.
This is why Russian "security concerns" is not a phrase anyone can take seriously in North-Eastern Europe. Everyone's already seen what it means. Talking about Russian "security concerns" in a serious tone is like walking around with a giant "IDIOT" painted on your forehead.
> As for Putin's comment on Poland and Hitler, the context was that Poland had helped Hitler and Germany in the division of Czechoslovakia, but when the Poles refused to give up the Danzig corridor, Hitler, who looked down at the Poles, decided to make an example of them and attack them.
Hitler was ideologically motivated to conquer Europe using North American westward expansion as a model (mixed with German agrarian romanticism), and what Poland did or didn't do had ultimately little importance. Putin, too, has an ideological worldview that was drilled into him at the KGB: the security apparatus mentality of a totalitarian dictatorship, layered on top of a much broader Russian imperialism, which is rooted in centuries of territorial expansion and the subjugation of other peoples. Russia didn't come to span 11 timezones through acts of kindness, you know.
Another propaganda which doesn't stand up to scrutiny - NATO members were already preparing for the proxy war with Russia by sabotaging diplomatic negotiations (the Minsk agreements) to delay the war they knew would eventually happen if Ukraine didn't address Russian security concerns. This period was used to train Ukraine's military by NATO members.
> Merkel: ... Thinking back to 2014, and the beginning of 2015, when Minsk II was negotiated: If we had done nothing, Putin could have caused tremendous damage to Ukraine, and those 7 years were crucial for the evolution of Ukraine. In spite of that, this terrible situation still came to occur. But back in 2008, when the NATO membership action plan discussed, my opinion (which you don't have to share, but it is my opinion) is that it would have happened even more rapidly. Back then, Ukraine was even further from being able to offer the degree of resistance it can offer today .... Secondly, I was certain that Putin would not allow this to happen. From his perspective, this would have been a declaration of war. (https://youtu.be/hiwnD00kV0w?t=2144 )
> The Kyiv Independent: Do you also believe that the negotiations in Minsk were intended to delay Russian advances in Ukraine? ... French President François Hollande: Yes, Angela Merkel is right on this point. The Minsk agreements stopped the Russian offensive for a while ... Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity. ( https://kyivindependent.com/national/hollande-there-will-onl... )
> Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko: ... what is the result of the Minsk agreement? We win 8 years to create the army. We win 8 years to restore the economy. We win 8 years to continue the reforms and move to the European Union ... ( https://youtu.be/YgpZ9mQ8p18?t=426 )
As for Russia's initial battle loses ... Russia had surrounded Kiev, and the only reason it stopped was because Zelensky and the EU superpowers offered to negotiate with them. And one of the terms of the negotiations was to stop their military advance. Russia, in its arrogance, was fooled to believe that they had achieved political success and asked its army to stop advancing, and even retreat in some places in the frontline to defensive positions. This period was then used to provide intelligence to Ukraine on Russian positions and plan a counter attack on Russia, which was successful because the Russians were unprepared for the deception and the newly trained armed forces of Ukraine.
Once they recovered from it, they revised their plan and decided to retreat and create defensive stronghold on all the areas of Eastern Ukraine they planned to annex and execute all their other objectives militarily. (Western propaganda of course prematurely touted this tactical retreat by the Russians as Ukraine wining the war).
- ... it had no realistic plan B after the surprise attack failed.
Only those who buy NATO propaganda believe that because they are ignorant of Russia's military objectives in Ukraine. NATO propaganda paints it as simple "land grab" (which you seem to believe too), when it was never about that. It is about securing Russian security interests in both Ukraine and with Europe / NATO. From that perspective, Ukraine is losing the war and Russians are quite close to achieving all their political goals militarily.
- Sure. That's why we need to go beyond claims and investigate facts.
Yes. And to do that, you need to analyse the propaganda from both sides. This is what the Russian media recently claimed - https://rt-english.com/russia/647584-whats-on-russias-target...
> The Ukrainian propaganda widely published by liberal media outlets portrays Russian attacks as indiscriminate and aimed at civilians. In this article, we strive to demonstrate that this is not the case ... In the early years of the military operation, Russia targeted Ukraine’s defense industry facilities ... In response, Ukraine began relocating and dispersing production to any available industrial facilities or even warehouses. This strategy was openly discussed in Ukrainian propaganda as a crucial element of resilience against Russian assaults. As Russia increased its striking capabilities, it adopted a broader approach, targeting all industrial facilities based on a straightforward principle: if a facility can be used for drone assembly, it qualifies as a legitimate military target ... In order protect ammunition from airstrikes, it is moved out of the isolated weapons depots and hidden in any available facilities. Western missiles are transported from Poland to these locations as well. The consequences of this approach are dire: an attack leads to the detonation of ammunition, gravely endangering the surrounding residential areas. On August 29, 2026, a strike on a warehouse operated by Fire Point in the village of Milaya resulted in the death of 38 civilians ... Electricity forms the backbone of any support system. Without it, production halts, communication falters, and supplying the army becomes increasingly difficult. Based on this logic, since 2022, the Russian military has systematically targeted Ukraine’s electricity generation, reducing its capacity from 50-55 GW before the war to just 12-15 GW during the winter of 2025-26 ... Attacks on Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants – which generate both electricity and heat – continue as well. The goal isn’t to freeze the residents of Kiev, but to dismantle Ukraine’s unified energy system, breaking it into isolated segments that can be dealt with individually ... Russia specifically targeted gas stations in both frontline areas and Kiev. The goal was to disrupt military logistics. Reports estimate that over 200 gas stations were destroyed nationwide during the summer months ... The AFU takes pride in how they’ve adapted civilian trucks for launching long-range drones. However, this makes any cargo truck a legitimate military target for Russia and has led to the destruction of dozens of such launch platforms, which are tracked through intelligence efforts.
- Morocco provided tanks, Cambodia sent military specialists to teach demining, Sudan provided mortar ammunition, etc.
Countries that have allied with the west, and were bullied by them to support Ukraine, have done reluctantly. Cambodia, however, helped Ukraine out of human rights concerns, and not because it sides with it:
> Cambodia rejects the use or threats of force and does not side with any of the parties in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Prime Minister Hun Sen has declared. The premier stated that support for any party in what he believed had evolved into a proxy battle between the former USSR and US-led NATO countries would violate the Kingdom’s own policy of non-alignment with military blocs. ( https://www.nationthailand.com/international/40012970 )
> The "South-vs-North" dichotomy is artificial and mainly lives as yet another Russian propaganda trope.
No, it isn't as the Global South also doesn't support Russia in this war. Most of them are in the Non-Aligned Movement who deliberately avoid taking sides with superpowers. Ofcourse, the west doesn't like that because they think in black and white terms - "if you are not with us, you are against us".
> In the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939, ...
And when you mention that it is only prudent to also mention that Soviet Russia made that pact only because the French and British refused to make a pact with USSR, against Hitler, in the first place. Rest all is one-sided western revisionist history bullshit because you now want to demonise Russia - the USSR didn't do anything different to what western superpowers did to other smaller countries when they felt threatened. USSR was preparing for another World War that it knew was inevitable. It did pre-emptively use the military against many of them when their governments refused to cooperate with it because, again, it knew it was going to be dragged into another World War - all the western superpowers knew about Hitler's ambitions but still ignored USSR's overture to form an alliance against Hitler (because they considered Germany a "natural" western ally and didn't want to alienate it).
(Frankly, I am glad that the US keeps most of Europe's military "neutered" and in check, because they are crazy enough to start another world war. We may yet see that with the Ukraine conflict if Europe is allowed to have its way ...).
> Finland was the only one that refused the demands and took up arms ...
Finland, like Ukraine today, was again propped up by western superpowers to be used in a proxy war with Russia. Luckily, the Finnish leaders understood that the west was only using them (like it is using Ukraine today) and pragmatically settled with the Russians. And they benefited from it till date, because USSR never desired to conquer Finland, just as it doesn't wish to conquer Ukraine today.
> This is why Russian "security concerns" is not a phrase anyone can take seriously
Western superpowers would obviously like to peddle that narrative because they want to conquer and breakup the country (because without Russia, they cannot fight China). Only a moron would believe that Russia has no right to be considered about its "security", or sphere of influence, and thus it is ok to ignore it. That's on track with western political arrogance - the west only remembers "Democracy" and "sovereignty" only when it is convenient for them.
> NATO members were already preparing for the proxy war with Russia by sabotaging diplomatic negotiations
> As for Russia's initial battle loses ... Russia had surrounded Kiev, and the only reason it stopped was because Zelensky and the EU superpowers offered to negotiate with them.
> Cambodia rejects the use or threats of force and does not side with any of the parties in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Prime Minister Hun Sen has declared. The premier stated that support for any party in what he believed had evolved into a proxy battle between the former USSR and US-led NATO countries would violate the Kingdom’s own policy of non-alignment with military blocs.
Prime Minister Hun Sen has reiterated that Cambodia does not support the forceful occupation of one country by another, in comments that apparently referred to the Russian-Ukraine conflict as an “invasion”. “We don’t support the invasion of one country by another. This is our absolutely firm position,” he said while presiding over the inauguration of National Road 21 connecting Kandal province to the Cambodia-Vietnam border. “This is not a small issue because it creates a bad habit for the world: the stronger nation attacking the weaker one. So, if the stronger nation attacks the weaker one, will they attack us [Cambodia]? Then who will help us? This must be clear-cut. This is why we must have a clear position,” he explained.
Cambodia was one of 141 countries to co-sponsor the draft resolution of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on March 2 condemning Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine. Hun Sen revealed recently that there were countries that allegedly lobbied for Cambodia to abstain on the Russia-Ukraine vote, but did not state which ones.
> This is what the Russian media recently claimed - https://rt-english.com
> And when you mention that it is only prudent to also mention that Soviet Russia made that pact only because the French and British refused to make a pact with USSR, against Hitler, in the first place.
Stalin was simply shopping around for a way to exploit the looming German-Polish war and gain an opportunity to invade Poland. The French and the British did not agree to pressure the Polish government, so Stalin struck a deal with Hitler who had no such inhibitions.
> It did pre-emptively use the military against many of them when their governments refused to cooperate with it
> USSR never desired to conquer Finland
> Only a moron would believe that Russia has no right to be considered about its "security", or sphere of influence, and thus it is ok to ignore it.
I partly agree with you - what you mentioned were the Ukrainian proxy backed by the Russians. The west had their own Ukrainian political leaders that they backed who also worked to divide the country. This is why I blame the Ukrainian leaders, first and foremost, for this mess - they couldn't unite their country, and allowed foreign meddling. One leader sought help from Russia, one from UK / NATO and now from US / EU to consolidate power. In the Angela Merkel interview that I have shared above, she too points this out:
> Merkel: First, Ukraine wasn't the Ukraine we know now. Politically, Ukraine was deeply divided between Yanukovych and Yushchenko, and even the reformers Tymoshenko and Yushchenko didn't like each other ...
When a nation is not united, it is easy to exploit it, and that is what the western superpowers and Russia did in Ukraine. The west was more successful here as the western backed coup managed to overthrow the democratically elected Russian friendly (I wouldn't call him a Russian stooge) leader. They then immediately branded all parties and leaders perceived as anti-west as "enemies" and either banned them, jailed them or exiled them. Then, after eliminating all competition, they held a "democratic election" which was hailed by the west as the "most democratic" in Ukraine's history while it created a permanent schism between the East Ukraine and West Ukraine.
Russia recognized the coup for what it was - a foreign backed coup - and so immediately annexed Crimea (to protect its own military interests).
Zelensky was elected on a platform to unite the people. He too failed, partly due to his inexperience and also because he followed the same destructive policies (guided by the west to whom he is beholden), like his predecessors that ignored Ukraine's history and culture and trying to end multiculturalism. He in fact exacerbated the issue by using violence against East Ukrainians, triggering a civil war. As Putin saw Zelensky's political actions were increasingly guided by the west, and increasingly militant, and he had no interest in a rapprochement with Russia, he escalated, which finally resulted in the illegal invasion of Ukraine.
(And now West Ukraine has a militia compromised of unmarked members of western armed forces, security services, and people under their direct control, with whom Zelensky too has to contend).
- Instead of a rapid advance toward Kyiv, Russian ground forces were met by fierce Ukrainian resistance ...
I agree that the initial Ukrainian resistance was good, and completely unanticipated by the Russians. The direct intelligence provided by NATO was also very helpful to slowdown the Russian invasion. All that said, a major reason for Russians dropping the advance towards Kiev, and later tactically withdrawing,, was because of request for urgent negotiations by the west and Ukraine. Remember that the first diplomatic negotiation took place just 4 days after the war, and one of the western pre-conditions to this was that negotiations shouldn't happen with the barrel of a gun to the face (i.e. Kiev surrounded) and required the Russians to withdraw, which the Russians partially complied with because they arrogantly and foolishly thought the negotiations would happen in good-faith and in their favour.
- Good of you to mention bullying ...
Oh, I am not defending Russia when it comes to such things. Even my own country gave in to the Russian demands to not vote in the UN resolution. (That was a cowardice on the part of the Modi government - the Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal, by international laws, and India should have upheld that principle). My point remains that western superpowers are no different from Russia or China in this, and so the west does not have any moral ground to claim superiority here.
- RT is trash-tier propaganda outlet ...
As is any media outlet, funded by the government, like the BBC, NPR, DW or PressTV. When everyone is doing propaganda, all we can do is analyse the facts based on which the propaganda is crafted. Facts are facts, and only the propaganda around it differ. Civilians are killed (collateral damage) by the actions of both sides. Fact. And both sides deliberately claim that civilians are deliberately targeted. Propaganda. I don't believe either Zelensky nor Putin is deliberately targeting civilians, as it isn't in their interest. Neither of them is an extremist or a fundamentalist like Netanyahu, for example, who is actually indulging in a genocide.
- Russia demanded the right to place troops into Poland and expected the French and the British to coerce the Polish government into accepting it ..
And was it the right call from a military perspective, to fight Hitler's army? Obviously, Yes. Everyone knew that Germany (and Hitler) wanted Russia. And there were only so many fronts from which the German army could advance towards Russia. Remember that this was not the first war Russia was fighting against an invading army, especially the Germans.
- Poland was naturally opposed to the presence of foreign soldiers on their soil, out of fear that the troops would never leave. History proved them correct.
No, history did not prove them correct. No one can confidently say that if Poland had acquiesced to Russian terms to provide right of way to the Russian military, and for a stage hold territory, backed by British and the French guarantees of sovereignty, Soviet Russia would not have withdrawn after defeating the Germans. It would have disrupted the new alliance and potentially made war with the British and the French a reality.
- Stalin was simply shopping around for a way to exploit the looming German-Polish war and gain an opportunity to invade Poland.
That's all bullshit and a modern excuse. Stalin's main concern was always Hitler and Germany, for historical reasons. Sure, like any other superpower, USSR was also interested in expanding their Sphere of Influence, but they were just as pragmatic about it as the French or the British (i.e. they would try to do it without warfare). Every political move the USSR took during, and after, WW2 was based because of the initial hostility of the western superpowers to an alliance with it, and then because of the hostilities towards it post-WW2 (resulting in the cold war). To blame everything on the Russians, is just western hubris and propaganda. European superpowers are just as much to blame, then, as they are now for renewed hostilities with the Russians.
As Fico once said:
> We have our own experience with Munich in 1938, when the powers bound to us by treaty deceived us, betrayed us and served us up to Hitler like a roasted chicken. ( https://x.com/RobertFicoSVK/status/2101382211370893658 )
That is also a fact. But your predictable response to this would be sidestep the facts (that this was typical superpower politics) and say, "Oh no, he is a Putin / Russian stooge" (at some point, this kind of propaganda gets really tiring).
- National governments were replaced with communist dictatorships under Russian control ...
Again, you disregard west's own hostility towards USSR in taking those actions. I also find it funny how quick the west is to attack any kind of "revolution" that is against their own interest, but to quickly praise similar "revolution" whose leaders are aligned to the west - "My dictators are ok, only yours are bad!". Today, you in the west have no problem with the US invading Venezuela and violating its sovereignty, or supporting and defending a genocide by your allies in Gaza, or killing children in Iran, or fully backing and whitewashing a "revolution" in Ukraine that overthrew a democratically elected leader ... all that is ok for you. But, at the same time, you also want us to think that the only "evil" in this world is your enemy (the Russians) ... like I said, all this kind of propaganda has become tiring to us in the Global South.
It is also very clear that the western superpowers wrongly thought that Russia was weak and could be conquered and divided amongst themselves. And Ukraine was the proxy they used to test it. You westerners prove that with your cowardice in not fighting alongside the Ukrainians ... If the west wants to preach from a moral high ground, the west needs to display the very ethical and moral values that they espouse. Sadly, they don't.
- Only morons go around yapping about "Russian security concerns" when Russia itself is the main threat to peace and security in Europe. ...
You guys are like the bullies that humiliate and provoke someone weaker repeatedly. And when they one day fight back and hurt you, go crying to your mama that you are the real victim.
> it was agreed in Helsinki that using force to violate territorial integrity and redraw European borders was unacceptable conduct for any European state.
And ofcourse, you guys have always upheld that, have you? (cough NATO invasions cough). Look up every western action against another country that was done without UN approval - it's all illegal to the rest of the world. Like I said, you guys have no moral standing to preach to the rest ...
> The west was more successful here as the western backed coup managed to overthrow the democratically elected Russian friendly
> Russia recognized the coup for what it was - a foreign backed coup - and so immediately annexed Crimea (to protect its own military interests).
> Zelensky was elected on a platform to unite the people /---/ He in fact exacerbated the issue by using violence against East Ukrainians, triggering a civil war.
> All that said, a major reason for Russians dropping the advance towards Kiev, and later tactically withdrawing,, was because of request for urgent negotiations by the west and Ukraine.
> As is any media outlet, funded by the government, like the BBC, NPR, DW or PressTV.
> Stalin's main concern was always Hitler and Germany, for historical reasons.
> No one can confidently say that if Poland had acquiesced to Russian terms to provide right of way to the Russian military, and for a stage hold territory, backed by British and the French guarantees of sovereignty, Soviet Russia would not have withdrawn after defeating the Germans.
> And ofcourse, you guys have always upheld that, have you? (cough NATO invasions cough). Look up every western action against another country that was done without UN approval - it's all illegal to the rest of the world. Like I said, you guys have no moral standing to preach to the rest ...
It is such a blatant violation of established norms that even some of Russia's closest allies like Belarus have not recognized it.
Ofcourse, those who support the "revolution" obviously don't like when it is labelled a coup. I am sure it is the same with the "revolutionaries" in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal too, who, like the west-backed Ukrainians, violently overthrew their democratically elected leaders. (And, again, like the Ukrainians, these so-called "revolutionaries" then attacked or banned or jailed or exiled all their opponents and then held the farce of a "democratic election" without any opposition. Wait a minute - isn't this the kind of "communist revolution" that the west often derides and believes is undemocratic!? But, I guess it's ok when "your guys" do it ...).
And we also have the embarrassing leaked tapes of one of the brains behind the "revolution" discussing how to install the "right" Ukrainian leaders (aka western puppets) - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 ... Ofcourse, once the opposition had been decimated violently, and the west's open role in the coup revealed, that was quite easy to do so - all the "surviving" Ukrainian leaders knew that they had to submit to the western superpowers to politically survive in Ukraine. And they did so openly and blatantly.
- Can't be true.
The medals, the manufactured controversy over the dates are all irrelevant. It has always been public knowledge that for Russia, not losing Crimea and its naval base has always been the primary goal in negotiations with Ukraine. Even the unrest in Crimea, involving a referendum against the Ukrainian government, demanding independence / autonomy was supported by Russia. And if Ukraine was unwilling to renew its lease of Crimea to Russia, annexation was always the plan. Nearly 2+ decades back, Putin had publicly said that if Ukraine joins NATO, Ukraine would do so without Crimea and the Eastern regions. In other words, the political and military plan was always ready (if negotiations failed) as Plan B, and the western backed coup was one of the "red lines" that triggered Crimea's quick annexation.
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has publicly stated in an interview that he took a message from Putin to Zelensky that Russia would not invade Ukraine if he publicly committed to not join NATO. Zelensky was willing. But all subsequent negotiations (before and during the war) failed because the western superpowers always dissuaded him from signing and committing to "permanent neutrality" - the original condition on which the USSR had granted independence to the Ukrainians, and the condition on which the Russians had guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty.
- I honestly don't know what "civil war" you are talking about.
Lookup on the failures of the Ukranian side to uphold the Minsk treaties (which, as I have already shared, has now been acknowledged by the leaders of the west, and Ukraine, as a ruse that they didn't have any intention to honour, but were only using to buy time, especially after the coup).
- Stalin infamously misjudged Hitler's intentions ...
Not exactly. You again deliberately ignore that the first parties he approached for an alliance were the British and the French, because Germany and Russia have a history of animosity. Stalin knew that a German invasion would inevitably happen, and he wanted to buy time because he knew the Soviet economy and military wasn't ready to face any western superpower, alone. (The experience of fighting the Germans, with an impoverished army, during WW1 were still fresh for the Russians). That is why he reluctantly joined hands with Hitler, who, again, was never his first choice, to buy time to strengthen Soviet military positions. It was always an uneasy alliance, with both prepared for one to turn against the other. (Stalin was right that the Russians were ill-prepared for a war, as at the start of the war, they even struggled against smaller foes due to poor logistics and being ill-equipped. Hitler and his generals thus concluded that the Soviet military was weak, and turned against them, hoping for a decisive victory. The timing may have taken Stalin unaware. But the Russians managed to hold their own, and as a realignment of forces happened, ultimately repelled the German invasion resulting in Hitler's defeat).
I will however concede that Stalin wasn't much of a military strategist - his idea of warfare was brutal numeric superiority in the frontline, throwing men after men in wave after wave, to overwhelm the enemy. It worked, but at a heavy cost. (We see this same Russian strategy in Ukraine too, though Putin is being more pragmatic in his mobilisation).
- Lithuanian government accepted all demands, and Russian forces did not leave until 1994 ... Most of Central and Eastern Europe was covered by communist dictatorships
And ofcourse, this is again something to be seen in isolation, and we should all ignore the development of the cold war, right? Selective picking of a political event without the underlying context is easy to twist to fit some narrative. Post WW2, as Russia supported the independence of western colonies, and communist revolutions everywhere, the western superpowers again turned hostile towards USSR. It in turn obviously took countermeasures to protect itself. The west too were busy installing and supporting their own dictators during this period.
- The Helsinki peace process and the agreement reached there has little to do with generic anti-American rhetoric.
Oh, it isn't anti-American rhetoric. European superpowers were just as bad.
- One of the key adopted principles was that no European country may invade another country by force...
And you seriously think the west has upheld that since 1975?
That's only true if you ignore the illegal NATO bombing of Yugoslavia by the US, UK, Germany, Turkey etc. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal under modern international law because it has no UN approval. Similarly, all unilateral NATO military actions are also illegal. As was NATO bombing against Libya. As is the attack on Iran.
In other words, Russia as a superpower is not doing anything different to what western superpowers do (or have done).
(I think it is time to end this discussion, as we both understand each others position on this issue. Thank you for your time.)
> Ofcourse, those who support the "revolution" obviously don't like when it is labelled a coup
> The medals, the manufactured controversy over the dates are all irrelevant
> Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has publicly stated in an interview that he took a message from Putin to Zelensky that Russia would not invade Ukraine if he publicly committed to not join NATO.
> Zelensky was willing. But all subsequent negotiations (before and during the war) failed because the western superpowers always dissuaded him from signing and committing to "permanent neutrality" - the original condition on which the USSR had granted independence to the Ukrainians
> Nearly 2+ decades back, Putin had publicly said that if Ukraine joins NATO, Ukraine would do so without Crimea and the Eastern regions.
> And ofcourse, this is again something to be seen in isolation, and we should all ignore the development of the cold war, right? Selective picking of a political event without the underlying context is easy to twist to fit some narrative. Post WW2, as Russia supported the independence of western colonies, and communist revolutions everywhere, the western superpowers again turned hostile towards USSR.
The Cold War was triggered by the same Russian suppression of independence of other European nations during the final phase of WWII and in its immediate aftermath. After all that, is it really a surprise that the phrase "Russian security concerns" is now met with ridicule? How about restoring British rule over India to satisfy "British security concerns"?
> In other words, Russia as a superpower is not doing anything different to what western superpowers do (or have done).
Any political action under violence, and then the threat of violence (whether it be by so called "revolutionaries" or an army) resulting in the opposition capturing power undemocratically is exactly that - a coup ... that they made it "legal", after eliminating their opposition, has no bearing on this. Otherwise you should have no problem in accepting the referendum in Crimea or in Eastern Ukraine where the people also voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
- ... 20 February 2014. The first Russian troop movements (810th marine brigade) were observed on the same date.
Again deliberately avoiding the context with selective facts that are irrelevant. I am saying Russia was always prepared to annex Crimea - Putin had declared that 20+ years ago, and repeatedly told this to every western leaders he met during this period, subsequently. That is why Russia has always had agents in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. The coup, and the elimination of Ukrainian politicians that were either pro-Russian or weren't pro-west, was the trigger for the Russians annexing Crimea. That they were in Crimea in February 20 is irrelevant here because recall that the "revolution" began with protests in November 2013. Russian intelligence were keeping close tabs on it (remember the tape leak about the US planning who to install in Ukraine?), and prepared for any eventuality. As it became clear that the West supported the right-wing extremists against President Viktor Yanukovych, and they too were pressuring him to resign and hand over power to the Western backed "revolutionaries" the Russians asked him to sign the transitional plan, offered him asylum in Russia (as he feared he may be assassinated) and activated their plan to annex Crimea ( https://www.politico.eu/article/yanukovych-signs-transition-... ) as it had become clear that Ukraine would no longer be neutral to Russia:
> In late February, a few days after Ukraine’s pro-Moscow president was ousted from power, strange bands of armed gunmen began seizing government buildings in Crimea. Some Crimeans held rallies to show support for the ousted president and, in some cases, to call to secede from Ukraine and re-join Russia. The bands of gunmen grew until it became obvious they were Russian military forces, who forcefully but bloodlessly brought the entire peninsula under military occupation. On March 16, Crimeans voted overwhelmingly for their region to become a part of Russia. ( https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you... )
Even those in the west now publicly acknowledge that what happened in Ukraine is perceived as a coup by many - A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War - https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia... ).
- This is another factually incorrect statement. Benett met Putin on 5 March 2022, nine days after the invasion had started...
I am repeating what he said. Note that he has met Putin before the war too, where he informed Putin that Zelensky wanted to meet him and talk to him. Putin conveyed he wasn't interested. Benett also points out that Zelensky did publicly renounce Ukraine joining NATO. Benett has also said that all the negotiations were very carefully coordinated with the US, Germany, France and UK. And once Putin and Zelensky compromised and agreed to a deal and a ceasefire, the West then blocked it because they wanted to "keep striking Russia". (And remember, as he says, this is after the west once advised Zelensky to surrender and run away to the US - as the negotiations revealed that Putin was ready to really compromise, they perceived this as "weakness" in Putin and then advised Zelensky to not end the war).
Here's the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs&t=8392s
Even Kissinger has publicly said that it wasn't in the interest of the west for Ukraine to make peace with Russia (in the early stages of war), as the West had already given the Ukrainian military many arms and munitions in preparation, and during the war:
> “We have now armed Ukraine to a point where it will be the best-armed country and with the least strategically experienced leadership in Europe. We shouldn’t end it in the wrong way.” (It was in the Economist ...)
(The underlying implication was that the West was afraid that if Ukraine - Russia ties improved, or if Ukraine felt isolated and angry at the West, those weapons may be used against it).
- He made no such public statement.
It's all in the public domain, even if you wish to ignore it:
> The strategy was set in motion at NATO’s annual summit in Bucharest in April 2008, when the alliance announced that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members.” Russian leaders responded immediately with outrage, making it clear that this decision was an existential threat to Russia, and that they had no intention of letting either country join NATO. According to a respected Russian journalist, Putin “flew into a rage,” and warned that “if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.” William Burns, who is now the head of the CIA ... wrote a memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that succinctly describes Russian thinking about Ukraine joining NATO. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite, not just Putin. In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” NATO, he said, “would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze…It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” ( https://cirsd.org/horizon-article/the-causes-and-consequence... )
Unbeknownst to the Russians, that was the first step of the trap that the Anglo-Americans had created to draw Russia into a proxy war through Ukraine ...
- All these Russian narratives depend on the listener being lazy and not checking basic facts like the order of events.
Ofcourse I make silly mistakes as I am posting everything from memory - unlike you, I am not paid to post here and so don't have a database of resources to immediately refer to get the facts or copy paste prepared rebuttals. Hopefully my posts here will give your division more work and make you all more sharp (and less brainwashed)!
- Ukraine was not "granted" independence by anyone....
Sure, if you wish to resort to technicalities and legalspeak, that is partly true. But the delaration of independence, and subsequently the constitution of Ukraine proclaimed that it would not join any military alliance. The declaration said:
> The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in any military bloc ...
- The statement alone would've been a severe violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.
That is one of my points - Superpowers have never cared about the sovereignty of other countries when their own political self-interest was involved. There are umpteen examples of this in history and modern times. You can see it with the Ukraine war too - Russia invaded it to protect its self-interest, and the West now doesn't end it to protect its own self-interests.
- The Cold War was triggered by the same Russian suppression of independence of other European nations
The cold war was triggered because the Russians and the western superpowers couldn't reach an agreement to define their spheres of influences clearly. The superpowers then did what they always do - fight amongst themselves through proxies. The rest of us suffer.
- Since the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, Russia is the only country to have invaded another European country by force and declared its territory to be its own.
You had to carefully choose your words to write that sentence, didn't you? Otherwise NATO invasions post 1975 shows how little the Western superpowers have cared about international law or sovereignty even in Europe...
- That's the difficult thing with lying: you have to have a really good memory to cover all the ways that the truth can slip out.
No, the problem with the West today is that they rely too much on politics of propaganda than value politics - Western politicians increasingly think that just because your propaganda is good enough to fool some of their own citizens, others will also be fooled by it, and thus there is no need to have any dialogue with those who disagree with it. Their mentality is if anyone doesn't agree with you even by a small iota, they should be identified as "enemies". Such a black-and-white way of thinking is why even established parties in the West are losing election left and right to even fringe extremist parties - Western citizens now find it hard to see any difference between such politicians and the extremist parties. It is a failure to recognize that the politics of propaganda isn't enough. You need to have dialogues with people who don't agree with you, and listen to them seriously, without attacking them. It is also why they are increasingly alienating people, like me, around the world, even when we don't have any animosity or hatred towards the West.
> Any political action under violence, and then the threat of violence (whether it be by so called "revolutionaries" or an army) resulting in the opposition capturing power undemocratically is exactly that - a coup ...
> Again deliberately avoiding the context with selective facts that are irrelevant. /---/ remember the tape leak about the US planning who to install in Ukraine?
Next week, the US is holding midterm elections. At any given moment, there are probably hundreds of phone calls taking place between all sorts of people discussing whom they'd like to see in the House and Senate. A bunch of Ukrainians are probably discussing among themselves who would be the best for them too. You'd be a fool to characterize that as "planning who to install" in the US. Of all the Ukraine-related talking points, this one is easily one of the laziest.
> Benett has also said that all the negotiations were very carefully coordinated with the US, Germany, France and UK. And once Putin and Zelensky compromised and agreed to a deal and a ceasefire, the West then blocked it because they wanted to "keep striking Russia".
Russian propagandists took this lengthy interview out of context and clipped different parts together to show Bennett saying that "the US, Germany and France BLOCKED Ukraine from signing peace with Russia and FORCED Ukraine to continue fighting". That's an obvious distortion.
Despite all the huffing and puffing about other people falling for propaganda, you're the one who's fallen for a cheap trick here.
> It's all in the public domain, even if you wish to ignore it:
> Sure, if you wish to resort to technicalities and legalspeak, that is partly true. But the delaration of independence, and subsequently the constitution of Ukraine proclaimed that it would not join any military alliance.
Neutrality was mentioned only once in the earliest declaration of sovereignity (July 1990) as an aspirational goal. It was not included in subsequent legislation like the 1993 law on the main directions of Ukraine's foreign policy or the 1996 constitution, because it was considered an obstacle to cooperation with European regional security frameworks. So contrary to your claim, Ukraine did not make a commitment of neutrality to anyone.
> You had to carefully choose your words to write that sentence, didn't you? Otherwise NATO invasions post 1975 shows how little the Western superpowers have cared about international law or sovereignty ...
The grapes are sour.
Russia is absolutely in a hurry because the war is hurting it tremendously, it simply is unable to do so at the moment, but it hopes it can undermine Ukraine's external support, which is indeed going much better than its campaign on the ukrainian front.