Quite contrary, I'm pretty sure that USA is well aware of what Israel is doing and both are acting in coordinated way. Both do not want any settlement in a region, they need more chaos and global supply interruptions. If it wasn't the case, USA could've stop weapons supply to Israel long ago.
- Ukrainians are the second largest ethnicity in Russia.
- The majority of people living on a currently contested territories of Ukraine used to be USSR citizens.
- Russia got the majority of Ukrainian refugees since the start of a war if we count per country.
- Pretty much all the former Ukraine citizens got Russian passports and a citizens of Russia now.
- And yes, if Ukraine is using cities as fortresses and do not evacuate civilians from there, high chances are that after weeks and months long battles those civilians end up in graves with nasty wounds on their bodies.
> And yes, if Ukraine is using cities as fortresses and do not evacuate civilians from there, high chances are that after weeks and months long battles those civilians end up in graves with nasty wounds on their bodies.
"Nasty wounds" like their hands tied behind their backs and a hole in the back of their skull? That kind of thing?
That sounds like the definition of a war crime to me.
> - The majority of people living on a currently contested territories of Ukraine used to be USSR citizens.
The majority of people living on contested territories of United States in 1775 used to be British citizens. So?
> - And yes, if Ukraine is using cities as fortresses and do not evacuate civilians from there, high chances are that after weeks and months long battles those civilians end up in graves with nasty wounds on their bodies.
I agree with what you say, but "Never was" is contradicted by your Wikipedia link, which shows Ukrainians in the second position at the 1926 census, being overtaken by Tatars in the more recent censuses.
However, it is not said which is the territory for the 1926 census data, it may have included a part of the present territory of Ukraine, because the borders of present Ukraine are very different from the borders of Ukraine after WWI.
Such census data about Russia and the Soviet Union are hard to interpret without precise knowledge of the corresponding territories, because the fluctuations in numbers may be unrelated to natural growth, but determined by administrative reorganizations or forced deportations.
> Ukrainians are the second largest ethnicity in Russia.
Ukrainian were second largest ethnicity in Russian Empire/Russian federation until massive massacre in 1932-1934 years, when an uknown number of Ukrainians between 7 million (confirmed by Russian Duma at 04.02.2008, adults only, childrens are not counted) and 25 millions (total number of USSR citizens died because of hunger, number from soviet archives captured by Germans in 1941) was murdered or starved to death.
It's a false analogy. Ukraine was no such source. It's just happened after WW2, that as a part or rebuilding a devastated territory, plus a better climate, resulted in USSR relocating several of its best aero/space and in general military institutions to what is now known as Ukraine. For example, their space engines engineers were educated in Russia till 2008 at least, maybe even longer.
Yeah, sure. That's why half of my MIPT faculty in early 00's was Ukrainians from Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk that were sent there to study physics and math and rocket engines for three years, and after that they were sent back to write diploma after practice on the soviet era facilities in mentioned cities. It was the normal procedure since soviet times.
Ukraine war has never been about more land or resources for Russia. It was all about NATO expansion by overthrowing governments in post soviet countries and installing hostile regimes there. For Russia an independent Ukraine was fine as long as it doesn't join a hostile military block, and that's exactly what was planned to do since the coup in Kiev in 2014. So we have war.
The “NATO expansion” so often mentioned by Russian apologists, are free nations correctly observing they are more safe against their past oppressor by joining NATO. Russia is a bully, and smaller nations are strong together.
For Russian leadership, an independent Ukraine was fine as long as Ukrainian leadership was controlled by Kremlin.
As soon as Ukraine started moving towards the west, Russia invaded.
>He has even stated publicly it has nothing to do with NATO.
That's not true. It has always been about NATO absorbing Ukraine that is unacceptable to Russia. Putin warned about it since his Munich speech in 2007, that Georgia and Ukraine has to stay a military neutral countries or it'll result in a war with Russia. USA just decided that they may ignore it and do whatever they want anyway, pushing NATO in, after organizing "revolutions".
His stated aim has always been Russian imperial resurgence, that's what all of his long tedious speeches are about. It's not like NATO is out soliciting the membership of former Soviet satellites, these places are begging to join because they have to live beside a revanchist Russia.
>It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.
Ukraine was a much poorer state and is a much poorer state than Russia. Putin's invasion has nothing to do with "EU-aligning prosperity" that never happened, but with USA and EU overthrowing Ukrainian government and placing a puppet regime that turned Ukraine from a friendly-to-neutral state into an hostile one to Russia.
It's ironic that Economist keeps pushing this propaganda year after year, but it's UK that has worse and worse performing PM's, but every single one of them keep dreaming not about their own country and economy, but how to topple Putin.
Writing an article is not an attempt to depose someone.
There are many, many articles on the front page of this publication that are not about Russia, so clearly "every single one of them" isn't even hyperbolically true.
Writing an article about the problems of a foreign nation when your own nation has problems isn't - and has never been - ironic.
I mean, the Economist has been... pretty sceptical of the UK's behaviour for a long time. It was extremely critical of Brexit, for instance. In 2017 and 2019 it endorsed the _Liberal Democrats_, for goodness sake.
I still use my iPad mini 2 I bought in 2014 to read books. The only problem with it is that reading books is one of the very few things I can do with it these days as Safari is no longer capable of rendering most websites, most apps are not supported, and generally iOS 12 ate most of the memory device has. So yeah, it's my bookreader still, but nothing more.
>Musk repeats verbatim Russian talking points about Ukraine.
Have it crossed your mind that they're just closer to truth than what Western propaganda spreads about Ukraine conflict and why it started and keep going?
> Have it crossed your mind that they're just closer to truth than what Western propaganda spreads about Ukraine conflict and why it started and keep going?
It started because Putin wants the 'good old days' of the Soviet Union back, and he does not consider Ukrainians their own people, but just a bunch of folks that have forgotten they are really Russian/Soviet. The 'official' Rusian reason is/was because Ukraine was run by Nazis (never mind that Zelenskyy is Jewish).
reply