Why does Russia promote Abkhazia so hard but gives no shit about the identical Circassian people to the North? Putin didn't even recognise them in the Sochi Winter Olympics

Were you really banned for this thread on .org lol?

They ban /Pol/ cancer over there. This thread was probably labeled as Ukrainian Russian spam and banned the user.

Why warming this old subject again? It was already a lame excuse years ago.

Only 2 yesterday.

They banning me constantly everywhere pretending to make rus patriot from me.

But this is fucking insane, blaming ME on boards where everybody post gore and lolis for saying that my own government want to killing me and a lot of people are in this concentration camp hunted without allow to leave this madness.

And some stupid american niggers would say that I must be thatnkful for donations/

NOT THANKFUL AT ALL

I RECEIVE ZERO AMOUNT OF ANYKIND HELP

Yes, they moved it to /m/, banned me from /int/, and locked it on /m/ even.

Fucking hohol patriots mods on krautchan.

I hate my nation so much.

No.

This is HOHOLIAN OINKRAINIAN UKRAINIAN gov workerd, with a lot of corruption scandall no one did nothing from police/mil/sec structures, as always, anus of the planet, richest earth of europe with poorest piple. Insane.

I had create it first as post for arguments for my position in other thread, they ban me on a day because of hoholian mod on welferie in Bavaria. After I create separete thread or so.

 

Everywhere I go and meet hohols they always are stich in the ass to make my life awful.

'We' are like niggers, niggers hate niggers, hohols hate hohols and doing shit for each other, because they don't want other tribes to know how shitty hoholians actually are.

 

I WILL MAKE WORLD KNOW THAT HOHOLS ARE WHITE NIGGERS SHIT

Why kidnapping males on street and make them 'fight for their lands' which not belong to them?

Why do Ukrainians keep fighting? Why not just round up Zelenskyy and his goons and deal with them privately.

Is it about the Istanbul agreement?

There is a minority but large segment of society that want to fight. They are militarized with still strong will to go on. Those who don't want to fight are placid, unorganized, and can't resist to them.

Even if Zelensky wanted couldn't make peace, because this group is the greatest and most active supporter of his regime, and they would just coup him.

 

Funnily enough in Russia it's the same. There is this new-ish, so called "imperialist", strata of society who not just wants the war, but says Putin was holding back and they should have strike more hard, and Russia can fight even harder. And Putin couldn't make peace without the danger this group upturning his regime.

 

Thing is both societies were apoliticized in the Communism. They learnt if they just care about their own private lives, and "leave politics to politicians" then they'll be fine, they won't get harassed by the govt. So only a minor group politically active in the society and this group gives all the cadres the system works with. Noone really to balance out their voice. They are the support the govt. has in society. And they can make it or break it.

Strange way of answering a question by posting another totally new question.

 

What are you personally trying to achieve by warming up this old lame istanbul excuse? What is your goal and how do you think you will reach it?

What is wrong bringing up the question?

It's a key moment of the war that lead to years of fighting instead of having a settlement. I don't see anything wrong in discussing any event of it. And people can express their feelings too.

Thats why i try discuss it. Ukraine may have had a settlement which cripples them and Russia can invade few years later again.

Settlements with Russia are worthless.

 

So why is this lame istanbul excuse so important now? What does it bring to the table? I dont get it.

There is no force in Russia capable of overthrowing him even if he signs peace deal tomorrow.

He has that option and he was trying to make peace since the beginning of the conflict.

 

About Zelenskiy he is probably already burnt all the bridges, his decisions had catastrophic consequences, so he has no other options but to keep rolling with it.

 

He is criticized for postponing escalation and then still having to take that escalation later anyway. For instance, he could've started the infrastructure war from day one, but it was delayed for — what, a year or so?

 

Apparently he still wanted some kind of diplomatic solution.

So it's better to have your country in ruins, millions dead, kidnapping on the streets then signing a peace which "cripples" you?

 

Do you really believe a 25m country can somehow end up in a better shape after a fight with its 10 times bigger nuclear power neighbour?

 

The only sane option Ukraine had is to make peace because it simply has no power or resources to compete.

Signing what peace? The peace that Russia can invade again later?

 

Putin can just pull out of Ukraine every day. He chooses not to.

So whats the endgame then lol?

Get nuked back to stone age so Russia will invade anyway?

Ah, you were probably banned for racism

I find the premise that Russia would invade Ukraine in any circumstances is a false one. It's not a fact. Perhaps we disagree on this because we judge the causes of the war differently. Why do you think Russia attacked Ukraine?

 

Boris Johnson's intervention is not the first time the West acted to stop a peace deal to be signed. On the 2022 February 25th both sides expressed they are ready to make peace, they approached each other via Switzerland and they were planning the talks in Bern on the 26th. Then on the 27th von der Leyen and Borrell announced to give assistance to Ukraine in worth of €450+50 million with the promise of another €4,5 billion, and suddenly no more willingness to talk on behalf of Kiev. That is until summer for things weren't going any better, which led to Istanbul.

This is a consistent behaviour of the Western powers.

 

Putin is not a lone tyrant, he rules with the help of a clique. I think Russians are so used to have him on the top they can't consider him gone.

In the first year of the conflict there was still a possibility to end it.

Yes this is why some Western analysts consider him a moderate. Compared to whoever can replace him. And those who are active and loud supporter of his regime are all more radical. And noone else is there just the quiet masses who think it's better not to draw attention to themselves.

Putin justified his claims with this ancient map. That Ukraine is rightful soviet soil.

 

Sure they wont attack again. Like they did before. Oh...

Elderly leaders are a plague. Putin went off the rails when he hit his 60s. Trump is an obnoxious old boomer, Iran's leaders are so old their prostates are the size of orange.

Its time to shuffle off these gray-haired incompetent geezers to the retirement homes.

I will reply in detail sometimes. For now I just translate your standoint like this:

Their reason for the attack is historical/previous ownership.

That was one of Huilos standpoints.

My standpoint is, regarding to the thread topic:

Why is this Istanbul meeting so important now? What does it change now?

Meh

So since we are talking about what Putin said, here are the two most relevant speeches he gave on the telly:

2022 February 21:

-redacted-

2022 February 24:

-redacted-

The two together is about one and a half hours... I suffered through them. And made notes too. The videos are "hand translated" by an American prof (Phd in international relations) who knows Russian, so it's not ML crap.

 

Yes, in both videos says the territories were part of Russia historically, but the reason to launch the "defense" (as he called it) is different.

tl;dr

1. NATO expansion (security reason #1)

2. prevention of an attack against Russia itself (security reason #2)

3. genocide of the Russian minority in the Donbass

 

Long version:

He spends a long time to describe how relations deteriorated between Ukraine and Russia. He points at US foreign policy as the main reason. He talks about NATO expansion towards east and the creation of NATO military infrastructure in Ukraine, about the frequent exercises there, the various US basings (air and naval), etc.

He points out their disregard of their own promises that NATO won't expand, the rejections of Russia's propositions.

He notes the possible speed of attacks by various missile systems from Ukraine, and the possible reach of them.

He talks about the radicalization of Ukraine, the growing influence of militant nationalists who he frequently refers to as neo-Nazis. How the West helped to nurture anti-Russian sentiments, and how the prosecution of the Russian ethnics begin and intensified. He says radicals kept the Donbass under siege, they planned to bring the war to Crimea, and they declared claims on other Russian territories.

He says Kiev had/have plans of acquiring nuclear weapons as well.

Furthermore he lists the various agreements and treaties NATO violated, and the unwillingness of Kiev to implement the Minks Agreement which could have solved the issue in the Donbass and preserved Ukraine's territorial unity.

He talks a lot more about various stuff, like the support of terrorist organizations and attacks against the citizens of the Russian Federation and stuff.

 

In the first video he declares of the recognition of the independent people's republics in the Donbass, in the second he announces the launch of the SMO, citing the collective defense of Article 51 of UN Charter.

So what we can conclude is that there was a possible way to avoid all this:

1. keeping Ukraine neutral

2. keeping the right of ethnicities intact.

Tho I'm not posting to support his claims or justify their actions, but I can tell the second was 100% violated by Kiev since one of the hot topics of current talks about Ukraine's EU membership is the rights of the ethnic minorities in Ukraine. This wasn't a problem prior to 2014, their rights were covered by the norms of any country in Europe.

Wow thanks for going through the videos and the summary. However i dont see how any of this gives Putin the permission to start a war.

Dont forget he somehow took Crimea not long ago and not everyone was happy with that.

Just out of curiosiry can you name single permittable war?

Yeah, the medal of the Hero of The Soviet Union was never been more deserved.

Well that depends.

Those who subscribe to Realism in case of international relations they'd say all the states to whatever they can get away with. They don't need permission because noone to get permission from. "Stop me bro." States care about their power and security and they act to grow both. Preemptive strikes are bread and butter of this, part of security. They don't say that it's right or wrong, they say it's just is.

Liberalists will say that we should aspire for more, we should create rules to stop abuse. We should cooperate and form institutions and norms. See UN. According to them no wars should be fought, all illegal, except if we counter something illegal. This is why US seeks justifications like "they have weapons of mass destructions", "they killed civilians", "war criminals" etc. For example if European states wanted to wage war against Israel they could justify it with the genocide in Gaza.

Constructivism is fairly the same as Realism. Except the tales we tell about ourselves and the world around us, about others matter. States act because they have an image of themselves, about who they are, and who are others. Like the US has this image of the defender of democracy, like some Justice League, and they fight against nazism, communism, terrorism... While politicians can be cynical many people see the world like this.

cont.

Cutting the chase:

If we subscribe to Realism or Constructivism Putin don't need any permission (only reasons differ). He does say that they launch the SMO preemptively to prevent a conflict that bound to be much worse to Russia. What US led NATO is doing since the fall of the SU leads to this direction. NATO expansion to the east, arming Ukraine, radicalizing Ukraine, and launch an attack from here - only the last step remained. He refers to WWII and the attack of Germany, when the SU decided to ignore the signs.

But he also adheres to Liberalist norms. He refers to the genocide of the past 8 years in the Donbass, what they tried to stop peacfully, and failed. No other options left, but to cite Article 51 of the UN Charter. They also made formal agreements with the representatives of the people in the Donbass. So their move has formal support, adhering to international norms and structures. (This is why so important for Ukraine and the West to present Russia as violators of human rights and war criminal. Or was, little mention of this for couple of years now.)

Sidenote.

What I find interesting in his speeches that he shows all the signs of all the views of international relations. But Russia's general foreign politics very much belongs to the Liberalist one. They treat their position in the UN security council seriously. They treat UN seriously - just see the difference between how Trump addressed the UN, and how Lavrov does it. They build the organizations with the Central Asian countries, they build the BRICS. I think main reason is the globalization of trade and relations, but also because the Containment of the SU was an important factor for it's collapse and loss in the Cold War.

NATO did not force the countries to join. The countries were fed up by Russia and applied.

Now the Russian Invasion into Ukraine demonstrates why Russia is Dangerous. Like a self fulfilling prophecy.

NATO also did not force Russia to invade Ukraine. That was Putins decision.

even more if you consider nowadays we know that after 60 we literally start getting mental retardation due to aging

The west has one terrible weapon...Hollywood. Everybody actually believes the garbage that Hollywood produces, so they believe the West is so amazing by watching all the fake stories Hollywood cranks out, so they join NATO and ally with the West only to find out they have been lied to but at that point its too late.

Russia's own problems stem from its incompetence and drunkedness, mainly from their own version of postwar baby boomers. That german invented communism did a number on that country, look what its doing to the USA now. Kids can't even read whats on the protest signs they're holding up.

Do you imply that the launch of war in 2022 was motivated countries in the 90s to apply for NATO membership? Noone was worried about Russia back then. When heard or talked about eastern danger it was about the Ukrainian mafia.

There was a good relationship between the Western powers that be and Russia in those times. Looked like a full rapprochement for a while.

NATO declared they won't expand "an inch". They could have said: sorry, we won't take new members. Ex-Eastern Bloc countries could form their own military alliance.

While they weren't "forced" it is not impossible to manipulate them.

I give you an example.

Here in the history books of he communism, and I talk specifically about primary and secondary school books, when it came to Hungarian history these books said that Hungarians of old times did everything because of class struggle. This was the Marxist way of explaining historical processes, either the bourgeois oppressed the working class or the working class fought for its right and beat the bourgeois back. So they explained the motivations of Hungarians on the same basis no matter the era or the place.

After we dropped communism in 1989-90 textbooks changed. Suddenly Hungarians did everything because they saw how backwards they are and they wanted to catch up to the West and join them. I dunno how it is at the moment but this was true for the history books used to teach kids in the 90s and early 2000s. A generation of voters were groomed to believe this is their historical heritage that all those smart Hungarians of the past 1000 years pass on to them.

Ofc some Hungarian officials decided about what the kids have to learn. But was that their own idea? They had no interest in pushing this message, and surely it isn't more true than class struggle. So it's not like a "oh we found the ultimate truth and everyone has to know about it" situation. They were more than likely that they were told that they have to influence the public opinion to arrange their application of membership in Western organizations. Because the West wanted these countries. They wanted to secure these countries for themselves.

Russia(when it was USSR) withdrew it's military from half of Europe without a single shot fired.

This is clear sign of it's intention of peace in Europe, then you know what happened after.

Dozens of wars and coups initiated by NATO members effectively overthrowing governments, installing puppet regimes and expanding NATO influence across the globe.

You can justify it in any way you want but that's the fact and it shows real intention.

 

So who got fed up with whom in the end?