Russia - threadbanned users in OP

This is a story from the current front line in Donbas. It seems that the ongoing conflict has made what was once a Russian speaking area much more pro-Ukraine.

Since the war began, Avdiyivka’s character has changed. According to Mariia Lepilova, a former teacher, the younger generation is more pro-Ukrainian. Donbas was once mostly Russian-speaking. There had been a switch to the Ukrainian language in schools and shops, she said. Children learn Ukrainian in class from the age of six or seven

On the Western double standards I was wondering what happened at the UN over the flight MH17 incident. I didn't know and was curious as it seemed like the kind of thing the countries worst affected might try to raise there. They (Malaysia, Netherlands) did, but of course it got nowhere because Russia is a permanent UN security council member, one of the guardians of the global peace post WW2 etc. Russia may not be a superpower any more & much reduced from Soviet Union days, but it is a big & powerful country with alot of clout, and as such not really a good example of a victim of international double standards created by the West.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33710088

I know "you" should be a real Irish person unless someone or something else has your account now. If you reread I claimed the ideas themselves may originate from said bots/trolls [I don't know if they do but they put a spin on things I could imagine Russian govt. would approve of], not that you are a bot.

They seem like very unique ways of viewing German reunification (when poor East Germany got anschlussed by the West), Yugoslav war(s) (NATO sent in troops to carve up the country) + the Iraq war / other ME wars (involving "the EU" and "NATO" as belligerants). I don't think its just me that would disagree...very strongly with them. I've never heard anything like it at all, but if they are your own wild ideas fair enough. If they come from somewhere else originally, would be interested to read it.

It would be interesting to know the make up of those troops. In the war with Georgia, iirc they used poorer quality units in the initial push. I haven't read much analysis of Russia's ability to supply and sustain operations from it's borders. They certainly don't have the capacity that the US does by any stretch.

I get the impression they've upped their game significantly since, they seem to be better organised in Dornbos, Crimea and also Syria. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if this also isn't a maneuver to keep the military on their toes. It actually ticks a lot of boxes for the Kremlin without actually having to take significant military action.

It's pretty black/white, Putin (and more than a few Russians) believe Ukraine is more a province, not a sovereign country, would like to take the country by force. However it's the 21st century, it's difficult for the Kremlin to manufacture a case to validate invading the country, or even creating border incidents. Therefore it's likely this is all a playbook act to get concessions and appease nationalists, but in either case, whether attacking Ukraine, or threatening it as they are now, Putin is the aggressor.

US /EU are signalling that they will take no military action if Russia invades so its a tempting proposition for Putin particularly as he can use gas supply as leverage, however one upside from the EU/US perspective is the sight of Russia engaging in a protracted ,damaging conflict in Ukraine.

Your post(s) have alot of distortions, that's what makes it hard to take the argument seriously (or even follow it?). Anything negative you say about Russia (their "flawed" actions, very mild?) is as nothing to to the rest of it. At least you left German reunification out of it now.

The EU had nothing to do with any of the military interventions mentioned as far as I was aware so should be omitted from discussion (Yugoslavia Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).

I am no expert on the history but I think usual criticsm made of "Europe" as a collective around the events in Yugoslavia is that it was a passive spectator to largest wars and genocides in Europe since WW2 until the the US (& European NATO allies) got involved in it. Should that military intervention not have taken place?

At that time the EU had little of its own political positions or a foreign policy (which it is slowly developing over the last decade, after tools for it were created). The main driver/heavy lifter in all of the military interventions (apart from Libya perhaps) was the US. The European state most involved in all of these interventions was the UK, which is not even in the EU now of course.

Germany and France were both very opposed to the Iraq invasion and were attacked strongly over it at the time by the US/UK governments and US/UK media. There was certainly no Western or NATO unity. All that is glossed over. NATO did have a role in Afghanistan (I think US originally invoked request for assistance from NATO allies in attacking the Taliban). Do you think the US should not have attacked Afghanistan after Sept. 11th?

It seems to me more like Ukraine/Ukranians made their own sort of play to escape from Russia's influence somewhat, rather than being helpless pawns of the US/West etc. and Russia reacted very harshly and agressively to that in a way that escalated matters. The way they reacted could have been counter-productive if anything. They may have backed themselves into a corner.

On Russia/Putin "picking the USA president" you are just misrepresenting the argument about interference by authoritarian states in the democratic process in an effort to make it look absurd. The fact there is that Russia and other autocracies can and will use the modern tools provided by free and open societies like the US against them. In a tight electoral race (as US presidential election typically is) or some key referendum issue (Brexit) where it's a close run thing, a thumb on the scales giving a small boost to whatever side they back may be enough to sway it. I agree "outrage" over it happening is to an extent pointless ("why did you sting me?", said the the edit: frog to the scorpion), defending/insulating oneself against the tactic is what is important.

Yeah, as said I don't think US or anyone else would get involved in it militarily if it happens beyond supporting with weapons/money and so on if the govt. can survive the attack/Ukraine isn't taken entirely.

On Iraq, you are correct that it set a very bad precedent. However I don't know if these precedents or international sets of "rules" are always a good guide when it comes to how likes of Russia, China (or the US I suppose) decide to behave in the world. They will sometimes do what they believe they can get away with, and when you are a "superpower" (or even just a power like Russia?) that can be a lot. The US is weakening relatively too & maybe also absolutely given all the internal troubles it seems to have, and that could have more to do with autocrats like Putin getting somewhat more aggressive than past US actions.