Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[BlueOak]

As Russia goes off the cliff, and China moves in on Siberia. 
Konstantine was always a steady proponent of Russia's economic trajectory; he avoided saying "collapse," as other youtubers did. Because to him, a collapse in Russia would mean no money for food, as an example, not some minor inconveniences.

He has always said that future generations will pay for Putin and the KGB fossils wars, and stayed steady on that view.
 

 

Overall Prep for World War 3:
 

 

 

Edited Monday at 12:49 PM by BlueOak

[Hatfort]

Russia continues advancing toward victory, six more towns in Zaporizhia and Donetsk last days, not to forget about Pokrovsk and Kupiansk last weeks, quite important strongholds for the Ukrainian side, now Russian. The four oblasts are going to be Russia, this is inevitable. If Ukraine had some sense, they would use the parts of these territories it holds as a decent negotiating card, but they don't have it, so Russia will take them by force. Then we'll see how the power balance remains, it may go even further. 

Security guarantee demands in the mouth of NATO and its vasels equal to a de facto NATO adhesion of what remains of Ukraine, and Russia, as the inevitable victor in this war, is not going to concede on that, no matter how you call it. The Minsk accords showed Russia that the Europeans and the US are not trustworthy, so they are not going to fall for their bullshit again, they are fighting and winning, and they will set the military terms of the outcome to the losers. 

Without counting Ukraine, Europe is the big loser of this conflict. They have been conned by the US in a way, which was the biggest perpetrator of all this, now Europe depends on the US energy supply at a much higher price. The US blew up the Nord Stream, Biden was asked about it, and his answer gives no room for doubt. European leaders are both stupid and sold out to do anything about it though, and keep falling like in the last military budgets approved in favor of the US industry. 

Propaganda noise about the Russian collapse is smoke, that is not going to happen. Russia has no problem keeping this ongoing economically, militarily, and socially. Ukraine has more manpower problems, and we'll see how long European cucks want to continue funding the US military industry, and the corrupts in Ukraine. The trend won't change, Russia will win. When? Unknown, maybe months, probably years. 

[BlueOak]

5 hours ago, Hatfort said:

Russia continues advancing toward victory, six more towns in Zaporizhia and Donetsk last days, not to forget about Pokrovsk and Kupiansk last weeks, quite important strongholds for the Ukrainian side, now Russian. The four oblasts are going to be Russia, this is inevitable. If Ukraine had some sense, they would use the parts of these territories it holds as a decent negotiating card, but they don't have it, so Russia will take them by force. Then we'll see how the power balance remains, it may go even further. 

Security guarantee demands in the mouth of NATO and its vasels equal to a de facto NATO adhesion of what remains of Ukraine, and Russia, as the inevitable victor in this war, is not going to concede on that, no matter how you call it. The Minsk accords showed Russia that the Europeans and the US are not trustworthy, so they are not going to fall for their bullshit again, they are fighting and winning, and they will set the military terms of the outcome to the losers. 

Without counting Ukraine, Europe is the big loser of this conflict. They have been conned by the US in a way, which was the biggest perpetrator of all this, now Europe depends on the US energy supply at a much higher price. The US blew up the Nord Stream, Biden was asked about it, and his answer gives no room for doubt. European leaders are both stupid and sold out to do anything about it though, and keep falling like in the last military budgets approved in favor of the US industry. 

Propaganda noise about the Russian collapse is smoke, that is not going to happen. Russia has no problem keeping this ongoing economically, militarily, and socially. Ukraine has more manpower problems, and we'll see how long European cucks want to continue funding the US military industry, and the corrupts in Ukraine. The trend won't change, Russia will win. When? Unknown, maybe months, probably years. 

There isn't much longer left for Russia. If this is victory I don't want to see what their defeat looks like! Holding Russia here in these regions was NATO's entire goal, draining them of their ability to fight until they could no longer do so. I've said this for years. I said at the start Ukraine would lose land, and a year later when the pattern was obvious, Russia would drain itself until it could no longer continue.

They funded this by using up their savings and now overleveraging themselves through debt, selling their gold reserves, removing all their countries' future wealth and overleveraging bonds. They've spent a generation to gain ruined cities and dead lands, but its going to take 2 generations to get them out of the hole.

I can drop source after source, the first one is by a Russian economist who used to live there telling you that. But let's define what not much longer left, actually means. There are a few obvious end state scenarios for both countries.

Russia:

Puppet of China. The most likely outcome. This would leave Russia whole but largely beholden to China. This seems to be the current pattern, and as patterns rarely change, I would guess this to be the final outcome.

Russian Oblasts break away—possible if things get bad enough. When people can't eat they tend to rebel, no matter the level of suppression. This is more likely in provinces like Dagestan, Chechnya, and Georgia, and possibly Siberia, where all the wealth comes from. As fewer men exist to keep order in lands that have seen massive losses both in terms of population or economic problems, and more are just killed off in Ukraine this becomes more likely.

The Russian recession grinds them into nothing. As oil prices are the lowest they've ever been relative for a long time, more people are producing, and less people are needing oil, they are screwed long-term. They've blown off both their feet with the amount of debt they are incurring; it could just be the Russian recession ends all their imperial ambitions for the next few decades. (Depends how greedy the Americans become in doing business with them post war).

A quick coup. Clean, efficient, new name, same old story. Quite likely this one too. Putin is old so its going to happen eventually anyway, and it always happens when a war goes poorly, as this one has. The 3 day war becoming several years and if it continues to its conclusion, it'll have cost them 2 million in casualties, many of the wounded will have PTSD and be crippled, and it'll carry that also, along with the absurd amount of criminals or sociopaths re-released into society, etc.

Ukraine:

Independent Guarantees. Holding the Russians in the provinces, and draining Russia so much it cannot continue to push, but continually threatened by further war in the decades ahead. Quite a likely end point, it depends how seriously their security is taken by those entering defense aggreements with them.

Part of the EU. A somewhat likely scenario as America descends into a dictatorship and authoritarian state. The EU is taking more and more control over its military, forming an EU military that doesn't need America at all. Ukraine could enter this if its in the EU.

Part of NATO. Highly unlikely now but a possible long term alignment. I think it would be more quickly trigger new hostilities, but Russia always attacks; that's the way they operate. Until they can be either broken up or they change their way of interacting with their western neighbors.

On territory:

Ukraine has repeatedly said they will negotiate territory but Russia wants UKRAINE and the BALTICS. (All former USSR territory, places like Georgia and Moldova etc). There is no negotiation with them. There is stopping them on the battlefield and killing off their ability to push further. That's all that will ever exist. Russia will use up 2 million men to take these territories and will end up in a hole so big (it already is) they'll be done as we've known them.

Security guarantees are the only way to try for a lasting peace. Force to stop Russia's forceful expansion. That's all that will keep them in check, that or their country breaking apart to free the provinces the Muscovites leech off of.

On the US:

Much as I hate the direction the US has taken. Russia invading ukraine, is Russia's responsibility, nobody elses. The death toll is entirely on them. To this day, people being unable to accept the responsibility for their own actions or trying to pass it off to others boils my blood. The Russians make a professional habit of it, drinking their problems away and blaming the world.

Minsc Accords, a quick GPT Summary:

1. What the Minsk Agreements were

The Minsk I (September 2014) and Minsk II (February 2015) agreements were negotiated to halt fighting in eastern Ukraine and set out measures including:

A ceasefire and withdrawal of heavy weapons,

OSCE monitoring,

Restoration of Ukrainian control over its border, and

Political/democratic steps in Donetsk and Luhansk within Ukrainian law. Wikipedia

📌 2. Russian violations during implementation

Independent analysis shows Russia violated several key elements of the agreements in practice:

➤ Militarily and security-related violations

Russia maintained military involvement and support for separatist forces in Donbas — contrary to the spirit and language of the ceasefire and withdrawal provisions. Analysts note the presence of Russian forces and equipment, which the agreements were designed to remove or demobilise. Atlantic Council

Ceasefire violations were frequent, and OSCE monitoring reports regularly documented breaches, many attributed to Russian-aligned fighters. Wikipedia

➤ Political/legal violations

Russia’s 2022 recognition of the so-called “independence” of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR/LPR) directly contradicts the Minsk agreements’ goal of reintegration of these areas under Ukrainian sovereignty. Multiple expert sources state this act killed off the Minsk process. EUvsDisinfo+1

➤ Russia’s own statements

In February 2022, President Putin declared that the Minsk agreements “no longer existed,” explicitly rejecting their obligations.

 

Edited Monday at 10:59 PM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

 

 

5 hours ago, Hatfort said:

Russia continues advancing toward victory, six more towns in Zaporizhia and Donetsk last days, not to forget about Pokrovsk and Kupiansk last weeks, quite important strongholds for the Ukrainian side, now Russian.

This is of course a lie however

Edited Monday at 11:08 PM by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

22 hours ago, Hatfort said:

European leaders are both stupid

They are not stupid, they are absolutely corrupted. Without one molecule of integrity. That's western politics nowadays. 

[Breakingthewall]

16 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Puppet of China

A puppet, or perhaps a strategic ally, of the world's leading power. China won't let Russia fall because that would weaken its own position. Russia can sustain this war for years, which is unnecessary since Ukraine is exhausted. The end of the war is near, a war in which Russia wins, Ukraine is destroyed, Europe is impoverished, and BlackRock and others profited by forcing this conflict. The only problem is that EEUU is already a joke, a parody, but business are still working 

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

A puppet, or perhaps a strategic ally, of the world's leading power. China won't let Russia fall because that would weaken its own position. Russia can sustain this war for years, which is unnecessary since Ukraine is exhausted. The end of the war is near, a war in which Russia wins, Ukraine is destroyed, Europe is impoverished, and BlackRock and others profited by forcing this conflict. The only problem is that EEUU is already a joke, a parody, but business are still working 

Europe's fine. Impoverished is your Russia propaganda talking. Sure there isn't as much to party with, but Europe's doing fine. Russia is toast economically; its in debt up to its eyeballs, and the men coming in to replace the dead Russias into their work force are from China, just like the money coming in, the companies, the contracts, the imports and arms, the technology. Russia is China's puppet. There is little China needs from Russia apart from cheaper and cheaper energy, whereas Russia needs everything from China to keep functioning.

That's a puppet state.
It's been a long war for both sides; Ukraine is not exhausted; they are still fighting. Russia is still making slower and slower gains. Which is gradually bringing the war to an end.

Ukraine will get money to be rebuilt; it is doing. Ukraine will sell arms and grain to Europe long-term, as we need an arms industry, and Ukraine has the specialty to do so in what counts, drones, and everyone likes deals on food.

China won't let Russia fall but it will own much of it. Russia is and will remain a resource state for China, used up as manpower in the wars it directs westward. As a sovereign nation its finished. You might say the same about Ukraine, only the EU tends to be defensive in nature and sit back. So Ukraine will get a good deal balanced and negotiated by many countries, Russia will get whatever China decides is right, it'll jump when China says so or it'll collapse. Ukraine will not have the same relationship with the EU.

Its Belt and Road project has already claimed much of the trade routes through Russia and dictates the development of the nation, both in what industries they support, own or design around these projects. The only markets it has left for its exports are China, with India buying less than half.

Now the Americans, under trump they could prop up Russia, could decide to pal up with Vladimir as Trump is seemingly doing, and thus become enemies with Europe. Which is a possibility; I mean there is an outside possibility of a war (skirmish) over Greenland now with the US. Trump is an authoritarian lunatic, who openly likes to grab power, much like Putin or Xi Jinping. They are all from the same mold, masks off, take what they can get

[Breakingthewall]

@BlueOak

17 hours ago, BlueOak said:

 

 How long do you think it will take Germany to start buying Russian gas again? Two years? The US has never stopped buying Russian uranium, while prohibiting Europe from buying Russian energy. We'll see how long this scam lasts.

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

@BlueOak

 How long do you think it will take Germany to start buying Russian gas again? Two years? The US has never stopped buying Russian uranium, while prohibiting Europe from buying Russian energy. We'll see how long this scam lasts.

At the levels they were doing?
Never.

Nobody is stupid enough to give Russia that much leverage over their economies again. Even Germany who are completely backwards on nuclear power.

I'd say 10-20% is safer, but even that's a lot of leverage to give Russia over their economies. They'll need to see demonstrated peace and cease fire for a good few years before committing. 

 

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Nobody is stupid enough to give Russia that much leverage over their economies again

Germany is not to blame that the CIA blew up Nord Stream so the US could then sell them expensive gas and ruin their economy; Russia would have continued selling gas to Germany.

[BlueOak]

@Breakingthewall
The better question for me to give you is.

How long will the peace last. Don't even answer from Russia's perspective. Answer it from Ukraine's. Let's give the scenario that Russia will do absolutely nothing to go further into Ukraine, not even economically, nothing at all. How long will Ukrainians let Russia sit on their lands? As a country. Let's even say both leaders do their utmost to maintain peace. how long are these two nations that have killed each other for X years (2014, 2018 or 2022) and now have one of them forcibly occupying the other's territory, going to sit side by side along a huge border without incident enough for war?

This is me giving you the best scenario possible. Which it won't be. Realistically Russia will keep trying to destabilize Ukraine, and Russians will keep dying mysteriously for their war crimes. And some of those republics will realise how badly they've had it, and probably cause issues themselves, like crime, terrorism, etc in the ruined cities.

Edited yesterday at 05:26 PM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

Germany is not to blame that the CIA blew up Nord Stream so the US could then sell them expensive gas and ruin their economy; Russia would have continued selling gas to Germany.

In your propaganda narrative this is what happened.
In reality the US wants to reign in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

I've heard every country accused of that, from Ukraine, to the US, to Russia, to the baltic states, etc.

[Breakingthewall]

8 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

In your propaganda narrative this is what happened.
In reality the US wants to reign in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

I've heard every country accused of that, from Ukraine, to the US, to Russia, to the baltic states, etc.

13 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

 

Who blow the nord stream? 

9 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

How long will the peace last. Don't even answer from Russia's perspective. Answer it from Ukraine's.

Russia will fortify its borders and the lands of the Donbas in such a way that any attempt at invasion would entail a terrible sacrifice. Furthermore, it will consider the Donbas as Russian territory, and any attempt at invasion will be met with nuclear weapons. Therefore, the answer is that the borders will remain fixed for as long as Russia exists as a country.

[BlueOak]

16 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Who blow the nord stream? 

Russia will fortify its borders and the lands of the Donbas in such a way that any attempt at invasion would entail a terrible sacrifice. Furthermore, it will consider the Donbas as Russian territory, and any attempt at invasion will be met with nuclear weapons. Therefore, the answer is that the borders will remain fixed for as long as Russia exists as a country.

You are a heck of an optimist. If China do not invade Taiwan, I give it 5 years till an incident big enough to cause a minor war occurrs. If China do go to war, Russia and Ukraine will mysteriously become a flashpoint in 2026/2027 as a distraction. But realistically it'll be as long as Russia needs to repair and refit itself for the 3rd invasion of Ukraine.

Who blew the nord stream depends who you ask.
If I were guessing i'd say Ukraine, as they've had a sustained strategy of bringing the war to an end through damage to the Russian economy:

 

Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage – Theories & Current Assessment by my objective analysis GPT 5.2

The Main Theories (and Where Each Stands)

1. Russian involvement

Arguments for:

• Russia had the technical capability and regional access.
• Sabotage could serve as escalation signaling or strategic leverage.

Arguments against:

• Russia already controlled gas flow and could halt supply by closing valves.
• Destroying its own multi-billion-euro infrastructure offers limited strategic benefit.

Status:
Suspected early on, but no public proof.

2. Ukrainian-linked operation (the “yacht theory”)

Arguments for:

• German, Danish, and Swedish investigations focused on a small group using a rented yacht.
• Explosives residue was reportedly detected.
• Intelligence leaks suggested individuals with Ukrainian ties, possibly acting without official state authorization.

Arguments against:

• The logistics of deep-sea demolition from a small yacht strain credibility.
• No verified chain of command or funding source has been established.
• Ukraine officially denies involvement.

Status:
Currently the strongest investigative lead in Europe, but still unproven.

3. U.S. involvement

Arguments for:

• The U.S. had long opposed Nord Stream politically and strategically.
• President Biden publicly stated Nord Stream would not proceed if Russia invaded Ukraine.
• Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh alleged a covert U.S.–Norwegian operation.

Arguments against:

• The claim relies on a single anonymous source.
• No independent verification.
• The U.S. and Norway strongly deny the allegation.

Status:
High-profile allegation, not corroborated.

4. Non-state or proxy group

Arguments for:

• Explains deniability and mixed signals.
• Fits modern “grey-zone” warfare patterns.

Arguments against:

• Requires advanced explosives, underwater expertise, intelligence access, and funding.
• Unlikely without state backing.

Status:
Possible, but highly speculative.

Other Countries Sometimes Discussed

🇵🇱 Poland

Why it comes up:

• Long-standing opposition to Nord Stream.
• Increased naval activity in the Baltic after 2022.
• A former Polish foreign minister publicly thanked the U.S. after the blast (later described as rhetoric).

Why it’s weak:

• No forensic or intelligence evidence.
• Would almost certainly require allied coordination.

Credibility: Low to medium speculation, no proof.

🇳🇴 Norway

Why it comes up:

• Major gas supplier to Europe after Nord Stream’s destruction.
• Advanced undersea and naval capabilities.
• Mentioned in Hersh’s reporting.

Why it’s weak:

• Allegation rests entirely on disputed sourcing.
• High NATO and diplomatic risk.
• Norway denies involvement.

Credibility: Speculative.

🇬🇧 United Kingdom

• Why it comes up:
• Elite naval special operations capability.
• Political opposition to Nord Stream.

Why it’s weak:

• No leaks, forensic evidence, or intelligence findings.
• High political risk with limited independent gain.

Credibility: Very low.

🇩🇪 Germany

Why it comes up:

• Pipeline owner and host nation.
• Fringe “false-flag” theories exist.

Why it’s weak:

• Germany suffered significant economic damage.
• No rational national incentive.
• German prosecutors continue active investigation.

Credibility: Extremely low.

🇫🇷 France

Why it comes up:

• Advanced naval and undersea engineering capability.
• NATO Baltic presence.

Why it’s weak:

• No strategic incentive.
• No investigative or intelligence indicators.

Credibility: Near-zero.

Where Investigations Stand

• Germany: Ongoing criminal investigation focused on individual perpetrators.
• Denmark & Sweden: Confirmed sabotage, closed public inquiries without attribution.
• No court verdict, no public intelligence consensus, no formal attribution to date.

What Analysts Broadly Agree On

Likely:

• State-level capability (or state backing).
• Deliberate deniability as part of the operation.
• Possible passive awareness by multiple actors (awareness ≠ responsibility).

Unlikely:

• A purely independent activist group.
• A rogue state acting without allied awareness.
• A near-term “smoking gun” disclosure.

The Most Honest Conclusion

We know it was sabotage.
We know it required state-level capability or support.
We do not yet know — provably — who ordered it.

Any claim beyond that moves from evidence into interpretation

Edited yesterday at 05:44 PM by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

9 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

The U.S. had long opposed Nord Stream politically and strategically.

Why the US would oppose an engineering project designed to allow two sovereign and independent countries to trade? 

Everyone knows the US provoked the war in Ukraine; it's absolutely obvious. Anyone who isn't blind can see it, but think what you want.

[BlueOak]

17 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Why the US would oppose an engineering project designed to allow two sovereign and independent countries to trade? 

Everyone knows the US provoked the war in Ukraine; it's absolutely obvious. Anyone who isn't blind can see it, but think what you want.

You have a very low opinion of the Russian ability for decision-making to believe the US can provoke Russia into something.

For me wars are due to a multitude of reasons and can only happen if two sides are willing to fight it. It doesn't matter for example if the US wants the UK to go to war with france or not, it wouldn't happen. Moreover, there are so many reasons Russia wants war with Ukraine, whatever the US did or didn't do is nearly irrelevant, the war was set in motion after the Ukrainian government, an incompetent puppet of Russia started executing protestors in the streets, and caused an uprising.

Even before that when Russia failed to modernise in the slightest or move into a more dynamic social contract with its population (as even China has managed to on some level), which meant the changing dynamics inside Ukraine only met static uncompromising friction, not good governance able to adapt to them. - This is because of the Muscovites' attitude toward their provinces, which they see as lesser than St. Petersburg or Moscow.

However, the very fact the US keeps trying to make peace with Russia and keeps holding Ukraine back is the main indicator i'd use as argument against your position.

*You could argue that the global rise in racism has hit multiethnic countries like Russia the most.

Edited yesterday at 06:12 PM by BlueOak

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

I ran an experiment that proved peace in Ukraine is architecturally impossible, and here's what that means.

The experiment:
I have deep antiwar sentiment in me. I truly feel for everyone involved in conflicts, and it sparked this. I wanted to see if the deadlock was actually solvable.

I spent some time working with multiple AI models (Claude, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek) to design the most mathematically rational, economically positive-sum peace treaty possible. Security guarantees, resource sharing, massive reconstruction funds, sovereignty ambiguity, everything needed to make everyone richer and safer than continued war.

Then I had AI simulate the actual hardline decision-makers (a Kyiv general, Kremlin silovik, US NSC official, Beijing strategist) to red team it.

The result:
Unanimous rejection.

- Kyiv rejected it because any ambiguity on sovereignty was seen as a "death certificate."
- Moscow rejected resource-sharing (even profitable ones) as "paying tribute."
- Washington rejected it because China gaining influence in reconstruction was seen as a strategic loss (relative gains).
- Beijing rejected it because a "bleeding Russia and distracted America" was strategically more valuable than peace.

My takeaway:
Peace isn't blocked by a lack of clever diplomacy. It's blocked because the current operating system (Westphalian sovereignty + great power competition) literally cannot process a non-zero-sum solution.

The simulation suggests the system will likely run until it crashes (economic/demographic exhaustion) because voluntary transition is structurally impossible for the current actors.

Has anyone else looked at this from a pure system architecture lens rather than a moral/military one?
 

Edited yesterday at 06:15 PM by Bjorn K Holmstrom

[BlueOak]

14 minutes ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

I ran an experiment that proved peace in Ukraine is architecturally impossible, and here's what that means.

The experiment:
I have deep antiwar sentiment in me. I truly feel for everyone involved in conflicts, and it sparked this. I wanted to see if the deadlock was actually solvable.

I spent some time working with multiple AI models (Claude, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek) to design the most mathematically rational, economically positive-sum peace treaty possible. Security guarantees, resource sharing, massive reconstruction funds, sovereignty ambiguity, everything needed to make everyone richer and safer than continued war.

Then I had AI simulate the actual hardline decision-makers (a Kyiv general, Kremlin silovik, US NSC official, Beijing strategist) to red team it.

The result:
Unanimous rejection.

- Kyiv rejected it because any ambiguity on sovereignty was seen as a "death certificate."
- Moscow rejected resource-sharing (even profitable ones) as "paying tribute."
- Washington rejected it because China gaining influence in reconstruction was seen as a strategic loss (relative gains).
- Beijing rejected it because a "bleeding Russia and distracted America" was strategically more valuable than peace.

My takeaway:
Peace isn't blocked by a lack of clever diplomacy. It's blocked because the current operating system (Westphalian sovereignty + great power competition) literally cannot process a non-zero-sum solution.

The simulation suggests the system will likely run until it crashes (economic/demographic exhaustion) because voluntary transition is structurally impossible for the current actors.

Has anyone else looked at this from a pure system architecture lens rather than a moral/military one?
 

This seems accurate.

I'd make it even more succinct. The front lines of BRICS vs NATO are the warzones and any country caught behind them or on them is in trouble going forward. (Especially behind them) Thailand - Venezula- Taiwan - Iran - Syria for example.

Both sides think they can win. America, China, Russia are all expansionist, so more conflicts are all but inevitable; too many actors and groups want to see Russia or Ukraine fail to have a lasting peace, but beyond that my point still stands. Wars only happen if the populations are willing to fight them, and with Russia having killed, tortured and abducted so many, hit the Ukrainian civilians for years, there is no way this is a cozy peaceful relationship going forward. Not with Russia sitting on Ukraines land. Its just primed for more conflicts.
 

Edited yesterday at 06:28 PM by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

10 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

the war was set in motion after the Ukrainian government, an incompetent puppet of Russia started executing protestors in the streets, and caused an uprising.

Why would the Ukrainian government do something like that? What would they gain from it? On the other hand, those who sought the downfall of that government had much to gain from those hundred deaths. According to Oliver Stone's documentary, the police chief responsible for controlling the demonstrations found a very well-paid job at an American multinational corporation.

[BlueOak]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Why would the Ukrainian government do something like that? What would they gain from it? On the other hand, those who sought the downfall of that government had much to gain from those hundred deaths. According to Oliver Stone's documentary, the police chief responsible for controlling the demonstrations found a very well-paid job at an American multinational corporation.

Because Russians arrest and execute protestors. Because that is their method of control. I've seen it happen in Russia all the time, let alone proxy countries. Did you see what they did to Chechnya or Syria? Before the response is, so did America, yeah to a certain extent, usually from 30,000 feet but yeah they are becoming increasingly like Russia or China openly.

I was literally watching the opposition leader come to the protestors and he was so tone-deaf to them it was like looking at a brick wall, he was completely incompetent. That was why things got so bad, trying to apply Russian style tactics and governance to a society that had changed, and Russia was not able or willing to change their governance or institutions with it.