It’s Official: US Abandoning Ukraine | Scheerpost

WestCanMan · February 5

Just now, Black Dog said:

Defending their country by invading another one. Up is down, black is white.

It's a complex world, puppy. Just sit this one out.

godzilla · February 5

15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What makes you think that Zelenski is any better? Why does he have a Nazi unit that commits war crimes in his army?

Why are elected members of the opposition not allowed to participate in their "democracy"?

Why did Zelensky seize 100% control of all the media outlets in the country?

I don't "love" Putin any more than I "love" people who joined the Iranian army to protect Iran. I just respect their right to defend their countries.

Zelenski wants to join NATO. Ukraine has been moving to satisfy NATO criteria since 1991.

read.

Ukraine–NATO relations

let me ask you this... were any far right individuals in the Ukraine army of sufficient threat to Russia that it justified a full scale invasion and the mass deaths experienced so far?

Edited February 5 by godzilla

WestCanMan · February 5

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

why did he want Ukraine to join NATO?

Just in direct opposition to Russia, and to expand NATO's influence.

Quote

From what I have read over the years.. Russia was not exactly a friendly neighbor.

Russia was not a friendly neighbour, no.

Then again, Russia shares borders with over a dozen countries, plus one massive & hostile military alliance.

Their geopolitical reality is the exact opposite of America's: the US only shares a couple of borders, and both of those are with countries that have much smaller militaries. They are isolated from all of their adversaries by a major ocean.

godzilla · February 5

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Just in direct opposition to Russia, and to expand NATO's influence.

Russia was not a friendly neighbour, no.

Then again, Russia shares borders with over a dozen countries, plus one massive & hostile military alliance.

Their geopolitical reality is the exact opposite of America's: the US only shares a couple of borders, and both of those are with countries that have much smaller militaries. They are isolated from all of their adversaries by a major ocean.

so what?

you're a Putin apologist.

i don't agree that NATO is hostile... but let's say it is... so what?

where would rather live your life? in Russia? or in a NATO country? you say you are "for the people"?

impartialobserver · February 5

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Just in direct opposition to Russia, and to expand NATO's influence.

Russia was not a friendly neighbour, no.

Then again, Russia shares borders with over a dozen countries, plus one massive & hostile military alliance.

Their geopolitical reality is the exact opposite of America's: the US only shares a couple of borders, and both of those are with countries that have much smaller militaries. They are isolated from all of their adversaries by a major ocean.

My fuzzy understanding of this conflict is that it is rooted to the Donbas region (East Ukraine) that is supposedly ethnically Russian. They were trying to become independent or merge with Russia. Ukraine and Zelensky did not exactly like this move.

One thing that eludes me is why Ukraine has been relatively poor for as long as has been recorded. No, they are sub-saharan africa poor but relative to the US, Canada, and Western Europe.. they are pretty poor. Any ideas as to why?

godzilla · February 5

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

My fuzzy understanding of this conflict is that it is rooted to the Donbas region (East Ukraine) that is supposedly ethnically Russian. They were trying to become independent or merge with Russia. Ukraine and Zelensky did not exactly like this move.

One thing that eludes me is why Ukraine has been relatively poor for as long as has been recorded. No, they are sub-saharan africa poor but relative to the US, Canada, and Western Europe.. they are pretty poor. Any ideas as to why?

Russia and all of the eastern bloc are poor. still are. because of the decades of state control. communism.

Russia is the second largest producer of oil and has the largest access to natural resources in the world... and an economy the size of Spain.

since the fall of communism its been autocracy. essentially the same thing. all wealth goes into a few hands. Russian oligarchs have some of the biggest yachts in the world. the majority of Russians do not have indoor plumbing.

Edited February 5 by godzilla

WestCanMan · February 5

Just now, godzilla said:

Zelenski wants to join NATO. Ukraine has been moving to satisfy NATO criteria since 1991.

read.

And that's very unneighbourly from a Russian POV.

If Canada was working on joining RICS or the Warsaw Pact, how well would that go over with Hillary Clinton? She'd f'ing nuke us before she let us join those guys.

Do you understand that?

godzilla · February 5

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

And that's very unneighbourly from a Russian POV.

If Canada was working on joining RICS or the Warsaw Pact, how well would that go over with Hillary Clinton? She'd f'ing nuke us before she let us join those guys.

Do you understand that?

totally.

you know what is also very unneighbourly from a Russian POV? DEMOCRACY!

if it wasn't important to the Ukrainian people... then they wouldn't be out there taking bullets. but they are. they want that freedom to choose their own future. they are tired of being under the foot of tyranny.

WestCanMan · February 5

39 minutes ago, godzilla said:

i don't agree that NATO is hostile... but let's say it is... so what?

I've said this a number of time before and I'll say it again...

As an ADULT, I signed up to defend my country, and served 3 years.

In basic we were put on an NBCD course (Nuke, Bio, Chem defence training). They told us that we'd do it every 1.5 years for as long as we were in the military, and that kids in Germany already have more NBCD training by the end of grade 3 than we would have if we stayed in until we retired.

So what kind of life is that for those kids, godzilla? Should little kids have to grow up like that?

Answer that question before I even proceed one more sentence with you, facker. I'm not going to try to have a conversation with someone who can't even acknowledge simple humanity.

I personally joined the military to protect my own country, not to be a f'ing a-hole and make other people's kids live in constant fear. As a NATO member, what I can tell you that I would never have any part in inflicting this BS on Russians, period. End of story, f-off Joe Biden, see y'all later. If you start a war with all of your stupid BS, don't ask me to come back.

Quote

where would rather live your life? in Russia? or in a NATO country? you say you are "for the people"?

I am no more bothered by Putin than by Biden or Trudeau. Trump is edging his way onto the list as well.

WestCanMan · February 6

Just now, godzilla said:

totally.

you know what is also very unneighbourly from a Russian POV? DEMOCRACY!

if it wasn't important to the Ukrainian people... then they wouldn't be out there taking bullets. but they are. they want that freedom to choose their own future. they are tired of being under the foot of tyranny.

Where was democracy when the sniffles came?

We forced our youths to take a BS snake oil jab that killed and grievously wounded thousands of them. We ended funerals and weddings. We cancelled visits to care homes.

Did Russia do that?

Our "democracy" is a joke. Canadians are a pathetic f'ing joke.

impartialobserver · February 6

anyone can answer... what forced Putin and Russia to invade Ukraine? I know that Ukraine was not behaving when it came to the Donbas region but Donbas was within Ukraine's borders.

godzilla · February 6

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I've said this a number of time before and I'll say it again...

As an ADULT, I signed up to defend my country, and served 3 years.

In basic we were put on an NBCD course (Nuke, Bio, Chem defence training). They told us that we'd do it every 1.5 years for as long as we were in the military, and that kids in Germany already have more NBCD training by the end of grade 3 than we would have if we stayed in until we retired.

So what kind of life is that for those kids, godzilla? Should little kids have to grow up like that?

Answer that question before I even proceed one more sentence with you, facker. I'm not going to try to have a conversation with someone who can't even acknowledge simple humanity.

I personally joined the military to protect my own country, not to be a f'ing a-hole and make other people's kids live in constant fear. As a NATO member, what I can tell you that I would never have any part in inflicting this BS on Russians, period. End of story, f-off Joe Biden, see y'all later. If you start a war with all of your stupid BS, don't ask me to come back.

I am no more bothered by Putin than by Biden or Trudeau. Trump is edging his way onto the list as well.

Ukraine should just give up then? is that it? life under Putin... not so bad?

WestCanMan · February 6

49 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

My fuzzy understanding of this conflict is that it is rooted to the Donbas region (East Ukraine) that is supposedly ethnically Russian. They were trying to become independent or merge with Russia. Ukraine and Zelensky did not exactly like this move.

That's all anyone has here is a fuzzy understanding, myself included.

We can't even get the truth about what happened right inside of Congress or the House of Commons, let alone what happened in the countryside and small villages of southeastern Ukraine during a highly political war.

Quote

One thing that eludes me is why Ukraine has been relatively poor for as long as has been recorded. No, they are sub-saharan africa poor but relative to the US, Canada, and Western Europe.. they are pretty poor. Any ideas as to why?

IMO the amount of corruption in a country is the main factor determining wealth distribution.

In a free-market, capitalist society the money flows among all the classes, and opportunities abound, but when you add in a bit of socialism (it's always fake), communism, oligarchic rule, etc, the top 2% end up with 95% of the money.

Hodad · February 6

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Defending their country by invading another one. Up is down, black is white.

My neighbor installed a new security system at his house, so I had no choice but to defend myself by ransacking the place.

Black Dog · February 6

34 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Where was democracy when the sniffles came?

We forced our youths to take a BS snake oil jab that killed and grievously wounded thousands of them. We ended funerals and weddings. We cancelled visits to care homes.

Did Russia do that?

Our "democracy" is a joke. Canadians are a pathetic f'ing joke.

Move to Russia then you piece of shit.

godzilla · February 6

the history and the desire of the Ukrainian people is very straight forward.

after the fall of the Soviet Union, numerous countries were desperate to become independent. Ukraine included.

when Putin came to power, he wanted them back. he began by influencing elections and installing his own puppets governments.

the EU and NATO are two organizations these countries attempted to align with to avoid Russian dominance.

the Ukrainian Revolution in 2014 was a specific thrust by the people of Ukraine to break away from Russian influence. Putin invaded Crimea.

not sure what some people don't get. the people of Ukraine want the freedom to make their own decisions. they have decided that they no longer want to be ruled by Russian autocracy.

is NATO or the EU perfect? f8ck no! the Ukrainian people have decided what they feel is the better of many evils.

God help them.

Edited February 6 by godzilla

godzilla · February 6

32 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

In a free-market, capitalist society the money flows among all the classes, and opportunities abound, but when you add in a bit of socialism (it's always fake), communism, oligarchic rule, etc, the top 2% end up with 95% of the money.

you realize that all western governments are mixed economies right? that they are cakes of socialism covered in sweet free market capitalism for wealth generation?

whats fake about that?

its a pet peeve of mine that "socialism" is some ideological dog whistle word. "communism", "oligarchs" etc... sure. but "socialism"? its a necessary part of the power of western liberal democracies.

Edited February 6 by godzilla

Scott75 · February 6

17 hours ago, robosmith said:

23 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I've seen no reason to disbelieve Putin's professed concern for the people of Donbass. That being said, I will grant you that had the plight of the Donbass people been his only concern, he may have refrained from starting his military operation in Ukraine. However, he made it clear that this wasn't the case. In the very first sentence of the speech he gave on the day he launched his military operation in Ukraine, he mentioned another reason as well, the security of Russia. Quoting:

**

I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia.

**

He elaborates on this point in the following paragraphs:

**

I will begin with what I said in my address on February 21, 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands?

The answer is simple. Everything is clear and obvious. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That experience should serve as a good lesson for us, because it has shown us that the paralysis of power and will is the first step towards complete degradation and oblivion. We lost confidence for only one moment, but it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the world.

As a result, the old treaties and agreements are no longer effective. Entreaties and requests do not help. Anything that does not suit the dominant state, the powers that be, is denounced as archaic, obsolete and useless. At the same time, everything it regards as useful is presented as the ultimate truth and forced on others regardless of the cost, abusively and by any means available. Those who refuse to comply are subjected to strong-arm tactics.

What I am saying now does not concern only Russia, and Russia is not the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a redivision of the world, and the norms of international law that developed by that time – and the most important of them, the fundamental norms that were adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome – came in the way of those who declared themselves the winners of the Cold War.

Of course, practice, international relations and the rules regulating them had to take into account the changes that took place in the world and in the balance of forces. However, this should have been done professionally, smoothly, patiently, and with due regard and respect for the interests of all states and one’s own responsibility. Instead, we saw a state of euphoria created by the feeling of absolute superiority, a kind of modern absolutism, coupled with the low cultural standards and arrogance of those who formulated and pushed through decisions that suited only themselves. The situation took a different turn.

**

He then goes on to list several wars that the U.S. and its NATO allies have been involved in recently, starting with NATO's war against Serbia and continuing with the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria, making a persuasive case that Russia and others have gotten tired of the West's notion that it can do as it pleases wherever it pleases. Putin made it clear in his speech that when it came to Ukraine, western elites had gone too far:

**

Even now, with NATO’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year. Moreover, these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. In other words, they have been toughening their position. We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible thing to do for us.

Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us. Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy. The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape. Fully controlled from the outside, it is doing everything to attract NATO armed forces and obtain cutting-edge weapons.

For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.

**

Sorry, but the world's richest KLEPTOCRAT (thief) has NO CREDIBILITY with me.

And he is the m0r0n who waged war on Ukraine to "prevent NATO on his doorstep" and that ONLY increased the number of NATO members on his doorstep.

I'm curious as to why you think Putin is the richest Kleptocrat. Do you have a list of the top 10 or something? I fully admit I've only seen one documentary that painted Putin in a bad light and I can't remember the name of it anymore. It certainly suggested that he was involved in beating up one of his political opponents to the point that he apparently became crippled. That being said, suggesting that something is likely is not the same thing as hard evidence. More importantly to this thread is what Putin's motivations were in starting his military operation in Ukraine. For that, I think that former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud has a good article on the subject that concords well with what Putin himself said on the day he started his military operation:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

As to there now being more NATO countries at or near Russia's border now then before Russia's military operation in Ukraine, this is true, but you must admit that Ukraine isn't one of them. Had Russia sat quietly while Ukraine killed ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine, NATO might have thought that Russia would tolerate inviting Ukraine into NATO. I think Russia has made it eminently clear at this point that it won't tolerate this.

Scott75 · February 6

13 hours ago, Five of swords said:

On 1/27/2025 at 4:59 AM, Scott75 said:

Interesting article from Kit Klarenberg published today on Scheerpost. Quoting the introduction and conclusion of the article:

**

On January 19th, TIME magazine published an astonishing article, amply confirming what dissident, anti-war academics, activists, journalists and researchers have argued for a decade. The US always intended to abandon Ukraine after setting up the country for proxy war with Russia, and never had any desire or intention to assist Kiev in defeating Moscow in the conflict, let alone achieving its maximalist aims of regaining Crimea and restoring the country’s 1991 borders. To have a major mainstream outlet finally corroborate this indubitable reality is a seismic development.

The TIME article’s brief first paragraph alone is rife with explosive revelations. It notes when the proxy war erupted in February 2022, then-President Joe Biden “set three objectives for the US response” – and “Ukraine’s victory was never among them.” Moreover, the phrase oft-repeated by White House apparatchiks, that Washington would support Kiev “for as long as it takes”, was never meant to be taken literally. Instead, it was just “intentionally vague” newspeak, with no implied timeframe or even desired outcome in mind.

Eric Green, a member of Biden’s National Security Council who oversaw Russia policy, states the US “deliberately…made no promise” to President Volodymyr Zelensky to “recover all of the land Russia had occupied” since the conflict’s inception, “and certainly not” Crimea or the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. He said the White House believed “doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West.” It was well-understood such efforts were “not going to be a success story ultimately” for Kiev, if tried.

According to TIME, the Biden administration’s three key objectives in Ukraine were all “achieved”. Nonetheless, “success” on these fronts “provides little satisfaction” to some of the former President’s “closest allies and advisers.” Green was quoted as saying Washington’s purported victory in Ukraine was “unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” due to Kiev’s “suffering”, and “so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.”

[snip]

Markedly, Zelensky was not present at Trump’s inauguration. In a January 6th interview with Newsweek, the Ukrainian President – typically never one to shy away from international jollies – said he “would like to [attend], of course”, but had received no invitation. In a rambling response, he said he was “not sure it’s proper to come,” particularly “during the war.” Sources close to Trump have claimed that on the contrary, Zelensky repeatedly asked to attend, but was rebuffed.

For Berlin, Kiev, London, Paris, and NATO more widely, the writing couldn’t be on the wall any more plainly. Whatever reveries they may have of maintaining the proxy war any longer – Britain recently signed a 100-year-long partnership with Ukraine, under which London will “explore” building military bases on Kiev’s soil – they all ultimately remain imperial vassals, wholly dependent on US financial and military support to exist. Save for a major false flag incident, Trump’s message can only be received among the military alliance.

**

Full article:

https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/27/its-official-us-abandoning-ukraine/

This is because the usa got what it wanted. Assad out of power. Ukraine is too far away from Israel for the usa to care about for its own sake.

The U.S. elites want a lot of things- getting Assad out of power is just one of them. That being said, it is my hope that they realize that it's highly unlikely that Ukraine will win in its war with Russia and that the higher the U.S. escalates things, the more likely it is that they'll have much bigger concerns then who wins in the Ukraine war.

Scott75 · February 6

11 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

anyone can answer... what forced Putin and Russia to invade Ukraine? I know that Ukraine was not behaving when it came to the Donbas region but Donbas was within Ukraine's borders.

I think the question you ask makes the assumption that someone forced Putin and Russia to act the way they did. I think that's like assuming that someone forced the U.S. to react so strongly against Cuba having Russian nukes. I think a much better question would be something like:

What got Putin to decide to start his military operation in Ukraine?

From what I've seen, there were 2 major reasons:

1- Ukraine's wish to join NATO and the United States' wish to make it so. For over a decade, Russia has made it adamantly clear that this was a red line for them. The United States' in its arrogance didn't care. Professor John Mearsheimer said around a decade ago that this dismissal of Russia's concern here would get Ukraine wrecked and his prediction has clearly come to pass.

2- The Ukrainian civil war between western Ukraine and eastern Ukraine's Donbass region, specifically the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which had declared themselves to be republics prior to Russia's military operation in Ukraine. The situation there was already pretty bad, but what most don't know is that around a week before Russia's military operation in Ukraine, western Ukraine had once again attacked these regions/republics (depending on what side you're on). It seems pretty clear to me that it was this attack that prompted Putin to act when he did. I'll let former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud elaborate on those final days before Russia's military operation began:

**

On February 17 [2022], President Joe Biden announces that Russia will attack Ukraine in the coming days. How does he know? Mystery… But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the populations of Donbass has increased dramatically, as shown by the daily reports of OSCE observers. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacts and intervenes. We will say later that this is Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries purposely glossed over the massacre of the people of Donbass, knowing that it would provoke Russian intervention.

[snip]

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.

If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.

That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.

The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge.

**

Full article:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

Edited February 6 by Scott75

Scott75 · February 6

11 hours ago, godzilla said:

the history and the desire of the Ukrainian people is very straight forward.

after the fall of the Soviet Union, numerous countries were desperate to become independent. Ukraine included.

I'd say it's more that every part of the Soviet Union wanted the entity dissolved, -including- Russia. From what I've read, it seems the part of the Soviet Union that -least- wanted to have the entity dissolved was Crimea. I believe only 54% of Crimeans voted to leave the Soviet Union, and only after being assured that they would be able to be fairly independent. They certainly wanted to keep close ties to Russia, and this was made clear with moves that were made soon after Ukraine left the Soviet Union:

**
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukrainian independence the majority ethnic Russian Crimean peninsula was reorganized as the Republic of Crimea,^[56]^[57] after a 1991 referendum with the Crimean authorities pushing for more independence from Ukraine and closer links with Russia.

In 1992 the Supreme Council of Crimea affirmed the peninsula's "sovereignty" as a part of Ukraine.^[58]^[59]^[57] The Crimean parliament proclaimed self-government on 5 May 1992^[60]^[61] and passed the first Crimean constitution together with a declaration of conditional independence^[62] on the same day.^[63] There was stiff resistance from Ukraine and a day later, on 6 May, the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.^[63] A referendum to confirm the decision was not held until 1994 due to the opposition from the Kyiv government.

The Crimean parliament voted to bring in a President in 1993, which the Kyiv government denounced as unconstitutional.^[64]^: 198 In 1994 Crimea elected the pro-Russian and anti-establishment Yuriy Meshkov. The pro-Russian parties also won the parliamentary election that year.^[65] However the president quickly alienated the parliament by asserting strong presidential powers.^[66]

In 1995 the Ukrainian Parliament intervened in the political crisis in Crimea, scrapping the Crimean Constitution, removing the president and scrapping the office of President.^[67] Almost 4,000 Ukrainian soldiers and police officers were sent to Crimea.^[68] Meshkov was removed from power^[69] after Ukrainian special forces had entered his residence, disarmed his bodyguards and put him on a plane to Moscow.^[70] Meshkov was replaced by Kyiv-appointed Anatoliy Franchuk, with the intent to rein in Crimean aspirations of autonomy.^[57]^[64] The Verkhovna Rada, the parliament of Crimea, voted to grant Crimea "extensive home rule" during the dispute.^[71]^[62]^[70]

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea#cite_note-66

11 hours ago, godzilla said:

when Putin came to power, he wanted them back.

According to who?

11 hours ago, godzilla said:

[Putin] began by influencing elections and installing his own puppets governments.

Can you give examples where you believe this happened? I certainly have a good example where a -western- power was integral in both removing a government they didn't like and installing a new one they did. More on that here:

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

Edited February 6 by Scott75

Nationalist · February 6

14 hours ago, godzilla said:

so what?

you're a Putin apologist.

i don't agree that NATO is hostile... but let's say it is... so what?

where would rather live your life? in Russia? or in a NATO country? you say you are "for the people"?

Silly people trying to superimpose their society and culture on others.

robosmith · February 6

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I'm curious as to why you think Putin is the richest Kleptocrat. Do you have a list of the top 10 or something?

Hmm... I thought it was common knowledge. Putin was poor when he was young and just a common KGB officer.

The Putin Kleptocracy

November 30, 2023

Quote

The world is in turmoil, and two vicious wars rage, because Vladimir Putin and his accomplices stole, then harnessed, the wealth of Russia which encompasses 11.5 per cent of the global landmass with enormous natural resources. He has created the world’s largest, militarized kleptocracy and aims to dominate the world. Putin controls minerals, metals, and oil resources worth $75 trillion, more than the US and Saudi Arabia combined. He is also the world’s only trillionaire (equivalent to 1,000 billionaires) — but his name does not appear on the Forbes’ billionaire list nor does it show up on any bank accounts, share certificates, or property deeds. The 105 Russian billionaires listed by Forbes in 2023 are Putin’s proxies and partners, and most of their assets or companies are controlled and owned by Putin. As former Russian chess champion and exiled politician Garry Kasparov said: “[Putin] controls more money, directly or indirectly, than any other individual in the history of the human race". And money determines who rules the world.