Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Deane wrote: There is no doubt there was a move by Russia last minute to prevent Ukraine creating closer ties with EU and the aftermath was atrocious I agree. There is also no doubt the US took advantage of this situation for their own gain.

 

But the bigger problem is not the US's actions here, or any advantage taken. It is aggressive pro-Russian action, which resulted in a popular uprising and revolution.

Deane wrote: The main issue with NATO encroachment is that there was an agreement that it wouldn't happen. Whatever about the rights of sovereign nations to join. Agreements shouldn't be broken without new agreements and discussions.

 

But there was no formal agreement. And Russia themselves have been open to NATO in the past. This is an attempt to assert dominance over a regional block, but the Russia, using the alliance as some sort of counterweight. But one formal agreement that has been disregarded is the Budapest Agreement, where Ukraine took non-proliferative action vis-a-vis nuclear weapons, in exchange for a non-aggression pact. Funny how Russia decided to deliberately misinterpret the agreement when they stationed nuclear weapons. Lavrov even claimed there is only one obligation under the agreement, when in fact there are six. He claimed that the only obligation was for Russia not to attack with nuclear weapons. funny how the vatniks in the media seem concerned that without 'peace' (i.e. their preferred type of peace) there may be nuclear warfare. Russia has invented this 'threat' regarding NATO to whip up sentiment. It doesn't make any sense, not least because of how difficult it is to join NATO and decisions in the past regarding Ukraine and NATO.

Deane wrote: Moldova's separatist state of Transnistria existed from 1990 whilst Moldova only gained independence in 1991 so I am not sure how this could be considered a new thing or a recent move by Russia or indeed Putin as it far predates his leadership. I assume Transnistria due to its political stance does most of its business with Russia which with a little bit of spin can be described as "funding separatists".

 

I dont need to spin it that way. Russia basically pays for Transnistria's existence, which is a fair price as far as they're concerned in order to have a satellite region in an adjacent country. Estimates from 2015 suggested that 70% of Transnistria's budget is from Moscow. It is also seen as heavily reliant on a form of black market. So its less about trade, and more about Russia underwriting its existence.

Deane wrote: Of course there will be a proportion of the population in countries formerly part of the Russia Empire that would favour the old status-quo.

 

Thats true.

Deane wrote: Would you describe the Provisional IRA as separatists funded by Libya and the US?