Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[paxmao]

...

You eat too much western propaganda. I suggest reading

http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.html

Of course, I forgot that you are the owner of the truth and the knower of all objective information - for example Chomsky speaking about communism. You have to be kidding.

Anyway, please, give your version, how many people died under Stalin's regime (please include Holomordor, dying of hunger is a violent death IMO)? How many people died as a result of the invasion of France, Poland and the USSR by Nazi Germany? Hint: You will have to make some assumptions, none of that data is really uncontested.

Feel free to compare these, in reasonable terms with US wars or even US induced wars.

Bottom line, authoritarian regimes are much more prone to enter into wars. Most people by default do not want war, if given a voice, they would tend to request peaceful solutions. Tyrants need wars, countries ruled with strong military influence tend to like large armies and these tend to like waging war.

Collosally failed experiment of capitalism killed around 650 million people so far
Communism killed around 100 million

(I don't support either number, but you get those numbers when you apply same methodology of counting bodies
used by authors of "Black book of Communism" to both capitalism and communism)


Your "Bottom line, authoritarian regimes are much more prone to enter into wars." suggest USA is the most authoritarian regime ever

For me is not Capitalism of Communism, is participative regimes vs others. This article compares a lot with India, certainly not with US. So basically you are choosing Chomsky and his "methodology", which is already quite biased, and, you are using a comparison between India and China to come to a conclusion about the US.

 Your own source mentions figures in the range of 100 millions in China. Not only that, there is no accountability for it:

China's totalitarian regime suffered from "misinformation" that undercut a serious response, and there was "little political pressure" from opposition groups and an informed public

And, as I mentioned, another totalitarian regime gets ignored by you, even in your own source:

Although "the body count tips the scales against Communism," Ryan concludes that Nazism nevertheless sinks to the lower depths of immorality.

Branko, you are suffering from confirmation bias. You only accept information that appears to prove your existing beliefs and disregard anything that may disprove it.

Ways you can avoid that:

Seek contrary opinions, even if those opinions may seem uncomfortable to you at first.
Try to understand the rationale behind the contrarian opinions.
Do not rely on just one source of information to form opinions [...]. Look at multiple sources of information.
Knowledge is your biggest friend in overcoming  [...] biases..

https://www.miraeassetmf.co.in/knowledge-center/confirmation-bias

[1714988046]

1714988046

[1714988046]

1714988046

[1714988046]

1714988046

[1714988046]

1714988046

[Branko]

Branko, you are suffering from confirmation bias. You only accept information that appears to prove your existing beliefs and disregard anything that may disprove it.

Ways you can avoid that:

Seek contrary opinions, even if those opinions may seem uncomfortable to you at first.
Try to understand the rationale behind the contrarian opinions.
Do not rely on just one source of information to form opinions [...]. Look at multiple sources of information.
Knowledge is your biggest friend in overcoming  [...] biases..

https://www.miraeassetmf.co.in/knowledge-center/confirmation-bias

Funny, but I feel the same about you...with added bonus of oversimplifying complicated matters when it suits you

[istiak2277]

This article compares a lot with India, certainly not with US. So basically you are choosing Chomsky and his "methodology", which is already quite biased, and, you are using a comparison between India and China to come to a conclusion about the US.

460,000 deaths in Iraq, 241,000 people killed in Afghanistan, 2 million civilians on both sides in the Vietnam war, in the Syrian war, between 499,657 and about 610,000 deaths because of the conflict. I am not asking about which side killed how many, but all of these wars have been ignited by the direct involvement of the USA. They spent billions of dollars to provoke people from this country to take up arms against their government. USA, Russia, and NATO are all of them just one thing and that is the elimination of any power that is opposing their will.

[Tash]

.....
. USA, Russia, and NATO are all of them just one thing and that is the elimination of any power that is opposing their will.

Made possible with tax money, without it no fighter jet can be purchased.
With defence less people you do as pleased, every individual is armed to the teeth is a whole other game

[paxmao]

This article compares a lot with India, certainly not with US. So basically you are choosing Chomsky and his "methodology", which is already quite biased, and, you are using a comparison between India and China to come to a conclusion about the US.

460,000 deaths in Iraq, 241,000 people killed in Afghanistan, 2 million civilians on both sides in the Vietnam war, in the Syrian war, between 499,657 and about 610,000 deaths because of the conflict. I am not asking about which side killed how many, but all of these wars have been ignited by the direct involvement of the USA. They spent billions of dollars to provoke people from this country to take up arms against their government. USA, Russia, and NATO are all of them just one thing and that is the elimination of any power that is opposing their will.

So, Russia has never been in Syria & Afaghanst,... Russia was never involved in the cold war, Russia was never present in Irak and as of today is not in deals with Iran.... I see, it is all the US... You are not even pretending to be objective are you?

[DaRude]

....

Australian PM warns Chinese that new base would be 'red line' for Australia and the US...Western countries are scrambling over a security pact reached between China and Solomon Islands

https://www.foxnews.com/world/australian-pm-says-new-chinese-base-would-be-red-line-for-australia-us

Think we're hitting the peak of the irony here. So how many here are going to start yelling about Solomon Islands' right to join whatever pact they want? Or Chinese cookies are different than Nuland's cookies? Surely China can find a lot more countries around the globe where it can offer some irresistibly profitable trading terms in exchange for some military cooperation. That's the problem with precedents, once you set them then you reap what you sow.

The justification for US screwing Cuba was that Cuba's proximity to US was an existential threat, that got us through cold war. Why, why did they have to challenge that and rock the boat now?

...

As far as Cuba, Castro's regime is not a representation of the people of Cuba, thus does not represent the will of the people living there. I will get flames for this, but that government, IMHO, while de-facto is the Cuban government, cannot be assumed to speak of behalf of the Cuban people and any agreement entered by it is not legit.

Chinese cookies are China's Communist Party's cookies, clearly a regime that cannot in anyway be assumed to represent the majority of the Chinese, even less now that Xi has decided to perpetuate himself in power. Again, I will get flames for this, but their government lacks legitimacy to act on behalf of their people.

If the majority of people of the S.I. and majority of people in China wish to have an agreement and are informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) then they should. There are some doubts about the level of representativeness of the current Prime Minister, who is accused of being in China's pocket.

Now, back to Putin's Russia, currently at war with Ukraine.

Ahh right, the "will of the people", totally objective position for international relations, who wouldn't buy up such logic. Now who do you think should decide which governments "speak on behalf of its people" enough to allow them to join pacts? Care to share your list? Did Bush represent the majority of Americans, majority supported, had an agreement and were informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) of getting into Afghanistan? So were Trump's and now Biden's actions?

I mean if we're going to make up justifications why some countries are not allowed to do things that others can, after the fact, why not just say that counties that are in a pact that begins with NA* or in alliance with such pact, can just do whatever they want, wile everyone else gets sanctioned?

S.I. GDP is just $1.71 billion if China double/triple/10x... countries GDP overnight do you not think that majority wouldn't be dancing on the streets welcoming it's military in their houses?? Such idiotic diplomacy is what got us to this place. Now China is just going to buy up "majority" in every poor country that it wishes. If this is the best argument for foreign policy they can come up with, then it's a total diplomatic failure. No one with IQ higher than a rock will accept such mental gymnastics.

RE GDP, you are right to assume that people would be very happy about a better lifestyle - that is, if that money really ever reaches the average Joe. However, you should as well tell them that they are becoming a military target, should a war ever occur and they will be from then on depending on keeping in the good side of the CCP and thus loose their independence and, to a great degree, their freedom. You, see ... there are no free lunches, particularly, there are no free "swallow nests" when dealing with the CCP (and I am the one being classed as Naïve... oh my).#

By the way, if you have an army of, let's say 1000 soldiers and you have a base in your territory of, let's say 5000 Chinese soldiers, backed up by a massively superior force ... who's country is it?

See, you can argue about how representative democracies are, however, you cannot argue how representative is the system in Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran... because there is no argument.

Your position is that "since representative governments are not perfect then everything is equally bad". Cuba and US have the same level of legitimacy for you. Also, you take the practical approach to world diplomacy, but an ethical approach to judging representation in democracies.

We do not agree, that's all. Certainly, I am not trying to make anything up, I am simply expressing my view. I do not need to "list" ... you need free press, respect for the law and the individual rights and a representative system to elect a government plus independent judiciary... the more the better),

Also, I am not trying to convince you of anything either, nor do I need to justify anyone else's doing and I am certainly not going to try to justify any of the Bushes - Junior is certainly psychopath IMHO.

I think that my way of seeing things is what corresponds to a civilized position in the XXI century. Tzars, despots, kings, feudal lords... that is medieval and humanity should strive to get rid of those systems and those who support and promote them.

I am not a fan of the US nor I defend their way of electing representatives, the massive private donations, the gerrymandering and many other of the idiosyncrasies of the voting system. I could say the same for France, UK (extreme gerrymandering), Spain (you vote for a list, not a person) and even Switzerland which tends to delegate too much into referendums, even for decisions that are too complex, ... you can name any representative system and it has its faults.

Wait, are you being sarcastic here? Talking about no free lunches, after Ukraine accepted Nuland's cookies?   Or do you believe full scope of consequences, how it will be crossing Russia's red line and Ukraine becoming a military target, resulting in loss of life that we're seeing now, was fully disclosed to Ukrainian people as condition of accepting those cookies??

BTW if you're any country in central or south Americas with opposing views from US...who's country are you? Or better yet, how long will you have before you're sanctioned?

My position is that all big boys get their own sandboxes (spheres of influences). After loosing the cold war, Russia's sand box was eroded down to bare bones of Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan (all Russian speaking countries). And more or less everyone was fine with/accepted it. USA/Europe were growing, Russia was more liberal and positioning itself towards Europe. Now what genius decided to ruin that stability by taking Ukraine out of Russia's sandbox with cookies, is beyond me. And after that claiming the following:

One of the most senior US officials in the Pacific has refused to rule out military action against Solomon Islands if it were to allow China to establish a military base there, saying that the security deal between the countries presented “potential regional security implications” for the US and other allies.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-out-military-action-if-china-establishes-base-in-solomon-islands

So Russia in 2014 when it was in shambles and was not a threat to anyone, shouldn't consider loosing a Russian speaking country ally, through which majority of its gas is exported to EU, as having "potential regional security implications". But somehow Solomons Islands have regional security implications for Australia which is 1.000miles away and US which is 10.000miles away? No one can be expected to swallow such BS, and that's how wars start.

Now what I hope is that US haven't gone full retarded, in fact clandestinely filling up the Ukraine with weapons and bringing their army from 0 to 101% in 8yrs [although by leveraging NAZIs] points to US fully expected Russian retaliation. Now this will either bare fruits and will bring a fall of Putin, or will be a total diplomatic fuck up, EU would be freezing and unable to compete on global markets (due to higher costs of raw resources), while Russia is pushed into China's hands and now with set precedent China uses same playbook to buy loyalty of poor countries situated closely to its adversaries. Great high risk low reward move...

I might be taking a practical approach, but your approach that any hypocrisy and blatant double standards could be justified by claiming that it represents the "will of people" just doesn't hold water. If anything it makes pushing back on China impossible when US does exactly the same thing.

Was a fan of Switzerland, bottom line their referendums and neutrality worked out great for them (isolation by alps helped out too). But by bending over on bank reporting to US, and now joining EU sanctions, the saying "neutral as Switzerland" doesn't make much sense anymore. In fact i have no idea what they have left going for them, that Nazi gold they're holding must be running out soon, and not sure how much millennials care about great watches. But in any case, as far as all regimes having issues, sure can't argue there, but then should we start with biggest offenders, those who start the most wars, who objectively caused the most loss of life, who's weapons kill the most people bar none?

There are consequences for setting precedence and breaking international norms. Claiming unique rights because you represents the "will of the people" just makes you a clown in international relations

You consider that all governments are equally legit, so North Korea and Denmark are at the same level to you. I disagree - legitimacy comes from the will of people, period. Anything else is slavery and serfdom.

Ukraine, as far as I know, is not accepting NATO bases nor troops in its territory as of now, although the people could decide so if properly informed of the consequences. They certainly know now the consequences of not being protected. I never said that this lunch is free either, but stands a better chance of increasing living standards while keeping a reasonably representative government.

As said, if the people of the SI, properly informed of the consequences, decide to enter an (extremely asymmetric) treaty with the CCP, they are free to do so. The key is being properly informed and properly represented when making the decision. This is not entering and agreement with China, it is entering an agreement with a ruling elite that has China under their thumb.

On the Ukrainian topic, I partially agree. Would be an Ukraine under Putin's control be stable: most likely yes. Would that be a country that could develop, advance and have a choice about their destiny? Not a chance.

Again, if you take a short term and practical approach, Ukraine joining the EU and looking west makes no sense. If you look into the future and want a higher degree of freedom, social progress and development, it does.

But in any case, as far as all regimes having issues, sure can't argue there, but then should we start with biggest offenders, those who start the most wars, who objectively caused the most loss of life, who's weapons kill the most people bar none?

Oh, sorry, I did not answer this. The regimes that have caused the most violent (no-defensive or otherwise reasonably justified) deaths are Communism under Stalin, Japan imperialism under the military junta, Nazi Germany and, to the scale of it's time, the Roman Empire. I you want to count the number of wars, the Roman Empire probably.

However the answer you are looking for, as profiting from war in the last few decades, US & Russia. Both are major weapons dealers.

What you're proposing is a double standard, with obscured concepts of the "will of the people". It ignores the idea of sovereign states and what that realistically translates to is whoever gets to define who is "legit" gets to rule all others and can get away with anything by simply claiming supremacy over "legitimacy".  Even kids wouldn't fall for such rules in a game. Practically, with such rules it means that no competing democracy can prosper, which implies that other countries (not in a club) must switch to totalitarianism for a chance to compete. Which i think is what we're seeing now, can you think of a democracy that really prospered financially over last 20yrs? Russia was much more liberal before 2014, was not a threat to anyone, and was not aligned with China, now to survive it has little choice but to completely align itself with China. What will come out of it is anyone's guess, but i cannot see how this can be considered anything but a total diplomatic failure.

by the end of 2020, 45% of the population of Ukraine fell into the poor category. The study claimed that this was 6.5 percentage points higher than in 2019. A pre-COVID-19 study forecast the poverty rate in 2020 to be 31.2%. The study stated that the real increase in poverty was 13.8 percentage points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Ukraine

Sure we might value freedom above all, but regardless of what anyone says, nothing is unconditional, and it's directly proportional to your finances. Majority gladly sells their privacy for a bit of convenience, and will sell their freedom for a cookie. That's why bringing freedom to Iraq, Afghanistan etc turned out the way it did, you need to take people out of poverty before they start seeing value of freedom, it cannot be forced on them. Putin will not be around in a long term outlook, and how totalitarian Russia will be largely depends on Wests policy, so far it's not looking too good

[Veleor]

There are no US nor NATO soldiers in Ukraine, there are Putin's Russia soldiers.

It's a false statement that US soldiers are not involved in this conflict:
Americans Are “In Charge” of the War Says French Journalist Who Returned From Ukraine
US Army veteran, 47, who left Connecticut to join Ukraine's battle against Russia
MSNBC analyst Malcolm Nance joins fight in Ukraine: ‘I am done talking’

The first echolocation images of the ex-flagship of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation appeared.

It looks like these are not real echolocation images, but a photo montage.
Apparently, the image of the cruiser from Wikipedia was used, rotated and passed through a special filter.
The name of the user who noted this is @OAlexanderDK

Russia has put forward their conditions about how Ukraine would need to act to avoid being invaded. That, in my hood's called a threat, not a negotiation. Ukraine has decided not to be bullied.

In fact, Ukraine and Russia tried to negotiate among themselves. Have you read the text of the Minsk agreements?

On top of that, the Donbas conflict could not exist without the support from Putin's Russia. War is expensive - who is funding the separatists? We all know who.

How much money Russia sent to the military needs of the separatists in the Donbas, and what sources do you refer to?
For example, judging by information from the official website of the US Congress, America has been sponsoring the military economy of Ukraine for several years in the amount of more than $4 billion.

Code:

Even prior to the start of the war, Ukraine was a leading
recipient of U.S. military aid in Europe and Eurasia.
From 2014, when Russia first invaded Ukraine,
through March 2022, the United States has committed
more than $4 billion in State Department- and DOD-funded
security assistance "to help Ukraine preserve its territorial integrity, secure its
borders, and improve interoperability with NATO".

And this ''civilian war'' was started by Russia 8 years ago.

Are you sure you know the origins of the conflict?
In late 2013, Ukrainian President Yanukovych suspended negotiations with the EU in favor of strengthening relations with Russia.
After that, mass protests began in Kyiv.
In February 2014, Yanukovych was ousted from the presidency.
In April 2014, the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk declared their independence.
In response, Acting President in Ukraine Aleksandr Turchynov announced the start of an "anti-terrorist operation" in eastern Ukraine.
You can read a brief background of the conflict, at least in the Britannica.

[af_newbie]

...

And this ''civilian war'' was started by Russia 8 years ago.

Are you sure you know the origins of the conflict?
In late 2013, Ukrainian President Yanukovych suspended negotiations with the EU in favor of strengthening relations with Russia.
After that, mass protests began in Kyiv.
In February 2014, Yanukovych was ousted from the presidency.
In April 2014, the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk declared their independence.
In response, Acting President in Ukraine Aleksandr Turchynov announced the start of an "anti-terrorist operation" in eastern Ukraine.
You can read a brief background of the conflict, at least in the Britannica.

And you forgot to mention that Russia moved their army/FSB into Luhansk and Donetsk in early 2014 and in February/March 2014 they annexed Crimea.

Strelkov was not a resident of Crimea/Luhansk/Donetsk so stop spreading Kremlin's propaganda. Who attacked the SSU offices in Sloviansk to start this conflict? Santa Claus? Green men? Residents of Ukraine my ass.

Last time I checked members of the Russian FSB are not residents of Ukraine.

[suchmoon]

There are no US nor NATO soldiers in Ukraine, there are Putin's Russia soldiers.

It's a false statement that US soldiers are not involved in this conflict:
[...]
US Army veteran
[...]
MSNBC analyst

Come on, really? I think it was quite obvious that paxmao meant soldiers in their capacity as US/NATO military, not volunteers who served in US forces in the past.

[paxmao]

There are no US nor NATO soldiers in Ukraine, there are Putin's Russia soldiers.

...
It's a false statement that US soldiers are not involved in this conflict:
...

Russia has put forward their conditions about how Ukraine would need to act to avoid being invaded. That, in my hood's called a threat, not a negotiation. Ukraine has decided not to be bullied.

In fact, Ukraine and Russia tried to negotiate among themselves. Have you read the text of the Minsk agreements?

On top of that, the Donbas conflict could not exist without the support from Putin's Russia. War is expensive - who is funding the separatists? We all know who.

How much money Russia sent to the military needs of the separatists in the Donbas, and what sources do you refer to?
For example, judging by information from the official website of the US Congress, America has been sponsoring the military economy of Ukraine for several years in the amount of more than $4 billion.

Code:

Even prior to the start of the war, Ukraine was a leading
recipient of U.S. military aid in Europe and Eurasia.
From 2014, when Russia first invaded Ukraine,
through March 2022, the United States has committed
more than $4 billion in State Department- and DOD-funded
security assistance "to help Ukraine preserve its territorial integrity, secure its
borders, and improve interoperability with NATO".

And this ''civilian war'' was started by Russia 8 years ago.

Are you sure you know the origins of the conflict?
In late 2013, Ukrainian President Yanukovych suspended negotiations with the EU in favor of strengthening relations with Russia.
After that, mass protests began in Kyiv.
In February 2014, Yanukovych was ousted from the presidency.
In April 2014, the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk declared their independence.
In response, Acting President in Ukraine Aleksandr Turchynov announced the start of an "anti-terrorist operation" in eastern Ukraine.
You can read a brief background of the conflict, at least in the Britannica.

NATO or US soldiers are not involved as such (thanks to suchmoon for stating the obvious), some of them have left their countries to fight in Ukraine. In fact, some of them are now deserters in their own countries because they left their countries' armies without permission.

The Minsk agreements are effectively the type of bulling I refer to, pretty much the equivalent to signing a contract with a gun to your head. Including the second set that was signed of after Putin annexed Crimea.

No country likes to be forced into a unfavourable agreement - you could argue that since Germany had signed the peace agreements after WW I, they could not break them and would need to still be paying reparations of war. Those agreements are generally admitted as being one of the reasons for WW II and, in my view, the Minks Agreements are the basis for the current war.

Elaborating on that, you mention that the US has been sending funds to Ukraine.  The US is of course interested in having closer links to Ukraine, but it is only thanks to Putin's policies that Ukraine has been pushed towards the west - and you cannot honestly blame them, there seems to be opportunity and development in that alliance, but certainly Ukraine has tasted Putin's cookies and they find them sour.

Putin is a Russian supremacist and, in general, Russia has historically seen Ukraine as the land they get the food from and burn and use so that the enemies supply lines are no longer sustainable. Can you blame Ukraine for wanting to try something different?

Re Donetsk and Luhansk, it is impossible to hold a serious referendum under such as strong funding and interference from Russia - with the internationally recognised guarantees, that could (at least IMHO) set a path for independence if that is the will of the people.

RE how much money has sent Russia to the separatist - I would like to return the question: how have the separatist fund their armed militias? War is expensive and the region is poor even for eastern standards, so ... who is to gain that would provide funds?

Anyway, I will give you some links, although I expect the usual "those sources are wrong" etc...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_separatist_forces_in_Donbas

It is widely believed that the separatists are supported by the Russian Armed Forces.[13] Ukraine, the United States, and some analysts consider 1st and 2nd Army Corps to be Russian formations under the command of the 8th Combined Arms Army,[14][15][16][17] which was formed in 2017 in Novocherkassk, Rostov oblast. Although the Russian government often denies direct involvement, saying their soldiers were there voluntarily and not under orders, some of them have been captured with documents that said otherwise.

You can go to the Wikipedia references... plenty of evidence.

RE the picture of the sunken Moskva, adds nothing - that ship has sailed... I mean it did sail for the last time... regardless of the creativity.


RE latest developments, UK and US are now speaking of supporting Ukraine to the point that Putin is no longer able to repeat this aggression in the future. That is certainly a sign of them being extremely angry. Empires rarely fall gently.

[coolcoinz]

5785th near Voronezh:

[...] Voronezh Governor Alexander Gusev [...] wrote in the telegram channel that in his area, the air defense system "detected and successfully destroyed a small-sized reconnaissance UAV"

They probably launched a missile worth over a million rubles to shoot down a reconnaissance drone, meaning a store bought DJI Mavic or something similar, that you can buy for 10% of the cost of that missile, but it has to be listed as a success. Russian air defense allows Ukrainian attack helicopters to fly in and destroy an oil depot in Belogorod, but it intercepts a small unarmed drone. Well done comrades! 

[paxmao]

...

 can you think of a democracy that really prospered financially over last 20yrs? Russia was much more liberal before 2014, was not a threat to anyone, and was not aligned

 ...

Apologies for answering only this part of your post, but the rest is basically a re-statement of you views, so I would have to re-state mine and so on...

Most seasoned democratic countries have experienced GDP growth, that you can take as a proxy of "financial prosperity" (what is that exactly for you? GPD, GPD per capita, disposable income, health, life expectancy?)

https://news.mit.edu/2019/study-democracy-fosters-economic-growth-acemoglu-0307

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_and_economic_growth

Democratization of a country from a non-democratic regime is usually preceded by a fall in GDP, and a volatile but expected growth in the long run. On the other hand, authoritarian regimes experience significant growth at the beginning and decline in the long run.[4] The cause of such behavior is that non-democratic regimes, mainly authoritarian ones, are more effective at implementing decisive policies and choices as well as solving ethnic and sub-national conflicts, but are unsustainable in the long run as there is more incentive to extract money from society which in turn leads to less prosperity.

[LTU_btc]

It's a false statement that US soldiers are not involved in this conflict:

It's not secret that there is some US troops fighting in Ukraine. Same like troops from Poland, Georgia, Canada and even Russia and Belarus. But they're not part of regular army, it's veterans, volunteers or so called foreign legions

Are you sure you know the origins of the conflict?
In late 2013, Ukrainian President Yanukovych suspended negotiations with the EU in favor of strengthening relations with Russia.
After that, mass protests began in Kyiv.
In February 2014, Yanukovych was ousted from the presidency.
In April 2014, the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk declared their independence.
In response, Acting President in Ukraine Aleksandr Turchynov announced the start of an "anti-terrorist operation" in eastern Ukraine.
You can read a brief background of the conflict, at least in the Britannica.

I remember origins of conflict very well. Independence of Donbass and Luhansk, recognized by no one, backed just by Russia with their army in region. It's same like referendum in Crimea.

[Branko]

NATO or US soldiers are not involved as such (thanks to suchmoon for stating the obvious), some of them have left their countries to fight in Ukraine. In fact, some of them are now deserters in their own countries because they left their countries' armies without permission.

That's usual way how you conduct covert operations...government officially can't be blamed for involvement, but of course
soldiers, UK government, and even Russia, all know UK government sent them. Just to be honest here, everyone do it the
same way, it fools only domestic populations (and not even all of them) or people who want to be fooled

[Branko]

I remember origins of conflict very well. Independence of Donbass and Luhansk, recognized by no one, backed just by Russia with their army in region. It's same like referendum in Crimea.

Or Kosovo.

[paxmao]

NATO or US soldiers are not involved as such (thanks to suchmoon for stating the obvious), some of them have left their countries to fight in Ukraine. In fact, some of them are now deserters in their own countries because they left their countries' armies without permission.

That's usual way how you conduct covert operations...government officially can't be blamed for involvement, but of course
soldiers, UK government, and even Russia, all know UK government sent them. Just to be honest here, everyone do it the
same way, it fools only domestic populations (and not even all of them) or people who want to be fooled

Nah, this is just a vague attempt of making things look something they are not.

The key point is that they do not carry heavy weaponry or are supported by the NATO structure and logistics. Do a few volunteers with light weapons make a real difference? Nah... Even in the case they were actually agents or some short of advisor, is mostly a moral support. A different thing would be to send a contingent of NATO troops with full fighting capabilities and arms (e.g. fighter pilots, artillery brigades,...) - that would be an involvement.

Speaking of which: It is a different thing to basically have a branch of Putin's army under a false flag and arguing that "the residents voted XYZ". It took years to hear from Putin's own voice that there were people in the area "dealing with military matters".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_separatist_forces_in_Donbas

It is widely believed that the separatists are supported by the Russian Armed Forces.[13] Ukraine, the United States, and some analysts consider 1st and 2nd Army Corps to be Russian formations under the command of the 8th Combined Arms Army,[14][15][16][17] which was formed in 2017 in Novocherkassk, Rostov oblast. Although the Russian government often denies direct involvement, saying their soldiers were there voluntarily and not under orders, some of them have been captured with documents that said otherwise.

This is in 2017: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12054164/Vladimir-Putins-annual-press-conference-2015-live.html

Vladimir Putin admits: Russian troops 'were in Ukraine'

- The Telegraph

This is Putin, 2016:

When we were forced, I want to stress, forced to defend the Russian-speaking population in the Donbass, ...

Obviously, that is recognising intervention, in 2016, years ago.

Now, Putin has never recognised there is actually a full corps dependant on the Russian Army, and that is never going to happen. There are several more references and news of Tanks and heavy artillery passing from Russia to the Donbas areas. Of course, you will not find a selfie of a Russian guy or anything like that saying "I am invading Ukraine mom", because Putin has denied that he is effectively waging war, but you can as yourself the question "who is to profit" and

Where did the separatists get the funding for weapons on a region that is particularly poor, has no significant resources to sell and no significant economy to pay for them? There is only one answer.

[TwitchySeal]

I remember origins of conflict very well. Independence of Donbass and Luhansk, recognized by no one, backed just by Russia with their army in region. It's same like referendum in Crimea.

Or Kosovo.

Except Kosovo is recognized by most countries.  So no.

What Milosevic did to the people of Kosovo is similiar to what Putin is doing to Ukraine though.  Hopefully Putin suffers the same fate as Milosevic

[Branko]

OF course both USA and Russia will deny it but Ukraine is their playground for at least 20 years.
USA would do better for Ukraine by investing all those billions into Ukraine economy instead in arms,
maybe their GDP per capita would not be 1/3 of Russian

Except Kosovo is recognized by most countries.  So no.

If you meant "most USA colonies" then yes

[crypto_trader#43xzEXrP]

Mariupol, Bucha, etc., here: https://2channel.moe/b/res/196943.html
Proof of russian invasion here: https://2channel.moe/b/res/196943.html#197608

[suchmoon]

Nazi bridge trying to stop the glorious Russian army... in Voronezh:

Traffic jam on Prospekt Patriotov in Voronezh due to military equipment stuck under the bridge