That’s the same Angela Merkel that admitted the Minsk agreements weren’t done in good faith, rather, they were just done to create time to build the Ukranian military.

From a far enough perspective this conflict goes back to like Napoleon. When was the first time a European power decided that they could definitely take control of Russia before winter?

Crimean independence goes as far back as the 1991 Soviet collapse. Acting like it is only a 2014 thing is also nonsense.

On Jan. 20, 1991, voters were asked whether they wanted the re-establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. 94.3 percent or 1,343,825 of the 1,441,019 voters who cast ballots voted yes. (81.5% turnout)

In 1994 voters were asked whether they were in favour of greater autonomy within Ukraine, whether residents should have dual Russian and Ukrainian citizenship, and whether presidential decrees should have the status of laws. All three proposals were approved. The worst of them being 77% saying Yes.

In 2014 they conducted a referendum asked voters whether they wanted to rejoin Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine. It had 89% voter turnout and 97% said yes.

If liberals care so much about democracy, and what people actually want, liberals should also care about the fact it is clearly something Crimeans wanted. The “taking of Crimea” was a referendum vote, and very little else. The way liberals always talk of it as an invasion is incorrect, in particular because Russia already ran the port, and already ran the military checkpoints into and out of the region. They were already there.

Imperialist guilt is not going to solve the anti-imperialist struggles.

At this point it’s like the fable of frog and scorpion (frogs should know that scorpion can remain submerged up to 48 hours).

Was there a coup immediately after their visit?

Oh a hexbear. … You lot only have overly simplistic takes.

When we respond to blatant ignorance with carefully chosen wording, backing up our position with citations and links, and calmly explaining the nuance of complex geopolitical realities, we get accused of “always throwing walls of text at people.” When we answer that same ignorance with short and pithy responses, we “only have simplistic takes.”

There’s no winning with you simple-minded dronies, but I guess there never is when one side can just make shit up that fits their vibes-based outlook on the world.

You should just die

Yes, rip bozos

My eternal grief for the hundreds of thousands of innocent Ukrainians pressed into the meatgrinder by their Nazi overlords, eternal death to the genocidal Kiev regime and their campaign of extermination against their own country’s citizens of Russian descent for eight years

Is it fun living in this fantasy world?

Mate, ease up on the drugs. The real world is still going to be waiting for you when you come down.

Someone else is going to have to explain the ignorance present in this statement for I do not have the time or energy, could one of our cishet hexbears be a good ally?

It’s very much worth a read. The broad strokes are:

• There’s a notable difference between the attack towards Kiev and the attack in the separatist regions (it also talks about attacks in southern Ukraine outside the separatist regions, but I think it says they’re basically similar to the Kiev attack).
• The attack in the separatist regions were to hold territory with an amenable population. So you have a lot of troops, tons of artillery, and they dug in elaborate fortifications that they will actually stay and defend.
• The attack towards Kiev was an opportunistic raid to divert troops from the main thrust of the attack in thr separatist regions. The article talks about similar raids the Russian Empire did in the Napoleonic Wars, the Union calvalry did in the U.S. Civil War, pretty sure it mentions a Soviet one in WWII, etc. It involved much less artillery because it wasn’t intended to hold ground and they wanted to avoid unnecessarily antagonizing civilians they didn’t want to govern anyway.
• On that last point, the article also talks about how Russian missile strikes have largely avoided the most damaging civilian targets. It gives an example of striking an electrical substation that converts electricity into a type usable by trains instead of striking electrical infrastructure that is more general purpose (and would shut down broader civilian electricity, too).

The Kiev attack’s goal appears to have been “disrupt, divert, and if you see opportunities, take them.” I bet if the Ukrainian government had shown signs of folding or if the defense of Kiev had been weaker they would have pushed for more, but that didn’t happen, the separatist regions were taken successfully, and the Russian Kiev column had no more reason to be there.

Here is the comment with the article I referred to.

There are a finite number of 18-35 year old men.

Lmao, okay.

Call me when they do more than not get involved.

Russia’s economy would have collapsed a year ago without India buying their gas.

US literally says it wants to prevent China from developing and has surrounded it with military bases, but whatever you say buddy. The brains of Chinese leaders aren’t as smooth as yours.

Every major head of state lived through the Cold War.

Give any example or argument that shows China would want to carve up Russia

What do you base this on besides vibes?