QUOTE(brian81st @ Nov 23 2025, 05:24 PM)
for context, you do know that the 2014 overthrowing of president was part of US plan. There are concrete evidence that US plan the whole thing and there were recording of US official mentioned which candidate should be in the government after throwing out the president.
Russia out of their own interest , has taken steps to annex crimea. and Crimea citizen majority actual supported the Russia government compare to Ukraine government. A vote was carried out and more than 80% supported the Russia government at 2014.
This is a fact. and i remember reading about a survey carried out by a UK media, 5 years after the crimea annexation, and still more than 80% of crimea citizen prefer the russia government.
One of the reason crimea is important to russia is due to its location and also partly because of the citizen there. Russia use the citizen as an excuse to carry out annexation.
Imagine this if Russia with concrete evidence overthrow a government at US border and place in their choice of candidate, what would happen to that country? or if china does this to a country bordering US and supplying weapon to that country?
Just refer to cuban missile crisis. Cuba is not even connecting to US. US invade and launch terrorist attack on Cuba, and Cuba engage Russia for missile defence system. US found out, and gave warning to Russia and Cuba. Both of them came to the table and discuss and agreed to dismantle the cuba missile defence. What would happen if both of the country choose to ignore US warning?
US was planning to launch nuclear missile on cuba if cuba ignore their warning.
sorry to say this is just the rules of the world since thousands of years. Is there any other country on the America continent can have nuclear weapon other than US? why is that? because US is the superpower that restricted that NO country in North or south america continent has the right to have nuclear weapon.
your argument relies on an assumption that the crimean vote wasnt held under gunpoint, and that in the following years, russia didnt implement a series of demographic changes in including confiscating some people's passports and relocating citizens out (which is happening in the current conflict, so its not a stretch to imagine that its an established tactic). even the un general assembly voted 100-11 that the referendum was not valid. of course, the entire referendum was only done for domestic consumption to justify the invasion (which russia never actually confessed to, by the way, which indicates that they themselves know it wasnt legal).
in any case, its a real stretch to imagine that people are happy under the years of pro-kremlin leaders following the dissolution of the ussr. most of ukraine hated russian intervention in its politics, as well as the corruption for deals to both ukrainian and russian oligarchs.
people like to attribute everything to the us yet pro-russians also like to quote that ukraine is the poorest and most corrupt country in europe - of which much of that time was spent under pro-kremlin leaders. somehow they wont entertain the notion that ukrainians will revolt because of the scale of corruption, especially if you're selling out very favourable oil and gas deals to ukrainian and foreign (russian) oligarchs. funnily enough, following reforms implemented after 2014, the most corrupt country in europe now (according to Transparency) is russia.
as to your last point, its the same old laughable propaganda line: russia already borders nato, and if nato wants to, they can put missile systems in existing nato members that put both moscow and st petersburg in range much closer than if they put it in kiev. but nato doesnt and doesnt plan to. contrary to pro-russians' fever dreams, the baltics havent been militarised, nor is it bristling with missiles aimed at moscow - and neither would ukraine. ironically with the war, there's a lot more western weapons and missile systems in ukraine than would have been if russia just kept it hands to itself. if the argument is that its a strategic move by russia, then its a huge fuck-up by putin, leaving russia economically and politically isolated with even more nato members at its borders, and more reliant on foreign mercenaries than its military allies (people forget that russia has its CSTO alliance, whose members dont even bother to help russia).
i think pro-russians like to quote 'geopolitics' and 'reality of the world', without actually looking out the window to see what's really happening.
QUOTE(70U63 @ Nov 23 2025, 07:34 PM)
When Russia was poor fxcked 3 decades ago, even they were pissed, there were nothing they can do about it.
Things changed especially year 2010+
when russia was poor, it actually received quite a lot of help from the west, from world bank loans to build infra to trade deals. when there was even a NATO-russia founding agreement which includes military cooperation.
russia likes to paint a picture that it had its 'century of humiliation' but assistance and trade flowed better than before. in fact, the 90s was one of the few times when the UN Security Council and UN Peacekeepers were actually effective in stopping conflicts because the Permanent 5 members were generally working together.
After that, however, things changed. putin came and first grozny was bombed and independent chechnya retaken. its an indicator of how russia treats its neighbours in subsequent years.
Nov 22 2025, 09:04 PM, updated 2w ago
Quote
0.0303sec
1.25
5 queries
GZIP Disabled