inb4 moved to /pol/. This thread cites the history behind the war and why it happened rather than what's happening now. This thread will contain modern history, which is pretty contested and disputed. If you disagree with me, please point out why and which points you want to debunk. I really want this to be a thread where arguments get debunked, since researching modern history made me think that Russia is the lesser evil in this wider conflict. And I am no expert in any field such as military, diplomacy, economics and etc. So if you know more than me. You can always point it out.
Back in the early 1990s, the West sabotaged Russia's economy out of malice at worst, out of stupidity and incompetence at best. Economic disaster ensued, which paved the path for the modern state of Russia.
First, we have to establish how aggressive NATO is and why Russia needs to fear NATO.
Cases of the US invading innocent countries out of greed and paranoia, justifying it as "for freedom and liberty", while causing innocent deaths and destruction are all too common. And the US is the head of NATO, eurocucks are always incredibly passive when the US launches aggressive campaigns and wars. They are passive spectators, letting the US commit evil at best, allies in offensive wars at worst. So we know the true head of NATO and the aggressive, greedy nature of the leader. The government no matter republican or Democrat, start aggressive wars that kill innocent people for greed(control of natural resources and for the military-industrial complex to profit) and paranoia. Not excused paranoia, but idiotic false calculations, such as the domino theory.
Vietnam War - 2 million Vietnamese dead and intense suffering for the Vietnamese people. (For US paranoia and for the kikes at the military industrial complex to profit from war)
Iraq War - War caused by greed for the control of Iraq's natural resources, excused by "freedom" and false accusations. Caused hundreds of thousands to die, and for insurgents and terrorists to take control and rise.
Libya War - For greed and control of natural resources, toppled Gaddafi's regime and caused another Iraq.
And such wars are common all over the world, US aggression for paranoia, greed and disagreements about ideology. Another common theme you see is (((US elites))) championing for lgbt raisin, trans rights, democracy, and rapefugees. The fundamental societal values they wish were implemented all across the world, so they topple governments that fight back against this new woke world order.
The US forces their ideology and societal values on countries that didn't ask for it through violent means, a definition of extremism and terrorism that they "fight back against".
But democracies change, and foreign policies change, right? No, in the US, no matter if republicans or democrats are running the country, the US is still incredibly aggressive. It's controlled opposition, the US population is incredibly stupid, mind-numbed people that fall under the illusion of control and democracy, while the same lobbyists and (((elites))) control everything. And the ones who do end up seriously opposing the US in its aggression, such as Julian Assange, end up persecuted. And you cannot forget that NATO's founding purpose was to counter the USSR/Russia.
It's not about pointing out NATO aggression for hypocrisy, it's about fearing that Russia might be the next target for greed, paranoia and its forcing of ideology and societal values of NATO.
It perfectly fits the pattern, Russia is extremely rich in natural resources, the West had an unfriendly, paranoid attitude since the Cold War, and it did not change in the 90s, and Russia has a different ideology and values promoted by the government.
NATO lied about not expanding to Eastern Europe. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker at a meeting with Gorbachev, Baker told him that NATO would not expand, but look how that turned out. This clearly takes advantage of the new stumbling country of Russia. A move with a clear intent of deception to choke Russia and to invade it.
If NATO really wanted Russia to be part of it, they would have invited and let russia in considering putin and yeltsin gave multiple hints at joining nato but no formal request, though if a formal request was made and russia was rejected, Russia would have lost face, so they went through with hinting at it and getting a cold treatment from nato.
NATO should have made a neutral bloc for Eastern Europe. If they were truly looking for peace and cooperation, they knew expanding too rapidly and aggressively would threaten Russia. All of this bloodshed and war could have been prevented if this had happened: a united bloc of eastern Europe not part of NATO but backed and influenced by NATO would clearly not be weak, so Russia would not think of invading it.
Now that NATO's aggression has been established, see how NATO tried to control Ukraine to launch a future invasion. And how it justifies Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Upon Ukraine's independence, the constitution states that Ukraine should be a neutral non-bloc country, but look at which side violated this and caused this domino effect leading to the invasion. The first president(Leonid Kravchuk) was a western-leaning but officially neutral person, he was very incompetent in running the country so Leonid Kuchma won the election, but Kuchma was also a corrupt incompetent leader who made joining NATO a priority for Ukraine and even sent soldiers to Iraq, but he was insanely corrupt and he got exposed for taking bribes and being corrupt, the west clearly couldn't associate with him so they threw him out and he became friendlier to Russia though he wasn't friendly and willing to ally with russia as he was with NATO. This points to Kuchma being a man with no integrity, someone who will accept money and benefits for doing stuff, so it isn't impossible to say NATO could have funded and bribed him to move Ukraine to NATO.
You will notice a pattern of pro-Western leaders always trying to join NATO, which is a military alliance, while the supposed russian puppets just want neutrality and appeasement of Russia through economic means and not military means. What were the nato puppets expecting? Military alliances mean war; they were so stupid that they did not understand this definition, and they brought war to their country. Yanukovych reinforced Ukraine's neutrality, while Yuschenko, Kuchma and Zelensky made joining NATO top priorities. Breaking Ukraine's neutrality, if Ukraine's neutrality was maintained, the current bloodshed wouldn't be happening, don't blame Russia for this, blame Zelensky and the nato puppets. Russia had to attack Ukraine because Ukraine would become a part of a military alliance created to destroy Russia, American troops would be stationed there, American military bases and missiles would be put in Ukraine. An alliance consisting of 30 countries has military access to Russia's exposed plains. Considering NATO is extremely aggressive, they would have attacked, noticing historical trends. You cant blame Russia for fearing this, blame the kike zelensky not maintaining Ukraine's neutrality so russia does not need to feel paranoid enough to wage war.
Orange Revolution
In 2004, there was an election between Viktor Yanukovych vs Viktor Yuschenko. Yanukovych was the pro-Russian candidate, and Yuschenko was the pro-NATO candidate. But keep in mind, Yanukovych never wanted Ukraine in the CSTO or in any military alliance with Russia, though he was friendly and made a lot of economic deals with Russia over the West, unlike Yuschenko, who wanted Ukraine in the military alliance created to destroy Russia. So you can see who wanted Ukraine to be neutral and who wanted Ukraine to be in a military alliance.
Initially, the election results pointed to Yanukovych winning the elections, but it was claimed as election fraud, which resulted in violent protests known as the Orange Revolution. It's interesting how many other color revolutions happen. Historically, the US constantly orchestrates revolts, coups and protests against governments that do not align with its interests, which is a proven historical fact, unlike the claim that I'm making that the US orchestrated this revolution. I don't have any evidence; I'm guessing off on historical trends. Now that there are mass protests and information warfare showing that Yanukovych did not win the election fairly, in the 2nd election, Yuschenko won. Yuschenko wasn't this perfect champion of democracy, but another corrupt puppet installed by the West. He was incompetent and even made Bandera the hero of Ukraine. He planned on joining NATO, that's insane and breaks the neutrality of Ukraine, compared to the supposed "russian puppet" Yanukovych, Yanukovych wanted Ukraine to be neutral, though he did lean towards russia, he criticized russia sometimes. But in 2010, Yanukovych won the election, and he always promoted Ukraine's neutrality. Im not saying Yanukovych was a perfect president, he was a corrupt thief, but at least he maintained neutrality and did not drag ukraine into war by trying to join a military alliance.
Euromaidan and the Revolution Of Dignity
The protests started off with social media campaigns. There is a leaked phone call of US officials at Euromaidan discussing the events in code words, the evidence isn't conclusive enough but its enough to arouse suspicion that the US had some involvement in Euromaidan. The Ukrainian people did have a right to protest against corruption and incompetence, but it was hijacked and redirected to another cause, joining NATO. The West clearly took advantage of the situation.https://files.catbox.moe/z8foa8.png
Yanukovych, the man who enforced Ukraine's neutrality, was exiled, and a pro-NATO government was firmly in power. (Also notice in picrel russophobic neo nazis fighting for pro nato side, even before the annexation of crimea and other russian attacks)
This justifies the Russian invasion either way, either NATO pulled a massive information warfare, fooling Ukrainians into joining NATO, or Ukrainians themselves chose to join NATO, the military faction for countering Russia, like a snake preparing to strike.
But an independent people can dictate their future and who their country allies with, right?
You're not really independent if you are joining a foreign military alliance that wages war across the world, which means you join their wars and this military alliance would have attacked Russia. And the Ukrainians had the option of staying neutral, but they ended up joining a military alliance.
The zelensky government had made joining nato and eu its top priorities before the 2022 invasion. If Ukraine were to join NATO, then Russia's most vulnerable part would have been exposed to a potential nato invasion. And I can't establish whether nato would have invaded Russia 100% but looking at historic trends and my previous paragraphs, they were likely. So it was obvious once Ukraine chose NATO and the West over Russia, they would be invaded to cover up such an insecurity with NATO at Russia's doors if Ukraine were to join.
The Ukrainian people had chosen their fate once they decided that siding with the West was a good option rather than staying neutral.
But why did the Ukrainians vote for Zelensky, and why did Zelensky want to join NATO? Because of the annexation of Crimea and the separatists in eastern Ukraine. But why did Russia annex Crimea? Because an anti-Russian NATO government had taken power in Kyiv. So from that event on, ukraine was firmly sailing towards NATO, the only option was military action and the neutralisation of Ukraine through violent means, otherwise Ukraine would have joined NATO and a disastrous aggressive US invasion could have happened, an operation Barbarossa, but Russia is alone. So Russia needed to attack the pro nato ukraine before it joined nato, at least if nato attacked, then they would have an advantageous defensive position.
I initially thought Russia shouldn't have launched a military attack; instead should have negotiated and tried to impose soft power, but if you look at pre euro maidan history, that's what russia was doing the whole time. Through economic, political and diplomatic means, they always tried to keep Ukraine neutral and with Euromaidan that had failed, Ukraine is firmly sailing towards NATO, so now military invasion was the only option left.
A lot of pro-ukraine pro-nato people say "Right to self determination", so if that were the case, half of ukraine wanted to not be in NATO but be neutral or in the Russian sphere, those people started seperatist movements so they wont be in a country in NATO, potentially fighting Russian brothers in a future invasion. But the Kiev government repressed them first. For self determination the eastern Russians should be allowed to join Russia and leave the nato regime.
Back in the early 1990s, the West sabotaged Russia's economy out of malice at worst, out of stupidity and incompetence at best. Economic disaster ensued, which paved the path for the modern state of Russia.
First, we have to establish how aggressive NATO is and why Russia needs to fear NATO.
Cases of the US invading innocent countries out of greed and paranoia, justifying it as "for freedom and liberty", while causing innocent deaths and destruction are all too common. And the US is the head of NATO, eurocucks are always incredibly passive when the US launches aggressive campaigns and wars. They are passive spectators, letting the US commit evil at best, allies in offensive wars at worst. So we know the true head of NATO and the aggressive, greedy nature of the leader. The government no matter republican or Democrat, start aggressive wars that kill innocent people for greed(control of natural resources and for the military-industrial complex to profit) and paranoia. Not excused paranoia, but idiotic false calculations, such as the domino theory.
Vietnam War - 2 million Vietnamese dead and intense suffering for the Vietnamese people. (For US paranoia and for the kikes at the military industrial complex to profit from war)
Iraq War - War caused by greed for the control of Iraq's natural resources, excused by "freedom" and false accusations. Caused hundreds of thousands to die, and for insurgents and terrorists to take control and rise.
Libya War - For greed and control of natural resources, toppled Gaddafi's regime and caused another Iraq.
And such wars are common all over the world, US aggression for paranoia, greed and disagreements about ideology. Another common theme you see is (((US elites))) championing for lgbt raisin, trans rights, democracy, and rapefugees. The fundamental societal values they wish were implemented all across the world, so they topple governments that fight back against this new woke world order.
The US forces their ideology and societal values on countries that didn't ask for it through violent means, a definition of extremism and terrorism that they "fight back against".
But democracies change, and foreign policies change, right? No, in the US, no matter if republicans or democrats are running the country, the US is still incredibly aggressive. It's controlled opposition, the US population is incredibly stupid, mind-numbed people that fall under the illusion of control and democracy, while the same lobbyists and (((elites))) control everything. And the ones who do end up seriously opposing the US in its aggression, such as Julian Assange, end up persecuted. And you cannot forget that NATO's founding purpose was to counter the USSR/Russia.
It's not about pointing out NATO aggression for hypocrisy, it's about fearing that Russia might be the next target for greed, paranoia and its forcing of ideology and societal values of NATO.
It perfectly fits the pattern, Russia is extremely rich in natural resources, the West had an unfriendly, paranoid attitude since the Cold War, and it did not change in the 90s, and Russia has a different ideology and values promoted by the government.
NATO lied about not expanding to Eastern Europe. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker at a meeting with Gorbachev, Baker told him that NATO would not expand, but look how that turned out. This clearly takes advantage of the new stumbling country of Russia. A move with a clear intent of deception to choke Russia and to invade it.
If NATO really wanted Russia to be part of it, they would have invited and let russia in considering putin and yeltsin gave multiple hints at joining nato but no formal request, though if a formal request was made and russia was rejected, Russia would have lost face, so they went through with hinting at it and getting a cold treatment from nato.
NATO should have made a neutral bloc for Eastern Europe. If they were truly looking for peace and cooperation, they knew expanding too rapidly and aggressively would threaten Russia. All of this bloodshed and war could have been prevented if this had happened: a united bloc of eastern Europe not part of NATO but backed and influenced by NATO would clearly not be weak, so Russia would not think of invading it.
Now that NATO's aggression has been established, see how NATO tried to control Ukraine to launch a future invasion. And how it justifies Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Upon Ukraine's independence, the constitution states that Ukraine should be a neutral non-bloc country, but look at which side violated this and caused this domino effect leading to the invasion. The first president(Leonid Kravchuk) was a western-leaning but officially neutral person, he was very incompetent in running the country so Leonid Kuchma won the election, but Kuchma was also a corrupt incompetent leader who made joining NATO a priority for Ukraine and even sent soldiers to Iraq, but he was insanely corrupt and he got exposed for taking bribes and being corrupt, the west clearly couldn't associate with him so they threw him out and he became friendlier to Russia though he wasn't friendly and willing to ally with russia as he was with NATO. This points to Kuchma being a man with no integrity, someone who will accept money and benefits for doing stuff, so it isn't impossible to say NATO could have funded and bribed him to move Ukraine to NATO.
You will notice a pattern of pro-Western leaders always trying to join NATO, which is a military alliance, while the supposed russian puppets just want neutrality and appeasement of Russia through economic means and not military means. What were the nato puppets expecting? Military alliances mean war; they were so stupid that they did not understand this definition, and they brought war to their country. Yanukovych reinforced Ukraine's neutrality, while Yuschenko, Kuchma and Zelensky made joining NATO top priorities. Breaking Ukraine's neutrality, if Ukraine's neutrality was maintained, the current bloodshed wouldn't be happening, don't blame Russia for this, blame Zelensky and the nato puppets. Russia had to attack Ukraine because Ukraine would become a part of a military alliance created to destroy Russia, American troops would be stationed there, American military bases and missiles would be put in Ukraine. An alliance consisting of 30 countries has military access to Russia's exposed plains. Considering NATO is extremely aggressive, they would have attacked, noticing historical trends. You cant blame Russia for fearing this, blame the kike zelensky not maintaining Ukraine's neutrality so russia does not need to feel paranoid enough to wage war.
Orange Revolution
In 2004, there was an election between Viktor Yanukovych vs Viktor Yuschenko. Yanukovych was the pro-Russian candidate, and Yuschenko was the pro-NATO candidate. But keep in mind, Yanukovych never wanted Ukraine in the CSTO or in any military alliance with Russia, though he was friendly and made a lot of economic deals with Russia over the West, unlike Yuschenko, who wanted Ukraine in the military alliance created to destroy Russia. So you can see who wanted Ukraine to be neutral and who wanted Ukraine to be in a military alliance.
Initially, the election results pointed to Yanukovych winning the elections, but it was claimed as election fraud, which resulted in violent protests known as the Orange Revolution. It's interesting how many other color revolutions happen. Historically, the US constantly orchestrates revolts, coups and protests against governments that do not align with its interests, which is a proven historical fact, unlike the claim that I'm making that the US orchestrated this revolution. I don't have any evidence; I'm guessing off on historical trends. Now that there are mass protests and information warfare showing that Yanukovych did not win the election fairly, in the 2nd election, Yuschenko won. Yuschenko wasn't this perfect champion of democracy, but another corrupt puppet installed by the West. He was incompetent and even made Bandera the hero of Ukraine. He planned on joining NATO, that's insane and breaks the neutrality of Ukraine, compared to the supposed "russian puppet" Yanukovych, Yanukovych wanted Ukraine to be neutral, though he did lean towards russia, he criticized russia sometimes. But in 2010, Yanukovych won the election, and he always promoted Ukraine's neutrality. Im not saying Yanukovych was a perfect president, he was a corrupt thief, but at least he maintained neutrality and did not drag ukraine into war by trying to join a military alliance.
Euromaidan and the Revolution Of Dignity
The protests started off with social media campaigns. There is a leaked phone call of US officials at Euromaidan discussing the events in code words, the evidence isn't conclusive enough but its enough to arouse suspicion that the US had some involvement in Euromaidan. The Ukrainian people did have a right to protest against corruption and incompetence, but it was hijacked and redirected to another cause, joining NATO. The West clearly took advantage of the situation.https://files.catbox.moe/z8foa8.png
Yanukovych, the man who enforced Ukraine's neutrality, was exiled, and a pro-NATO government was firmly in power. (Also notice in picrel russophobic neo nazis fighting for pro nato side, even before the annexation of crimea and other russian attacks)
This justifies the Russian invasion either way, either NATO pulled a massive information warfare, fooling Ukrainians into joining NATO, or Ukrainians themselves chose to join NATO, the military faction for countering Russia, like a snake preparing to strike.
But an independent people can dictate their future and who their country allies with, right?
You're not really independent if you are joining a foreign military alliance that wages war across the world, which means you join their wars and this military alliance would have attacked Russia. And the Ukrainians had the option of staying neutral, but they ended up joining a military alliance.
The zelensky government had made joining nato and eu its top priorities before the 2022 invasion. If Ukraine were to join NATO, then Russia's most vulnerable part would have been exposed to a potential nato invasion. And I can't establish whether nato would have invaded Russia 100% but looking at historic trends and my previous paragraphs, they were likely. So it was obvious once Ukraine chose NATO and the West over Russia, they would be invaded to cover up such an insecurity with NATO at Russia's doors if Ukraine were to join.
The Ukrainian people had chosen their fate once they decided that siding with the West was a good option rather than staying neutral.
But why did the Ukrainians vote for Zelensky, and why did Zelensky want to join NATO? Because of the annexation of Crimea and the separatists in eastern Ukraine. But why did Russia annex Crimea? Because an anti-Russian NATO government had taken power in Kyiv. So from that event on, ukraine was firmly sailing towards NATO, the only option was military action and the neutralisation of Ukraine through violent means, otherwise Ukraine would have joined NATO and a disastrous aggressive US invasion could have happened, an operation Barbarossa, but Russia is alone. So Russia needed to attack the pro nato ukraine before it joined nato, at least if nato attacked, then they would have an advantageous defensive position.
I initially thought Russia shouldn't have launched a military attack; instead should have negotiated and tried to impose soft power, but if you look at pre euro maidan history, that's what russia was doing the whole time. Through economic, political and diplomatic means, they always tried to keep Ukraine neutral and with Euromaidan that had failed, Ukraine is firmly sailing towards NATO, so now military invasion was the only option left.
A lot of pro-ukraine pro-nato people say "Right to self determination", so if that were the case, half of ukraine wanted to not be in NATO but be neutral or in the Russian sphere, those people started seperatist movements so they wont be in a country in NATO, potentially fighting Russian brothers in a future invasion. But the Kiev government repressed them first. For self determination the eastern Russians should be allowed to join Russia and leave the nato regime.
Last edited:
