• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why I call Russia's role in Ukraine a military operation

phoenyx

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
2,495
Reaction score
457
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Over the course of time in this forum, multiple people have apparently been upset with me for not following the standard western mainstream media's approach of calling Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion. I've given my reasons, but some people keep on bringing it up anyway. To avoid having to repeat myself, I thought it'd make more sense to make a thread of it, and then simply refer people to this thread if it comes up again, and any commentaries on my views on this can be brought up here as well.

I don't call Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion because of the way an invasion is generally defined. Wordnik, referencing the American Heritage Dictionary, has this as its first definition of the term:

  • The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
Source:

I don't believe that Russia started its military op in Ukraine to conquer it. Furthermore, Russia, long before its military op in Ukraine, had been warning any country that would listen that allowing Ukraine to join NATO was a red line it wouldn't take lying down. Political scientist and international relations scholar John Mearsheimer has been placing a lot of the blame for the situation in Ukraine on the U.S. and Europe since Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014. The New Yorker published an interview with him back in March. I'll quote its introduction:

**
The political scientist John Mearsheimer has been one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Perhaps best known for the book he wrote with Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Mearsheimer is a proponent of great-power politics—a school of realist international relations that assumes that, in a self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will preëmptively act in anticipation of adversaries. For years, Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand nato eastward and establishing friendly relations with Ukraine, has increased the likelihood of war between nuclear-armed powers and laid the groundwork for Vladimir Putin’s aggressive position toward Ukraine. Indeed, in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea, Mearsheimer wrote that “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis.”
**

Source:

The bottom line here is that Russia only got involved militarily in Ukraine as a result of the U.S. and Europe's political moves there. It has a lot in common with the Cuban Missile Crisis back in the 60s. The U.S. got Russia to back down there, but what many don't know is that Kennedy secretly agreed to take missiles out of Turkey in exchange. Even back then, the U.S. was placing missiles close enough to Russia to anger it considerably. It's moves to get Ukraine into the NATO fold and possibly arm it with missiles as well has certainly not helped. By these lights, Russia's actions in Ukraine can be seen as defensive in nature, just as the U.S.'s actions to block Cuba from gaining missiles can be seen in the same way.

There is also the fact that for the past 8 years, Ukraine had already been waging a war against citizens of the Donbass region in Ukraine, killing around 10,000 Donbass citizens in the process. Jacques Baud, a former NATO military analyst, points out that had it not been for Ukraine's renewed assault on this region that started on February 16th, Russia may well have not started its military operation in Ukraine at all. For more on that, I welcome those reading this to take a look at his article on the subject, which can be seen here:

 
Over the course of time in this forum, multiple people have apparently been upset with me for not following the standard western mainstream media's approach of calling Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion. I've given my reasons, but some people keep on bringing it up anyway. To avoid having to repeat myself, I thought it'd make more sense to make a thread of it, and then simply refer people to this thread if it comes up again, and any commentaries on my views on this can be brought up here as well.

I don't call Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion because of the way an invasion is generally defined. Wordnik, referencing the American Heritage Dictionary, has this as its first definition of the term:
  • The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
Source:

I don't believe that Russia started its military op in Ukraine to conquer it. Furthermore, Russia, long before its military op in Ukraine, had been warning any country that would listen that allowing Ukraine to join NATO was a red line it wouldn't take lying down. Political scientist and international relations scholar John Mearsheimer has been placing a lot of the blame for the situation in Ukraine on the U.S. and Europe since Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014. The New Yorker published an interview with him back in March. I'll quote its introduction:

The political scientist John Mearsheimer has been one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Perhaps best known for the book he wrote with Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Mearsheimer is a proponent of great-power politics—a school of realist international relations that assumes that, in a self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will preëmptively act in anticipation of adversaries. For years, Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand nato eastward and establishing friendly relations with Ukraine, has increased the likelihood of war between nuclear-armed powers and laid the groundwork for Vladimir Putin’s aggressive position toward Ukraine. Indeed, in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea, Mearsheimer wrote that “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis.”

The bottom line here is that Russia only got involved militarily in Ukraine as a result of the U.S. and Europe's political moves there. It has a lot in common with the Cuban Missile Crisis back in the 60s. The U.S. got Russia to back down there, but what many don't know is that Kennedy secretly agreed to take missiles out of Turkey in exchange. Even back then, the U.S. was placing missiles close enough to Russia to anger it considerably. It's moves to get Ukraine into the NATO fold and possibly arm it with missiles as well has certainly not helped. By these lights, Russia's actions in Ukraine can be seen as defensive in nature, just as the U.S.'s actions to block Cuba from gaining missiles can be seen in the same way.

There is also the fact that for the past 8 years, Ukraine had already been waging a war against citizens of the Donbass region in Ukraine, killing around 10,000 Donbass citizens in the process. Jacques Baud, a former NATO military analyst, points out that had it not been for Ukraine's renewed assault on this region that started on February 16th, Russia may well have not started its military operation in Ukraine at all. For more on that, I welcome those reading this to take a look at his article on the subject, which can be seen here:
Your own chosen definition pretty much obliterates the contention of your narrative.
The question you should be asking yourself is: "Why do I object to calling Russia's invasion exactly what it is?"
 
Your own chosen definition pretty much obliterates the contention of your narrative.

I strongly disagree. I believe that Russia's goals in Ukraine are what they have said from the beginning, to protect the people of the Donbass region and to halt their membership bid to NATO. It's voiced these concerns for years prior to its military operation, as John Mearsheimer and others have made clear.
 
Over the course of time in this forum, multiple people have apparently been upset with me for not following the standard western mainstream media's approach of calling Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion. I've given my reasons, but some people keep on bringing it up anyway. To avoid having to repeat myself, I thought it'd make more sense to make a thread of it, and then simply refer people to this thread if it comes up again, and any commentaries on my views on this can be brought up here as well.

I don't call Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion because of the way an invasion is generally defined. Wordnik, referencing the American Heritage Dictionary, has this as its first definition of the term:

  • The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
Source:

I don't believe that Russia started its military op in Ukraine to conquer it. Furthermore, Russia, long before its military op in Ukraine, had been warning any country that would listen that allowing Ukraine to join NATO was a red line it wouldn't take lying down. Political scientist and international relations scholar John Mearsheimer has been placing a lot of the blame for the situation in Ukraine on the U.S. and Europe since Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014. The New Yorker published an interview with him back in March. I'll quote its introduction:

**
The political scientist John Mearsheimer has been one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Perhaps best known for the book he wrote with Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Mearsheimer is a proponent of great-power politics—a school of realist international relations that assumes that, in a self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will preëmptively act in anticipation of adversaries. For years, Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand nato eastward and establishing friendly relations with Ukraine, has increased the likelihood of war between nuclear-armed powers and laid the groundwork for Vladimir Putin’s aggressive position toward Ukraine. Indeed, in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea, Mearsheimer wrote that “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis.”
**

Source:

The bottom line here is that Russia only got involved militarily in Ukraine as a result of the U.S. and Europe's political moves there. It has a lot in common with the Cuban Missile Crisis back in the 60s. The U.S. got Russia to back down there, but what many don't know is that Kennedy secretly agreed to take missiles out of Turkey in exchange. Even back then, the U.S. was placing missiles close enough to Russia to anger it considerably. It's moves to get Ukraine into the NATO fold and possibly arm it with missiles as well has certainly not helped. By these lights, Russia's actions in Ukraine can be seen as defensive in nature, just as the U.S.'s actions to block Cuba from gaining missiles can be seen in the same way.

There is also the fact that for the past 8 years, Ukraine had already been waging a war against citizens of the Donbass region in Ukraine, killing around 10,000 Donbass citizens in the process. Jacques Baud, a former NATO military analyst, points out that had it not been for Ukraine's renewed assault on this region that started on February 16th, Russia may well have not started its military operation in Ukraine at all. For more on that, I welcome those reading this to take a look at his article on the subject, which can be seen here:

When Russian troops crossed the Ukrainian border, they were mounting an invasion, by every definition of the term. Whether their intent was conquest or otherwise, the act of sending military forces into another nations territory without their permission is, by definition, an invasion.

As to your other points, we have no reason to believe that Russia wouldn't have invaded the Ukraine regardless of any action or lack thereof taken by the US, NATO, or anyone else. Russia sees Ukraine at best as their puppet, at worst, as rightful Russian territory, and they will do whatever they have to to try and keep it that way, whether the Ukrainian people want it or not.
 
I strongly disagree. I believe that Russia's goals in Ukraine are what they have said from the beginning, to protect the people of the Donbass region and to halt their membership bid to NATO. It's voiced these concerns for years prior to its military operation, as John Mearsheimer and others have made clear.
It's completely convoluted in reasoning, and the fact that it was preceded by years of voicing concerns DOES NOT MAKE IT SOMETHING OTHER THAN AN INVASION!

First of all, the people of the Donbass region were in danger of nothing. NOTHING!
Secondly, anyone in Donbass identifying themselves as Russian could simply move to Russia if they felt threatened by being Ukrainian.
Thirdly, Ukraine's signed agreement with Russia - which, unlike Russia, Ukraine has never violated - states without equivocation that they will not become a NATO member.
Fourth, Russia already INVADED and OCCUPIED Crimea! That should tell you something.
Fifth, Russian troops laid siege to KYIV !! .... which is the capitol of Ukraine and nowhere ****ing near the Donbass !!

Anyone who can't discern from their actions what Putin's real goals are just by looking, not at their words, but at their ACTIONS, is just breathing their own Methane. Putin's aim from the first day his tanks rolled across the border was to make Ukraine - ALL OF UKRAINE - a Russian satellite state. Donbass has never been more than a bullshit pretext for his INVASION of an adjacent sovereign country for the purpose of annexation. Period.

P.S. Your "location" says Canada, but your flag says Mexico. Were you planning on launching an INVASION across both borders to catch the USA by surprise?
 
Last edited:
The political scientist John Mearsheimer has been one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Perhaps best known for the book he wrote with Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Mearsheimer is a proponent of great-power politics—a school of realist international relations that assumes that, in a self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will preëmptively act in anticipation of adversaries. For years, Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand nato eastward and establishing friendly relations with Ukraine, has increased the likelihood of war between nuclear-armed powers and laid the groundwork for Vladimir Putin’s aggressive position toward Ukraine. Indeed, in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea, Mearsheimer wrote that “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis.”

I mean, that's great, he builds a career on being a contrarian. Just because he's contrarian doesn't mean his arguments are valid. If he wants to suggest that the U.S. made policy errors that gave Putin some openings to exploit, I'd probably agree, particularly as it relates to policy during the GW Bush years. By essentially invading another country without UN approval and on the grounds of 'security', that gave Putin the theoretical justifications for his police actions in S Ossetia and later Ukraine. No disagreement there. We further compounded the problem by advocating the installation of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. Again, no disagreement.

None of that justifies an actual invasion and occupation of a sovereign country. That goes against international law, full stop. And that's saying nothing of the despicable war crimes that Putin's forces have committed since their occupation.
 
Over the course of time in this forum, multiple people have apparently been upset with me for not following the standard western mainstream media's approach of calling Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion. I've given my reasons, but some people keep on bringing it up anyway. To avoid having to repeat myself, I thought it'd make more sense to make a thread of it, and then simply refer people to this thread if it comes up again, and any commentaries on my views on this can be brought up here as well.

I don't call Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion because of the way an invasion is generally defined. Wordnik, referencing the American Heritage Dictionary, has this as its first definition of the term:

  • The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
Source:

I don't believe that Russia started its military op in Ukraine to conquer it. Furthermore, Russia, long before its military op in Ukraine, had been warning any country that would listen that allowing Ukraine to join NATO was a red line it wouldn't take lying down. Political scientist and international relations scholar John Mearsheimer has been placing a lot of the blame for the situation in Ukraine on the U.S. and Europe since Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014. The New Yorker published an interview with him back in March. I'll quote its introduction:

**
The political scientist John Mearsheimer has been one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Perhaps best known for the book he wrote with Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Mearsheimer is a proponent of great-power politics—a school of realist international relations that assumes that, in a self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will preëmptively act in anticipation of adversaries. For years, Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand nato eastward and establishing friendly relations with Ukraine, has increased the likelihood of war between nuclear-armed powers and laid the groundwork for Vladimir Putin’s aggressive position toward Ukraine. Indeed, in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea, Mearsheimer wrote that “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis.”
**

Source:

The bottom line here is that Russia only got involved militarily in Ukraine as a result of the U.S. and Europe's political moves there. It has a lot in common with the Cuban Missile Crisis back in the 60s. The U.S. got Russia to back down there, but what many don't know is that Kennedy secretly agreed to take missiles out of Turkey in exchange. Even back then, the U.S. was placing missiles close enough to Russia to anger it considerably. It's moves to get Ukraine into the NATO fold and possibly arm it with missiles as well has certainly not helped. By these lights, Russia's actions in Ukraine can be seen as defensive in nature, just as the U.S.'s actions to block Cuba from gaining missiles can be seen in the same way.

There is also the fact that for the past 8 years, Ukraine had already been waging a war against citizens of the Donbass region in Ukraine, killing around 10,000 Donbass citizens in the process. Jacques Baud, a former NATO military analyst, points out that had it not been for Ukraine's renewed assault on this region that started on February 16th, Russia may well have not started its military operation in Ukraine at all. For more on that, I welcome those reading this to take a look at his article on the subject, which can be seen here:

Its an invasion no matter how much Putin pushers want to pretend otherwise
 
It is by definition an invasion, no matter what kind of politically correct bullshit language you use to obscure that fact or whatever wack justifications you come up with to excuse Russia's needless aggression.

It's absolutely disgusting how many lefties out there think that in order to denounce Western imperialism that the answer is to support Russian imperialism, authoritarianism, and aggression.
 
The goal of the invasion (that actually begun in 2014) is what it was always about, controlling Ukraine, annexing it to "the Russian world": Russkiy mir. In Putin's own words Ukraine is not a real country.
 
The goal of the invasion (that actually begun in 2014) is what it was always about, controlling Ukraine, annexing it to "the Russian world": Russkiy mir. In Putin's own words Ukraine is not a real country.

There is evidence that in 2014, the U.S. helped stage what amounted to a coup of Ukraine's elected President at the time, VIktor Yanukovych. Some articles that get into the details:




All Russia did in return was help Crimea leave Ukraine, as well as help to initiate peace talks between the new Ukrainian government in Kyiv and the Donbass separatists.

Claims that Russia got involved militarily at the time were denied by former NATO military analyst Jacques Baud:

 
There is evidence that in 2014, the U.S. helped stage what amounted to a coup of Ukraine's elected President at the time, VIktor Yanukovych. Some articles that get into the details:




All Russia did in return was help Crimea leave Ukraine, as well as help to initiate peace talks between the new Ukrainian government in Kyiv and the Donbass separatists.

Claims that Russia got involved militarily at the time were denied by former NATO military analyst Jacques Baud:

It was an invasion. First of Crimea, then the little green men in the Donbas. The Crimean plebicite was held under gunpoint under hostile occupation, and most people of Ukrainian or Crimean Tatar ethnicity refused to vote, because they did not recognize the plebicite. Neither was the Russian annexation Crimea recognized by the outside world.

The Maidan revolution again Yanukovich came out of frustration from several Ukrainians that Yanukovich was approaching Russia and not the EU, as well as frustration by the endless corruption and oligarch dominance, in fact not everyone even protested against the same things. It started as mass protests but escalated after violent attempt by the Yanukovich government to disperse the protests. It wasn't a western coup, THAT is Kremlin propaganda. In fact the Maidan revolution came as a huge surprise to the West. Yankovich was first able reach an agreement with the Parliamentary opposition for early elections and reforms on 21 February. But that was not enough for the protesters on the street. The same day the police decided their mandate was over and withdrew from the capital. This prompted Yanukovich to flee to Russia. Then the Ukrainian parliament voted to oust Yankovich with 328 to 0 votes (72,8% of the MPs voted). This was a completely legal procedure, comparable to Impeachment in the US. Yanukovich was legally removed from power.
 
It was an invasion. First of Crimea, then the little green men in the Donbas. The Crimean plebicite was held under gunpoint under hostile occupation, and most people of Ukrainian or Crimean Tatar ethnicity refused to vote, because they did not recognize the plebicite. Neither was the Russian annexation Crimea recognized by the outside world.

What is your source of information? Personally, I've found that independent Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett's assessment was the best. She actually went to Crimea and the Donbass region to get the viewpoints of the people who actually live there. Here are 2 articles that chronicle her discoveries in these places:


 
I strongly disagree. I believe that Russia's goals in Ukraine are what they have said from the beginning, to protect the people of the Donbass region and to halt their membership bid to NATO. It's voiced these concerns for years prior to its military operation, as John Mearsheimer and others have made clear.
That is bullshit it's a war and Russia invaded Ukraine to conquer at least that's what Russia said. Putin clarified that Ukraine to him does not exist. Try as you might you are just talking fantasy crap.
 
I strongly disagree. I believe that Russia's goals in Ukraine are what they have said from the beginning, to protect the people of the Donbass region and to halt their membership bid to NATO.

Umm, no....


 
Over the course of time in this forum, multiple people have apparently been upset with me for not following the standard western mainstream media's approach of calling Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion. I've given my reasons, but some people keep on bringing it up anyway. To avoid having to repeat myself, I thought it'd make more sense to make a thread of it, and then simply refer people to this thread if it comes up again, and any commentaries on my views on this can be brought up here as well.

I don't call Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion because of the way an invasion is generally defined. Wordnik, referencing the American Heritage Dictionary, has this as its first definition of the term:

  • The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
Source:

I don't believe that Russia started its military op in Ukraine to conquer it. Furthermore, Russia, long before its military op in Ukraine, had been warning any country that would listen that allowing Ukraine to join NATO was a red line it wouldn't take lying down. Political scientist and international relations scholar John Mearsheimer has been placing a lot of the blame for the situation in Ukraine on the U.S. and Europe since Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014. The New Yorker published an interview with him back in March. I'll quote its introduction:

**
The political scientist John Mearsheimer has been one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Perhaps best known for the book he wrote with Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Mearsheimer is a proponent of great-power politics—a school of realist international relations that assumes that, in a self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will preëmptively act in anticipation of adversaries. For years, Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand nato eastward and establishing friendly relations with Ukraine, has increased the likelihood of war between nuclear-armed powers and laid the groundwork for Vladimir Putin’s aggressive position toward Ukraine. Indeed, in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea, Mearsheimer wrote that “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis.”
**

Source:

The bottom line here is that Russia only got involved militarily in Ukraine as a result of the U.S. and Europe's political moves there. It has a lot in common with the Cuban Missile Crisis back in the 60s. The U.S. got Russia to back down there, but what many don't know is that Kennedy secretly agreed to take missiles out of Turkey in exchange. Even back then, the U.S. was placing missiles close enough to Russia to anger it considerably. It's moves to get Ukraine into the NATO fold and possibly arm it with missiles as well has certainly not helped. By these lights, Russia's actions in Ukraine can be seen as defensive in nature, just as the U.S.'s actions to block Cuba from gaining missiles can be seen in the same way.

There is also the fact that for the past 8 years, Ukraine had already been waging a war against citizens of the Donbass region in Ukraine, killing around 10,000 Donbass citizens in the process. Jacques Baud, a former NATO military analyst, points out that had it not been for Ukraine's renewed assault on this region that started on February 16th, Russia may well have not started its military operation in Ukraine at all. For more on that, I welcome those reading this to take a look at his article on the subject, which can be seen here:

What the actual ****...?
 
Over the course of time in this forum, multiple people have apparently been upset with me for not following the standard western mainstream media's approach of calling Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion. I've given my reasons, but some people keep on bringing it up anyway. To avoid having to repeat myself, I thought it'd make more sense to make a thread of it, and then simply refer people to this thread if it comes up again, and any commentaries on my views on this can be brought up here as well.

I don't call Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion because of the way an invasion is generally defined. Wordnik, referencing the American Heritage Dictionary, has this as its first definition of the term:

  • The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.

Kyiv

Invasion
 
Over the course of time in this forum, multiple people have apparently been upset with me for not following the standard western mainstream media's approach of calling Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion. I've given my reasons, but some people keep on bringing it up anyway. To avoid having to repeat myself, I thought it'd make more sense to make a thread of it, and then simply refer people to this thread if it comes up again, and any commentaries on my views on this can be brought up here as well.

I don't call Russia's role in Ukraine an invasion because of the way an invasion is generally defined. Wordnik, referencing the American Heritage Dictionary, has this as its first definition of the term:

  • The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
Source:

I don't believe that Russia started its military op in Ukraine to conquer it. Furthermore, Russia, long before its military op in Ukraine, had been warning any country that would listen that allowing Ukraine to join NATO was a red line it wouldn't take lying down. Political scientist and international relations scholar John Mearsheimer has been placing a lot of the blame for the situation in Ukraine on the U.S. and Europe since Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014. The New Yorker published an interview with him back in March. I'll quote its introduction:

**
The political scientist John Mearsheimer has been one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Perhaps best known for the book he wrote with Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Mearsheimer is a proponent of great-power politics—a school of realist international relations that assumes that, in a self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will preëmptively act in anticipation of adversaries. For years, Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand nato eastward and establishing friendly relations with Ukraine, has increased the likelihood of war between nuclear-armed powers and laid the groundwork for Vladimir Putin’s aggressive position toward Ukraine. Indeed, in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea, Mearsheimer wrote that “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis.”
**

Source:

The bottom line here is that Russia only got involved militarily in Ukraine as a result of the U.S. and Europe's political moves there. It has a lot in common with the Cuban Missile Crisis back in the 60s. The U.S. got Russia to back down there, but what many don't know is that Kennedy secretly agreed to take missiles out of Turkey in exchange. Even back then, the U.S. was placing missiles close enough to Russia to anger it considerably. It's moves to get Ukraine into the NATO fold and possibly arm it with missiles as well has certainly not helped. By these lights, Russia's actions in Ukraine can be seen as defensive in nature, just as the U.S.'s actions to block Cuba from gaining missiles can be seen in the same way.

There is also the fact that for the past 8 years, Ukraine had already been waging a war against citizens of the Donbass region in Ukraine, killing around 10,000 Donbass citizens in the process. Jacques Baud, a former NATO military analyst, points out that had it not been for Ukraine's renewed assault on this region that started on February 16th, Russia may well have not started its military operation in Ukraine at all. For more on that, I welcome those reading this to take a look at his article on the subject, which can be seen here:

How's the weather in Moscow, comrade?
 
What is your source of information? Personally, I've found that independent Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett's assessment was the best. She actually went to Crimea and the Donbass region to get the viewpoints of the people who actually live there. Here are 2 articles that chronicle her discoveries in these places:

An illegal referendum foisted on the Ukrainians of Crimea by a military occupier that had no choice to remain part of Ukraine.
 
There is evidence that in 2014, the U.S. helped stage what amounted to a coup of Ukraine's elected President at the time, VIktor Yanukovych. Some articles that get into the details:

The people of Ukraine rose up and Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych ran away rather than face impeachment by the Rada for his role in the deaths of fellow Ukrainians.
 
I strongly disagree. I believe that Russia's goals in Ukraine are what they have said from the beginning, to protect the people of the Donbass region and to halt their membership bid to NATO. It's voiced these concerns for years prior to its military operation, as John Mearsheimer and others have made clear.
Umm, no....



Your first article only brings up Putin's belief that Russia is simply taking back something which was Russian. By this, I imagine he meant the Donbass region of Ukraine. The Donbass region has had a large ethnic Russian population there for some time, and that the main language there is Russian. From Wikipedia:

**
According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 58% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 56.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively.[93] In the present day, the Donbas is a predominately Russophone region. According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast.[94]
**

Source:

I think it must be stressed that previously, Putin had no interest in taking any land from Ukraine. Not only that, but he actually discouraged the Donbass republics from holding referendums on whether or not to become more independent from Ukraine. I suspect what changed his mind was what Ukraine did to its own citizens over the past 8 years, killing around 10,000 of them. He certainly suggests as much in the speech he gave on the day he started his military operation. Quoting from it:

**
This brings me to the situation in Donbass. [snip]

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.
**

Source:

The author of your second article, Robert Kelly, apparently doesn't understand the importance of nuance. Quoting from it:

**
Last week, as Finland and Sweden joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Russian President Vladimir Putin made a startling confession: he had no objection to those two countries joining NATO. His reasoning was that Russia had no territorial disputes with them, but it did with Ukraine.
**

The issue of territorial disputes is important. Finland also hasn't been busy killing thousands of its own citizens over the past 8 years, many of them ethnic Russians, as Ukraine has been. Finally, Mr. Kelly also neglected to mention that Putin giving Finland and Sweden a pass was conditional. From the article Mr. Kelly used as his source:

**
"Only they should plainly and clearly realize that there were no threats before, now, if military contingents and infrastructure are deployed there, we will have to respond in a mirror manner and create the same threats to the territories from which threats are created to us," he stressed.
**

Source:
 
Your first article only brings up Putin's belief that Russia is simply taking back something which was Russian. By this, I imagine he meant the Donbass region of Ukraine. The Donbass region has had a large ethnic Russian population there for some time, and that the main language there is Russian. From Wikipedia:

**
According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 58% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 56.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively.[93] In the present day, the Donbas is a predominately Russophone region. According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast.[94]
**

Source:

I think it must be stressed that previously, Putin had no interest in taking any land from Ukraine. Not only that, but he actually discouraged the Donbass republics from holding referendums on whether or not to become more independent from Ukraine. I suspect what changed his mind was what Ukraine did to its own citizens over the past 8 years, killing around 10,000 of them. He certainly suggests as much in the speech he gave on the day he started his military operation. Quoting from it:

**
This brings me to the situation in Donbass. [snip]

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.
**

Source:

The author of your second article, Robert Kelly, apparently doesn't understand the importance of nuance. Quoting from it:

**
Last week, as Finland and Sweden joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Russian President Vladimir Putin made a startling confession: he had no objection to those two countries joining NATO. His reasoning was that Russia had no territorial disputes with them, but it did with Ukraine.
**

The issue of territorial disputes is important. Finland also hasn't been busy killing thousands of its own citizens over the past 8 years, many of them ethnic Russians, as Ukraine has been. Finally, Mr. Kelly also neglected to mention that Putin giving Finland and Sweden a pass was conditional. From the article Mr. Kelly used as his source:

**
"Only they should plainly and clearly realize that there were no threats before, now, if military contingents and infrastructure are deployed there, we will have to respond in a mirror manner and create the same threats to the territories from which threats are created to us," he stressed.
**

Source:

It is, by definition, an invasion.
 
Merriam-Webster.....

invasion​

noun
in·va·sion | \ in-ˈvā-zhən \

Definition of invasion

1: an act of invading, especially the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful
 
1. Yes, I think that other people agree with the OP that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has certain nuances that the West brushes aside.

2. But most people (I hope) are appalled by the sheer savagery of the Russian forces.

a. There is simply no excuse for deliberately inflicting suffering on civilians.

b. If the Russians had treated the civilians humanely, then more people in the West would have been inclined to at least consider Russia's grievances.
 
Back
Top Bottom