-
There was no coup in Ukraine.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. 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.)