Ukraine - Russia Conflict

Because Since WW2, West has been found/Caught Doing regime change again & Again all over the world, Even with countries that were democratic.
Not for about half a century. And I'll point out that the vast majority of our allies are democratic (and the rest monarchies), whereas the exact opposition is true for Russia.

With the advent Of internet , People Sharing of ideas across borders, IMO democracy is Inevitable.
EVEN China, Saudi arabia , NK etc. Knows that.
Leaders OF these countries can Only delay Democracy as political system.
I'm not so optimistic, countries like China, NK and Iran control the internet inside their country vigorously and are prepared to go to extreme length to crack down of protestors. If you take Russia, the riot police beating protestors and mobilising people don't want to, but if they refuse then they get mobilised. So there's a constant rule by fear. The easiest way to defeat authoritarianism is to nip it in the bud like Ukraine did in 2013.
 
The West is the cause of Russia's invasion, genius.
Russia is the cause of Russia's invasion, genius.

They used a TV actor to manipulate the voting base to get him into power, convinced him that they will come to help during war, and then pushed him towards a war that he shouldn't have fought to begin with, post which they pretty much abandoned him. Recall how he was cribbing and complaining about it in the beginning? Now he's fighting an existential war, the genius.
Ah, I see we are in full "agency? what's that?" mode.

Other things caused by the CIA include the Set rebellion to divide Egypt, the Summerian revolt to regime change King Lugalanda of Sumer, and the Compatriot Rebellion that deposed King Li of Zhou.

Maybe stop drinking the Russians' "Everything Is An Conspiracy" Kool-Aid. It tastes horrible and it kills brain cells.
 
Because Since WW2, West has been found/Caught Doing regime change again & Again all over the world, Even with countries that were democratic.
The same can be said of the USSR/Russia.

The difference is that in the West, you can talk about your country's wrongdoings and even get access to documents (e.g. FOIA requests in the US) that help establish the precise facts of these wrongdoings. In Russia, you get jail or polonium tea if you try that.
 
The same can be said of the USSR/Russia.
DID You Understand the Context ?
Aw Come On Martin Scorsese GIF


ALSO FOR COMPARISON...
US involvement in regime change.
Russia Involvement in regime Change.
 
The difference is that in the West, you can talk about your country's wrongdoings and even get access to documents (e.g. FOIA requests in the US) that help establish the precise facts of these wrongdoings. In Russia, you get jail or polonium tea if you try that.
LOL! Another Red herring.
US/WEST have Violated International Laws So many times.
How many times they have to face sanctions?
ZERO Times.
DID Leader of west who violated International laws faced any Consequences?
No.
What Does that EvEn mean "you can talk about your country's wrongdoings and even get access to documents (e.g. FOIA requests in the US) that help establish the precise facts of these wrongdoings. In Russia, you get jail or polonium tea if you try that." If you cannot prevent further violation by your leaders or punished those who violated ILs.?
What kind of Virtue It is : Hey, OUR Govt did some shitty things( No consequences on them though), they are probably doing it right now, But hey Through FIOA we get the access of those wrong doings.
So *censored* yeah We are better than you???/
IS this What you mean @A Person.
 
Zelensky was elected democratically. If you are saying that west supported him to get elected then I need to see some proof.

After Yanukovych was ousted by neo-Nazis in a coup with Western support, Poroshenko divided the country along linquistic lines. The Russian language was removed as an official language. Zelensky supported bringing back the language, thereby garnering Russian support, and then backtracked after victory.


In the meantime, with Crimea and Donbas out of elections, the Russian portion of the population became underrepresented long before the Russians in Ukraine were betrayed by Zelensky. They basically became disenfranchised.

After his election, all of his main opponents were kicked out of Ukraine, so he's in effect a dictator now. He only has a very weak opposition.

Ukraine ceased being a democracy after the coup in 2014. And now it's basically in a pseudo-civil war.

And Why would West/NATO Wants to do that?
NATO/WEST are far Superior in Resources to Russia. It is not even a contest.

Russia has the capacity to recreate old Soviet armies.

For example, a T-90M costs $1.5M to produce, a BMP costs $800K. A Su-30SM costs $20M. A Su-35 costs $25M. A Su-57 costs $35M. An SSN costs $900M. An advanced frigate costs $300M. 2000 T-90Ms will cost Russia only $3B to build. So you can extrapolate the numbers he can build very, very quickly if he wants to.

Right now he has 7000 T-72s in storage that can be upgraded to the B3 standard for $200K per unit. He also has 21000 IFVs that will cost $100K to upgrade. The overall cost to upgrade them all is merely $1.4B for the tanks and $2.1B for the IFVs. He also has other types of armoured vehicles in storage. Not counting the new armoured vehicles he can build at an insane rate.

To create an Indian armoured division with 3 brigades, Russia needs 300 tanks, 180 BMP-2s and 180 artillery pieces. That's $810M (we need over $2B). We have 3 armoured divisions for invading Pakistan in 3 Strike Corps. Russia can create 10 such units with just $8.1B. Merely upgrading existing inventory to form 10 such units will cost them $1B, which they can raise within a year. So with $10B, the Russians can raise 20 new armoured divisions within a few years composed of upgraded and new tech.

Putin has $300B in his war chest right now, money he can spend immediately, what we know of. If the Chinese feel the Russians are being serious, you can bet the Chinese will also contribute money to force the US's budget towards matching this army instead of the USN in the Pacific.

And Russia's formations are designed in such a way that they need very little manpower. They need less than 300,000 men to equip 9000 tanks, 21000 IFVs and 12000+ heavy artillery pieces like howitzers and MLRS. This is their existing inventory. They can raise a mini Soviet army in a year or two.

Neither the US nor Europe can compete with the Russians today without breaking their economies with their ridiculous prices.

Plus, being recent, some of Russia's nuke delivery systems are much more advanced than America's.

In any case, the West wants Russia in its current form gone.

If Russia Knew That Ukraine Is never going to be part of NATO, then why this invasion?Let Zelensky make noise.

Because of uncertainty. Even if Ukraine is not allowed into NATO, the West will still equip Ukraine to NATO standards. After that it's just a paper signature. If the US Abrams divisions end up crossing the Dnieper by creating a bridgehead unchallenged, they will very easily bypass Belarus and there's very little Russia can do to stop the US from advancing towards Russia's deeper territories, like Moscow and Volgograd.

Read up on the Cuban missile crisis, this is simply a repeat of that.

Again, Russia Is No where as close threat to US/WEST as USSR WAS.

;)

Russia is more dangerous today than the USSR ever was in history. It will take an extraordinary amount of effort for the West to challenge Russia in a short time. Only nukes are the great equaliser.

Yup! That Intelligence failure wasn't good, But Neither france nor germany is clueless, Infact I think they are surpurised that putin chose war oer such a trivial matter.
Russia militarizing have more to do with their economic conditions.

Not so trivial...

LOL! How is India enemy of US?
China maybe, But even with china I don't see a war in foreseeable future.
Also, NOne of these countries(I/P/C) are stupid enough to go war with each other especially for US.
This is paranoia IMO.

After Russia, it's China's turn. After China, it's India's turn.

India's population in 2050 = (US + EU) X 2 on a bad day. India is a potential hegemon, without even trying to become one. Even the US+EU combined will be dwarfed in comparison after 2060 or so. So they need to curtail India in the 2030s or 40s, before we can grow too big.

Politically too, the Third World with a potential population of 5 billion outside India will be more than willing to side with India over the long term, as long as we play our cards right.

Plus the Democrats in the US have started destroying their social fabric via feminism. The most recent example being Biden telling a young girl to get into a serious relationship only after she is a biological senior citizen, 30 years old, with a broken paid bonding mechanism. They are being indoctrinated to become men in order to control their voting choices. Many of their men will immigrate out of the country looking for young wives. If they don't change their system, the West will no longer have a future.

It's not difficult for the US to push India and Pakistan into a nuclear war in the late 2030s, early 2040s, so Pakistan is a threat we need to deal with long before China is taken care of by the US. Had the SU not gone into decline in the early 80s, we would have taken Pak out by the mid 80s. So Pakistan is the patsy they will use against India. If Pakistan is dealt with, there's not much the US can do after. At best, they will have to sit in China wondering how to contain India.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetray
Come ON! Don't be disingenous. There were Riots/Violence Just outside govt building. There was a legit threat To yanukovich.
Some people still say that it can be Considered as Coup.

When the leader of a nation loses control over his security forces, it's a coup. There's nothing to be "considered" here.
 
Russia is the cause of Russia's invasion, genius.

Okay. :rolleyes:

Ah, I see we are in full "agency? what's that?" mode.

Other things caused by the CIA include the Set rebellion to divide Egypt, the Summerian revolt to regime change King Lugalanda of Sumer, and the Compatriot Rebellion that deposed King Li of Zhou.

Maybe stop drinking the Russians' "Everything Is An Conspiracy" Kool-Aid. It tastes horrible and it kills brain cells.

US record after WW2: Interference in 81 democratic elections and 70 regime changes, both democracies and non-democracies.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RASALGHUL
The same can be said of the USSR/Russia.

The difference is that in the West, you can talk about your country's wrongdoings and even get access to documents (e.g. FOIA requests in the US) that help establish the precise facts of these wrongdoings. In Russia, you get jail or polonium tea if you try that.

So you're saying you can commit murder as long as there's a trial, regardless of whether the perpetrator is punished or not?

So basically you're saying democracies can commit regime changes because people can talk about it after, but non-democracies cannot because no one is allowed to talk about it later... Wow, dude... Perspective, eh? This is what we call hypocrisy, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RASALGHUL
LOL! Another Red herring.
US/WEST have Violated International Laws So many times.
How many times they have to face sanctions?
ZERO Times.
DID Leader of west who violated International laws faced any Consequences?
No.
What Does that EvEn mean "you can talk about your country's wrongdoings and even get access to documents (e.g. FOIA requests in the US) that help establish the precise facts of these wrongdoings. In Russia, you get jail or polonium tea if you try that." If you cannot prevent further violation by your leaders or punished those who violated ILs.?
What kind of Virtue It is : Hey, OUR Govt did some shitty things( No consequences on them though), they are probably doing it right now, But hey Through FIOA we get the access of those wrong doings.
So *censored* yeah We are better than you???/
IS this What you mean @A Person.

Congratulations. You are beginning to understand that the West have different rules for themselves and all others need to follow a whole set of different rules made for them by the West.

In India, US diplomats once actually flatly told Indian diplomats that in a meeting. They literally said, "We can do that, you cannot."

Now do you understand why India is next after China?

It's the same reason why France is doing their best to help India out. Even they are fed up of being talked to like that.
 
You have a lot missing from that Russian list, even starting from 1991, let's talk about that first before getting to the false equivalence part.

Georgia (South Ossetia) - 1992
Moldova (Transnistria) - 1992
Georgia (Abkhazia) - 1992
Georgia (South Ossetia) - 2008
Syria (Opposing democracy movement) - 2015
Libya (Wagner) - 2019
Central African Republic - 2018
Mali - 2021


Now the false equivalence part.

Iraq - 1991: There was no regime change, but there should have been since Saddam had invaded another country, taken hostages, tortured PoWs and pumped oil into the Gulf. As well as using nerve agent against his own people.

Iraq - 1992-1996: Yes, this happened because Saddam was firing at aircraft enforcing the agreed no fly zones, which basically should never have happened because he should already have gone.

Afghanistan - 2001: Well yeah, if you commit 4 high profile terror attacks and kill well over 3,000 civilians you'll get invaded. Does that really even need an explanation?

Iraq - 2003: See Iraq 1991. They left a mass murder in power whilst UN sanction caused an estimated 1.5m to perish creating a breeding ground for Al-Quaeda recruits. The mistake was not removing Saddam in 1991.

Yugoslavia - 1999 not 2000 actually: That was to stop a genocide.

Syria - Removed a dictator.

Basically, since 1991 (end of Cold War), the US has involved itself to stop genocide and remove dictators. I mean some of your examples are literally just sh*t, which is why I hate lists like this. I mean, no list of complaints about US wars or regime change should include Iraq 1991. Adding that to a list just makes people dismiss you as a d1ckhead.

Some of the other examples are crap too. I mean 2005 Kyrgystan. You're crediting the US with regime change simply because they ran a pro-democracy media outlet and supplied emergency generators? Well that certainly compares with invading Ukraine doesn't it?


In Kyrgyzstan, in response to the corruption and authoritarianism of the Askar Akayev government which had ruled since 1990, mass protests ousted the government and free elections were held.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the US government provided aid to opposition protesters via the State Department, USAID, Radio Liberty and Freedom House by funding the only print-media outlet in the country not controlled by the government. When the state cut off electricity to the outlet, the U.S. embassy provided emergency generators. Other opposition groups and an opposition TV station received funding from the US government and US-based NGOs.[393]
 
So you're saying you can commit murder as long as there's a trial, regardless of whether the perpetrator is punished or not?

So basically you're saying democracies can commit regime changes because people can talk about it after, but non-democracies cannot because no one is allowed to talk about it later... Wow, dude... Perspective, eh? This is what we call hypocrisy, no?
Hypocrisy is when you compare pro-democracy regime changes with pro-dictatorship regime changes or prop-ups. The former is regime correction, the latter is an abomination.

Hypocrisy is when you put stuff like Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001 and Kyrgystan 2005 in a comparison list vs Ukraine 2014-2022.
 
Congratulations. You are beginning to understand that the West have different rules for themselves and all others need to follow a whole set of different rules made for them by the West.
Oh! That I am Completely aware of. But that will definitely change in future. World is getting more fair for everybody for each passing day.
Shitheads Like Nixon, bush41, Bush43 are highly unlikely to get elected in future.
In India, US diplomats once actually flatly told Indian diplomats that in a meeting. They literally said, "We can do that, you cannot."
When?
What was the Context?
Any Sources?
I highly doubt that A "Diplomat" is going to talk like that.
Now do you understand why India is next after China?
I still think that you are being paranoid, There will not be any war with India, hell even US-CHina war is highly highly Unikely.
It's the same reason why France is doing their best to help India out. Even they are fed up of being talked to like that
Please. In politics there are no friends or foes only permanent interests.
France is looking out for their interest, We are too.
We need to realize that no country helps other country out of pure selflessness.
Russia helped us, Because their was something in for Russia.
At the end of day it's just business, Nothing more.
 
It's not difficult for the US to push India and Pakistan into a nuclear war in the late 2030s, early 2040s, so Pakistan is a threat we need to deal with long before China is taken care of by the US. Had the SU not gone into decline in the early 80s, we would have taken Pak out by the mid 80s. So Pakistan is the patsy they will use against India. If Pakistan is dealt with, there's not much the US can do after. At best, they will have to sit in China wondering how to contain India.
I hate to say that, But my friend you are being paranoid, Nothing more.
There isn't going to be any war Between Pak-Ind-China. Only border skirmishes.
You also Consider US as Puppet master But it isn't .
Sorry, this is just your paranioa.