This is, to say the least, a substantial shift from the earlier goal of unseating the Ukrainian government. We’ll see how things shake out from here with the separatists in the Donbass region, possession of Crimea, future NATO aspirations for Ukraine, rebuilding efforts in Ukraine, and the potential for food shortages after the disruption in Ukraine’s wheat harvest for this year.
It’s literally the position Putin stated on March 5th http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67913
This link is unfortunately banned in the West. Any mirrors?
Actions speak louder than words. Unless that 40 mile long line of tanks was heading to Kyiv on holiday, the goal was to install a puppet government. Oh, sorry, “denazify”.
The actions are perfectly consistent with what they said. The 40 mile long line of tanks around Kiev did a great job splitting Ukrainian military allowing Russians to surround and cut off the main army in Donbas.
How do you differentiate what should be taken seriously in that speech (or any of Putin’s public comments), when half of it is blatant lying? E.g. (all emphases mine)
Incidentally, this is further proof of what I have said – that we are dealing not with ordinary radicals but with neo-Nazis. Our people can freely express their opinions of what they like or do not like about our actions in Ukraine.
Only professional servicemen – officers and contract soldiers – are taking part in this operation. There are no conscripts, and we are not planning to get them involved.
They called us from the government, from Kiev and spoke with our military: “Provide humanitarian corridors so that people can leave.” Of course, our people responded instantly and even suspended hostilities.
We note the presence of militants from the Middle East and some European countries there. We know about them, we hear them in the air. They are using so-called Jihad mobiles – they stuff cars with explosives and drive them towards the troops.
Not to mention that this very speech includes elements that explicitly claim Putin’s position to be way larger that what you’re claiming. For instance
Therefore, one of our key demands is demilitarisation. In other words, we are helping people, residents of Donbass to achieve a neutral status and demilitarisation of the country because we must understand clearly what weapons are there, where they are deployed and who controls them.
And then this gem, the biggest lie of all:
It has been getting worse lately. Suddenly, there has been renewed talk about admitting Ukraine to NATO. Actually, it has been on for a long time, but has intensified lately. Do you understand what this could lead to or even can still lead to? If Ukraine is a NATO country, then in accordance with the North Atlantic Treaty, all other members must support that country in the event of a military conflict.
No one is recognising Crimea as a part of Russia, except for you and me. They carry out military operations in Donbass, and they will also move into Crimea, and we will have to fight with the entire NATO organisation. Do you see what that means?
Are the consequences clear enough? I think that everyone understands.
Yes. We should understand that Ukraine being in NATO would mean that Russia could not attack it any more. In accordance to North Atlantic Treaty, members don’t have to support a country in the event of a military conflict, but more specifically in the event that somebody attacks them. Like Russia has so plainly done.
How do you differentiate what should be taken seriously in that speech (or any of Putin’s public comments), when half of it is blatant lying? E.g. (all emphases mine)
The point here is that he said the same thing that’s being said now. So, clearly there hasn’t been a change in position. If anything, the position hardened with Rudskoi saying that they were not considering storming cities previously, but now that’s on the table.
Not to mention that this very speech includes elements that explicitly claim Putin’s position to be way larger that what you’re claiming. For instance
That’s literally been the position all along.
Yes. We should understand that Ukraine being in NATO would mean that Russia could not attack it any more. In accordance to North Atlantic Treaty, members don’t have to support a country in the event of a military conflict, but more specifically in the event that somebody attacks them. Like Russia has so plainly done.
Thing is that Ukraine was never going to be admitted to NATO as Zelensky admitted recently being plainly told in private. The west led Ukraine up the garden path and left them to hang when things finally escalated into an open war. Plenty of western experts have said that admitting Ukraine into NATO would be a red line for Russia since the 90s. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Russias goal was always the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine. There were no details what that means for the future of Ukraine, so it will definitely be interesting what happens in the next weeks.
Killing ~300 women, children, and elderly sheltering in that theatre is not really going to get Ukrainians on-side about demilitarization.
Yeah, I fully expect Ukraine to rebuild its military defenses ASAP with aid from the west. Good preparedness by Ukraine and an unexpectedly bad showing from Russia were two vital factors in Ukraine punching way above its weight.
I saw claims that the mariupol theater was bombed by russia but also claims that it was rigged with explosives by the ukrainian military. Honestly i don’t believe anything without compelling evidence. What i know is that the theater was destroyed and people died.
Sounded like Ukrainian nazis herded them in there like livestock for slaughter. Manufacturering atrocities fits their bill. Highly doubt russian forces had anything to do with that.
I hope you got paid for that post… because suggesting some soldiers would round up a large number of civilians, some of them children, from their own country and murder them - to tarnish the image of the invaders (who are already doing quite a good job of making themselves look like the bad-guys) is some stone cold delirium.
We arent talking about some soldiers here, but about hardcore nazis from azov battalion. They have an extreme hatred for all “moscuvites” (slur for russians), and for “collaborators”. They murdered lots of civilians simply for trying to flee from Mariupol.
The nazi card is played far, far too much by people who support the invasion. They exist in Azov for sure and in small numbers in other places, but mostly, I think its just the monster the invaders need to believe in to sleep at night.
you seem to not take nazis seriously enough. They are monsters to be shot on sight.
Is there any single picture or video of these alleged dead people? Otherwise its impossible to believe, because Ukraine propaganda pumps out so many lies every day.
lol, lmao
get fucked Putin
How much disinformation! It’s disgusting! I hope they one side this conversation already and push the real truth inside us!
