Canada-Ukraine support!
- Thread starter RussianGuy
- Start date
John McCain: Russia is a 'gas station masquerading as a country.'
Most Canadians are fine with aid going to Ukraine to help defeat the Russian monsters.
It's a small part of our GDP, and hopefully assistance from the west will lead to the collapse of Russia and perhaps a painful death for Putin.
Most Canadians are fine with aid going to Ukraine to help defeat the Russian monsters.
It's a small part of our GDP, and hopefully assistance from the west will lead to the collapse of Russia and perhaps a painful death for Putin.
"Special Military Operation"
Its a Muderous Invasion of a peacful country
I have worked in Russia Its the most corrupt FuXed up place on the planet run by thugs, criminals and murderers...
Sooner Putin Dies the better
Russia will pay for this for a long long time.
If Canada the U.N. and other countries allow this to happen it will be the end of peace for many underdeveloped parts of the world
JMH RANT
Its a Muderous Invasion of a peacful country
I have worked in Russia Its the most corrupt FuXed up place on the planet run by thugs, criminals and murderers...
Sooner Putin Dies the better
Russia will pay for this for a long long time.
If Canada the U.N. and other countries allow this to happen it will be the end of peace for many underdeveloped parts of the world
JMH RANT
That's my guy right there😂I only financially support SP's.Make love NOT war!
Me thinks that RussianGuy is actually Russian and not Ukranian. ya prav, da? nu ladno.
Moscow doesn't represent the entire Russia . Specially since Moscow has maybe the most elaborate and beautiful subway built by the communists to impress their population and the world at the time (1930s)
We don't know that for sure. The only guarantee is that he's young, dumb and full of cum?
I have spent time in Russia and my Russian friends are just as appalled at what is going on. From the OP's first post he is more concerned with Canada giving funds to his supposed home country rather than the actually destruction of his country.
Or he could have Ukrainian roots but grew up in Russia which is the case for many people there. I just find his stance a bit odd. If it were my home country being attacked I would be more worried about my family and friends than who is profiting from war. Just my take.
I have no issues of Canada giving away billions to stop Russia. We're just supplying the money. UKRAINE is supplying the bodies and the bags.
People in Canada are very naive about the whole Ukraine situation. They act like it only began in 2022, maybe in 2014. The grand sweep of gradual NATO encroachment, the steady worsening of relations, and chances for peace in Europe that were either missed or deliberately thrown away.
At least in Canada's case, our own position on Ukraine was set by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, taking the most pro-US and anti-Russian positions he could, especially in the Maidan period and after that. He did it because the natural position of "canadian" conservative movement is to be blindly pro-US, and second to that pro-Israeli, even pro-Saudi. This might put their more racist members in an awkward position logically speaking, but they've been "fuck logic" for a long time.
The really fucked up thing is how "canadian" conservatives now are leaning to the opposite position on Ukraine that they were responsible for actually starting. Why? Because now Trump's people in the US have done so, repudiating their own doctrines that were so openly anti-Russia that it caused the hostilities in Ukraine / Europe. How we got there was:
Start by looking at the Bush doctrine in that region - NATO expansion into the former USSR even when Russia (not an enemy yet, not even ruled by Putin yet) was dead set against it, starting with the 3 Baltic states; development of treaty-breaking anti-missile defense systems and plans for orbital weaponry; support for jihadi separatists in Chechnya; "Orange Revolution", and (eventually) Maidan covert operations to flip Ukraine from a friend to a pro-NATO adversary of Russia. Obvious that Russia would look at all that as a deadly threat, but we in the west were all told to just ignore it and pretend this was not going to result in a huge conflict later.
Traditionally, US Democrats were mildly opposed to it - the default position of the Dems was to oppose or at least reduce Republican warmongering. People like Biden used to oppose those very same NATO expansion policies after the Cold War that looked like they would re-ignite a new one and bring the world back to nuclear armed peril. HOWEVER, some Democrats were more like Republicans on certain issues, and the important one there was Hillary Clinton. On social policies and some social services, she seemed like the usual leftist Democrat, but with her close ties to Wall Street and her foreign policy stances, she was actually more like a (George W) Bush Republican. You would never know it from how much US Republicans hated her personally; that was really more due to US domestic politics in the Bill Clinton era & beyond.
Nobody expected Clinton to lose to 2008 Democratic nomination to an openly anti-war black Democrat named Barack Obama, a guy who could have genuinely changed US foreign policy away from what Bush had done. Republicans were predictably delighted to know she would not become president, but horrified to see a black president, no matter what he did or did not do. Obama did not want an ongoing policy crisis inside the Dems, so he made Clinton his secretary of state once he was president. Big mistake really, because she controlled US foreign policy and the US did not turn away from very much that Bush did previously. That included meant trying to marginalize and antagonize Russia; the opportunity for a reset of the bad relations that Bush had created never took place.
This convinced Russia that anti-Russian warmongering was going to be a threat whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge of the US. Putin also felt that Russia had been betrayed by Hillary Clinton and her close supporters in particular. Russia had already begun opposing what Bush was up to, but during Obama's time in office it got steadily more aggressive. Clinton was eventually out as secretary of state, but Obama was forced to continue most of the policies and interventions she had started, including the Ukraine / NATO / Russia situation.
What was Canada doing during all this? Well, in Canada, Harper was in charge, but his time as an eager sidekick to Bush was very short; Republicans lost in 2008 to Obama. Canada's conservative government sulked for several years, trying to uphold American neoconservatism here in Canada. When the Maidan events happened, Canada jumped in on the anti-Russia side eagerly. Harper was pandering to Ukrainian Canadians' ethnic nationalism (for votes), but he was also upholding the most pro-US position he could find, namely supporting NATO expansion into Ukraine at any cost.
In 2015, Harper lost to Justin Trudeau, Libs replaced Cons, but this did not change Canadian foreign policy regarding Russia and Ukraine at all. Chrystia Freeland became foreign minister and she was already very anti-Russian by personal inclination & heritage. (Calling her a Canadian Hillary Clinton is a bit simplistic, but the Russians certainly thought so.)
When the 2016 US election happened, that changed the domestic political narratives completely, first in the US and therefore to some degree in Canada.
Clinton was running for president again, but got her nomination over the traditional anti-warmongering Democrat Bernie Sanders; it was alleged by Sanders' supporters that the nomination contest was being rigged, and that Clinton's team were engaing in varius dirty tricks. Putin saw an opportunity for some revenge against Clinton - engage in the US-style covert election interference. Pretty clear now that Russia exposed a lot of the dirty tricks Hillary Clinton had used against Sanders, and even some that had been used against Obama 8 years before.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, was a candidate who was willing to push aside the Republican establishment's usual sacred cows of foreign policy, and that included taking positions on Russia that would be considered heretical to the party which loved warmongering except for a few weirdos like Ron Paul. Does that mean Trump was a puppet of Putin? Or just a rule-breaker who thought the enemy of Clinton could be his friend? Debate continues. Did Putin's actions actually sink Hillary's campaign, or was it really just something that confirmed something to Americans who already disliked her ? Debate continues.
What is not really debateable is the aftermath of the US 2016 election. Democrats (at least the non-Bernie supporters) became as bitterly anti-Russian as it is possible to be, and converted themselves fully into the "national security" (warmongering) party. Look at Biden and you'll see a 180 degree shift from the days when he used to warn against NATO expansion because of the possible war with Russia. 2016+ Dems look like pre-Trump Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans (who had hated Russia as holy gospel before 2016) were so delighted to see Hillary Clinton fail, that they started to reject America's anti-Russian policies, and were almost in love with Putin himself for doing such harm to western liberalism.
In the US, Putin is now portrayed as a boogeyman who opposes Dems, where before he was the boogeyman who opposed the GOP. It really has more to do with how US domestic politics works - if the other side is for something, you must therefore be against it. If they want to fight Russia, you must therefore praise Russia, even if you wanted to fight Russia before. Consistency does not matter, consequences do not matter; All that matters is to make your domestic opponent lose instead of win.
So what how did this affect Canada's position regarding Russia and Ukraine?
Well, up to 2015 we were anti-Russia and pro-NATO, because this is what US Republicans wanted and therefore what Harper/conservatives wanted.
After 2015, under the Liberals we were officially anti-Russia and pro-NATO because this is what Chrystia Freeland wanted and the legacy of what Hillary Clinton wanted.
After 2016-2020, Canada just continued this anti-Russia / pro-NATO stance under Freeland & whomever replaced her for the Libs. It also helped them say they were standing up for western democracy (while Trump caused NATO grief).
After 2020 with Biden as US president, the Liberals could just continue without any friction from the US.
The net effect is that for several years now, we've had a Canadian Liberal government steadfastly upholding what was a Conservative foreign policy position, using sanctions, armaments, and even our own troops. (Do Libs get any credit from CPC supporters for continuing what Harper started? Of course not.)
However, the conservatives under Poillievre are having a tougher time figuring out what to do or say.
They usually want to do what benefits the US strategic community, which is to oppose Russia and promote US interests through NATO, and they do not want to openly flipflop on a foreign policy stance which Harper actually started - and there are still many Ukrainian Canadians they fear losing the votes of.
However, US Republicans since Trump have increasingly opposed the "Ukraine is good; Russia is bad" NATO narrative, and CPC supporters are just hard-wired to follow that.
They also oppose any policy of the Trudeau Liberal government just because. If Liberals drink water, they must drink sand. If Trudeau rescued a baby from a fire, they would throw a baby into a fire. That's how they think.
However, most Canadians do not ever think about this. Even if it all happened right before their eyes, they have no memory of these decisions being made or why, and they certainly never question it to this degree of depth. Partisan politics gives the party leaders a chance for mud slinging and ethnic group pandering, but if they express any actual differences of opinion, it will not be anything deep or strategic.
At least in Canada's case, our own position on Ukraine was set by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, taking the most pro-US and anti-Russian positions he could, especially in the Maidan period and after that. He did it because the natural position of "canadian" conservative movement is to be blindly pro-US, and second to that pro-Israeli, even pro-Saudi. This might put their more racist members in an awkward position logically speaking, but they've been "fuck logic" for a long time.
The really fucked up thing is how "canadian" conservatives now are leaning to the opposite position on Ukraine that they were responsible for actually starting. Why? Because now Trump's people in the US have done so, repudiating their own doctrines that were so openly anti-Russia that it caused the hostilities in Ukraine / Europe. How we got there was:
Start by looking at the Bush doctrine in that region - NATO expansion into the former USSR even when Russia (not an enemy yet, not even ruled by Putin yet) was dead set against it, starting with the 3 Baltic states; development of treaty-breaking anti-missile defense systems and plans for orbital weaponry; support for jihadi separatists in Chechnya; "Orange Revolution", and (eventually) Maidan covert operations to flip Ukraine from a friend to a pro-NATO adversary of Russia. Obvious that Russia would look at all that as a deadly threat, but we in the west were all told to just ignore it and pretend this was not going to result in a huge conflict later.
Traditionally, US Democrats were mildly opposed to it - the default position of the Dems was to oppose or at least reduce Republican warmongering. People like Biden used to oppose those very same NATO expansion policies after the Cold War that looked like they would re-ignite a new one and bring the world back to nuclear armed peril. HOWEVER, some Democrats were more like Republicans on certain issues, and the important one there was Hillary Clinton. On social policies and some social services, she seemed like the usual leftist Democrat, but with her close ties to Wall Street and her foreign policy stances, she was actually more like a (George W) Bush Republican. You would never know it from how much US Republicans hated her personally; that was really more due to US domestic politics in the Bill Clinton era & beyond.
Nobody expected Clinton to lose to 2008 Democratic nomination to an openly anti-war black Democrat named Barack Obama, a guy who could have genuinely changed US foreign policy away from what Bush had done. Republicans were predictably delighted to know she would not become president, but horrified to see a black president, no matter what he did or did not do. Obama did not want an ongoing policy crisis inside the Dems, so he made Clinton his secretary of state once he was president. Big mistake really, because she controlled US foreign policy and the US did not turn away from very much that Bush did previously. That included meant trying to marginalize and antagonize Russia; the opportunity for a reset of the bad relations that Bush had created never took place.
This convinced Russia that anti-Russian warmongering was going to be a threat whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge of the US. Putin also felt that Russia had been betrayed by Hillary Clinton and her close supporters in particular. Russia had already begun opposing what Bush was up to, but during Obama's time in office it got steadily more aggressive. Clinton was eventually out as secretary of state, but Obama was forced to continue most of the policies and interventions she had started, including the Ukraine / NATO / Russia situation.
What was Canada doing during all this? Well, in Canada, Harper was in charge, but his time as an eager sidekick to Bush was very short; Republicans lost in 2008 to Obama. Canada's conservative government sulked for several years, trying to uphold American neoconservatism here in Canada. When the Maidan events happened, Canada jumped in on the anti-Russia side eagerly. Harper was pandering to Ukrainian Canadians' ethnic nationalism (for votes), but he was also upholding the most pro-US position he could find, namely supporting NATO expansion into Ukraine at any cost.
In 2015, Harper lost to Justin Trudeau, Libs replaced Cons, but this did not change Canadian foreign policy regarding Russia and Ukraine at all. Chrystia Freeland became foreign minister and she was already very anti-Russian by personal inclination & heritage. (Calling her a Canadian Hillary Clinton is a bit simplistic, but the Russians certainly thought so.)
When the 2016 US election happened, that changed the domestic political narratives completely, first in the US and therefore to some degree in Canada.
Clinton was running for president again, but got her nomination over the traditional anti-warmongering Democrat Bernie Sanders; it was alleged by Sanders' supporters that the nomination contest was being rigged, and that Clinton's team were engaing in varius dirty tricks. Putin saw an opportunity for some revenge against Clinton - engage in the US-style covert election interference. Pretty clear now that Russia exposed a lot of the dirty tricks Hillary Clinton had used against Sanders, and even some that had been used against Obama 8 years before.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, was a candidate who was willing to push aside the Republican establishment's usual sacred cows of foreign policy, and that included taking positions on Russia that would be considered heretical to the party which loved warmongering except for a few weirdos like Ron Paul. Does that mean Trump was a puppet of Putin? Or just a rule-breaker who thought the enemy of Clinton could be his friend? Debate continues. Did Putin's actions actually sink Hillary's campaign, or was it really just something that confirmed something to Americans who already disliked her ? Debate continues.
What is not really debateable is the aftermath of the US 2016 election. Democrats (at least the non-Bernie supporters) became as bitterly anti-Russian as it is possible to be, and converted themselves fully into the "national security" (warmongering) party. Look at Biden and you'll see a 180 degree shift from the days when he used to warn against NATO expansion because of the possible war with Russia. 2016+ Dems look like pre-Trump Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans (who had hated Russia as holy gospel before 2016) were so delighted to see Hillary Clinton fail, that they started to reject America's anti-Russian policies, and were almost in love with Putin himself for doing such harm to western liberalism.
In the US, Putin is now portrayed as a boogeyman who opposes Dems, where before he was the boogeyman who opposed the GOP. It really has more to do with how US domestic politics works - if the other side is for something, you must therefore be against it. If they want to fight Russia, you must therefore praise Russia, even if you wanted to fight Russia before. Consistency does not matter, consequences do not matter; All that matters is to make your domestic opponent lose instead of win.
So what how did this affect Canada's position regarding Russia and Ukraine?
Well, up to 2015 we were anti-Russia and pro-NATO, because this is what US Republicans wanted and therefore what Harper/conservatives wanted.
After 2015, under the Liberals we were officially anti-Russia and pro-NATO because this is what Chrystia Freeland wanted and the legacy of what Hillary Clinton wanted.
After 2016-2020, Canada just continued this anti-Russia / pro-NATO stance under Freeland & whomever replaced her for the Libs. It also helped them say they were standing up for western democracy (while Trump caused NATO grief).
After 2020 with Biden as US president, the Liberals could just continue without any friction from the US.
The net effect is that for several years now, we've had a Canadian Liberal government steadfastly upholding what was a Conservative foreign policy position, using sanctions, armaments, and even our own troops. (Do Libs get any credit from CPC supporters for continuing what Harper started? Of course not.)
However, the conservatives under Poillievre are having a tougher time figuring out what to do or say.
They usually want to do what benefits the US strategic community, which is to oppose Russia and promote US interests through NATO, and they do not want to openly flipflop on a foreign policy stance which Harper actually started - and there are still many Ukrainian Canadians they fear losing the votes of.
However, US Republicans since Trump have increasingly opposed the "Ukraine is good; Russia is bad" NATO narrative, and CPC supporters are just hard-wired to follow that.
They also oppose any policy of the Trudeau Liberal government just because. If Liberals drink water, they must drink sand. If Trudeau rescued a baby from a fire, they would throw a baby into a fire. That's how they think.
However, most Canadians do not ever think about this. Even if it all happened right before their eyes, they have no memory of these decisions being made or why, and they certainly never question it to this degree of depth. Partisan politics gives the party leaders a chance for mud slinging and ethnic group pandering, but if they express any actual differences of opinion, it will not be anything deep or strategic.
I’ve never figured out how US Republicans can wholeheartedly support a country formerly known as the evil empire according to George HW Bush. What has changed that makes them a trustworthy partner in the world? Nothing and probably worse since 1991 because of Russias own behaviour. I know it’s $$$ and Republicans will say it’s the right thing to do with Ukraine. Still it’s oil and money that sways their political compass.
Putin made a big deal about corruption, bribery and Nazis in Ukraine. Yet Moscow the new Wild West is so dangerous that Fedex won’t deliver to any residences for fear of armed robbery. Those people need to go pick up their stuff at a Fedex depot. How did so many oligarchs become billionaires? Putin enabled it as long as they kicked back money to the boss just like a Mafiaoso. And toed the line with Putin’s control over them. How many have mysteriously fallen from their apartments or hotels? Must be a big body count now.
Putin makes a big deal about Nato expansionism throughout former Soviet controlled countries. Putin tipped his hand when he came up with the argument that Russia formerly had all of those countries under Soviet control dating back hundreds of years and he wanted to reverse their self determination. That’s like England saying America was theirs and want it back now.
The thing in common with all of the former Soviet bloc countries is they wanted their own way of life and not having to kick back $ to the USSR. Look at Czechoslovakia in 1968 forming their own blend of socialism with a heart. It was a new beginning for a country that had been controlled by Germany since 1940 and Russia after WW2. Then in 1968 the tanks rolled back in snuffing out any self determination for the Czechs.
Was that NATO expansionism? Hardly. More like we want to be free of Soviet expansionism and have our own parliament and leaders. The thing that irks Putin mosty is NATO countries will all line up together as one to fight any aggression against any singular NATO country. That keeps Putin in check just in case he starts another ‘special military operation’ outside of Russia.
Baltic and other eastern European countries are now joining NATO because they don’t trust Russia to behave as a good neighbour. History is on their side with this issue. They were happy being Neutral and basically now being forced to join NATO for potentially their own survival.
NATO allows all its member countries to have their own self determination. Would Putin go along with a NATO type relationship with former Soviet bloc countries? Nope. Full control and virtually zero say in any laws.
The Russians are always playing the bully card with USA and NATO. Look at who made the first move with neighbouring countries. Not USA, UK, Germany etc. Soviets were shitty landlords and all these smaller countries wanted their freedom from Russian interference. Hence the stampede to join NATO.
I’ve listened a lot to people who feel NATO is the bad guy in this mess. I looked at each NATO country and their decision to join the alliance was a defense tactic with an untrustworthy neighbour. We don’t know how bad things were after WW2 with these countries destroyed by Nazi Germany. Having NATO say join us and enjoy your freedoms and lifestyle must have been invigorating and hopefully a peaceful democratic society for each member. First having a cruel Nazi regime and then an oppressive communist dictatorship and then turned to a democratic country was idyllic for them. We have never experienced that helplessness in Canada and we should be supportive of any Soviet bloc country joining NATO.
Putin made a big deal about corruption, bribery and Nazis in Ukraine. Yet Moscow the new Wild West is so dangerous that Fedex won’t deliver to any residences for fear of armed robbery. Those people need to go pick up their stuff at a Fedex depot. How did so many oligarchs become billionaires? Putin enabled it as long as they kicked back money to the boss just like a Mafiaoso. And toed the line with Putin’s control over them. How many have mysteriously fallen from their apartments or hotels? Must be a big body count now.
Putin makes a big deal about Nato expansionism throughout former Soviet controlled countries. Putin tipped his hand when he came up with the argument that Russia formerly had all of those countries under Soviet control dating back hundreds of years and he wanted to reverse their self determination. That’s like England saying America was theirs and want it back now.
The thing in common with all of the former Soviet bloc countries is they wanted their own way of life and not having to kick back $ to the USSR. Look at Czechoslovakia in 1968 forming their own blend of socialism with a heart. It was a new beginning for a country that had been controlled by Germany since 1940 and Russia after WW2. Then in 1968 the tanks rolled back in snuffing out any self determination for the Czechs.
Was that NATO expansionism? Hardly. More like we want to be free of Soviet expansionism and have our own parliament and leaders. The thing that irks Putin mosty is NATO countries will all line up together as one to fight any aggression against any singular NATO country. That keeps Putin in check just in case he starts another ‘special military operation’ outside of Russia.
Baltic and other eastern European countries are now joining NATO because they don’t trust Russia to behave as a good neighbour. History is on their side with this issue. They were happy being Neutral and basically now being forced to join NATO for potentially their own survival.
NATO allows all its member countries to have their own self determination. Would Putin go along with a NATO type relationship with former Soviet bloc countries? Nope. Full control and virtually zero say in any laws.
The Russians are always playing the bully card with USA and NATO. Look at who made the first move with neighbouring countries. Not USA, UK, Germany etc. Soviets were shitty landlords and all these smaller countries wanted their freedom from Russian interference. Hence the stampede to join NATO.
I’ve listened a lot to people who feel NATO is the bad guy in this mess. I looked at each NATO country and their decision to join the alliance was a defense tactic with an untrustworthy neighbour. We don’t know how bad things were after WW2 with these countries destroyed by Nazi Germany. Having NATO say join us and enjoy your freedoms and lifestyle must have been invigorating and hopefully a peaceful democratic society for each member. First having a cruel Nazi regime and then an oppressive communist dictatorship and then turned to a democratic country was idyllic for them. We have never experienced that helplessness in Canada and we should be supportive of any Soviet bloc country joining NATO.
Regardless the Russians are now solidly entrenched in the Donbass, Ukraine has taken to pressing 60 year old men into active front line service and has military press gangs roaming the streets for men to snatch and send to the front lines. The money supply for weapons is running out and the US is now more distracted by the Israel/Hamas war and the desire of American taxpayers to fund what appears might be an endless war has been vastly diminished. The eventual outcome is no longer in doubt barring NATO and the US becoming directly involved and starting WW3.
A peace proposal back in March 2022 was scuttled by the US and Britain which could have saved Ukraine from its now inevitable fate (Zelensky was on board with the peace talks), the lives of many of its young men and kept 14 million of their people from becoming refugees, many never to return. The US is a bad and dangerous ally and every country they enter recently they leave in a state of chaos on their withdrawal....Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, now Ukraine. I believe that the actual intent of this proxy war was to weaken Russia without sacrificing American lives, only Ukrainian ones.....instead it got them to ramp up their war machine and develop new or tighter coalitions with other enemies of the west and made them far more dangerous. There needs to be a peace pact initiated now before Russia decides to move on the adjacent 4 Oblasts which include Odessa because Ukraine does not now have the ability to defend them. I believe Russia will honor one. The territory they now control was mainly Russian speaking and had actually been at war with the rest of Ukraine for the past decade and it gives them the much desired land bridge to Crimea they wanted.
Also if Ukraine starts falling apart watch for Poland to move on a couple of neighboring Ukrainian provinces they consider their own territory.
A peace proposal back in March 2022 was scuttled by the US and Britain which could have saved Ukraine from its now inevitable fate (Zelensky was on board with the peace talks), the lives of many of its young men and kept 14 million of their people from becoming refugees, many never to return. The US is a bad and dangerous ally and every country they enter recently they leave in a state of chaos on their withdrawal....Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, now Ukraine. I believe that the actual intent of this proxy war was to weaken Russia without sacrificing American lives, only Ukrainian ones.....instead it got them to ramp up their war machine and develop new or tighter coalitions with other enemies of the west and made them far more dangerous. There needs to be a peace pact initiated now before Russia decides to move on the adjacent 4 Oblasts which include Odessa because Ukraine does not now have the ability to defend them. I believe Russia will honor one. The territory they now control was mainly Russian speaking and had actually been at war with the rest of Ukraine for the past decade and it gives them the much desired land bridge to Crimea they wanted.
Also if Ukraine starts falling apart watch for Poland to move on a couple of neighboring Ukrainian provinces they consider their own territory.
"The territory they now control was mainly Russian speaking and had actually been at war with the rest of Ukraine for the past decade and it gives them the much desired land bridge to Crimea they wanted."
That's because Russians occupied Crimea. By force. As they did the rest of Eastern Europe. Latvia and Estonia have a large Russian speaking population because they occupied those countries By force. So now those countries are stuck with Russian old age pensioners and their 2 generations of Russian speaking spawn living amongst them.
Fuck Russia and the much desired land bridge to Crimea they wanted.
That's because Russians occupied Crimea. By force. As they did the rest of Eastern Europe. Latvia and Estonia have a large Russian speaking population because they occupied those countries By force. So now those countries are stuck with Russian old age pensioners and their 2 generations of Russian speaking spawn living amongst them.
Fuck Russia and the much desired land bridge to Crimea they wanted.
