Was Ukraine a threat to Russia before start of Russian military operation?

Ukrainian legislation provides that ethnic Russians are third-grade citizens in Ukraine – compared with first-grade ethnic Crimean Tatars or second-grade ethnic Hungarians and Romanians (see Aren't these Ukrainian laws the Nazi ones?).

But at the same time, Ukrainian authorities demanded Russia to give back the Crimean Peninsula where most of people are ethnic Russians (Russia considers this Peninsula to be its own).

On the official web-site of the Ukrainian President you can read that Ukraine was preparing a package of measures – including military ones – for “de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea” (see here).

Please translate in Google Translator the following phrase

Cannot we conclude that Ukrainian preparation of military measures for “de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea” could provoke the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine?

 

Fact is, Russia illegally annexed Crimea in the first place. So, your whole post is moot.

 

This thread does not deal with the question “Did Russia illegally or legally annexed Crimea?"

Have you translated the text from the official web-site of the Ukrainian President who is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Army?

Are there words about military measures for “de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea” on this web-site or there aren’t such words?

Mr. Baiden constantly calls the Russian military operation an “unprovoked and unjustified attack” (for example, see here).

But is a military operation of a country A against a country B really unprovoked and unjustified when the country B prepares military measures to take from the country A a part which the country A considers to be its own?

 

I realize you are probably posting from a little shack somewhere in Russia. Russia taking over Crimea is EXTREMELY relevant. If they hadn't done that, then maybe you have a point. But, that's what happened and you conveniently don't want to talk about it. Russia was a threat and that threat was countered and now Russia and you want to claim that countering the counter is a threat. I'm sure you are much better at knowing Russian than I am.

 

OP thinks if he invaded my yard then if I board up my house and make plans to take my yard back then that’s provoking him to take my whole house.

What complete back asswards logic.

 

OP has asked a good question. It was Biden shipping huge quantities of weapons to Kyiv, and then Kyiv using those weapons to shell Donbas that produced the response from Russia.

It is evident that Kyiv did not consider the Russian-speaking occupants of what was then Eastern Ukraine to have any kind of right to life.

The Western narrative intentionally caused a huge amount of confusion by claiming that when Russia moved into Eastern Ukraine to force the withdrawal of Kyiv artillery that somehow Russia was attacking the whole of the Ukraine.

Russia caused some confusion by sending a small force down to Kyiv to cause Kyiv to withdraw forces from Eastern Ukraine allowing Russian forces to move in to protect the area.

This confusion was deliberate, but should not be taken to mean Russia attacked the whole of the Ukraine, only the forces attacking Eastern Ukraine and a limited attack just North of Kyiv as a diversion.

The Biden lie is gradually losing adherents.

 

Your ability to overstate and understate events according to what’s convenient to your narrative is very impressive. A 40 mile long attack column a “small diversion never meant to seriously threaten Kyiv”…ridiculous. 200k troops along 3 borders “not a general attack on the whole of Ukraine”…likewise. Ridiculous.

Your analysis is based on nothing, and flies in the face of what we’ve seen reported from sources all across the globe from experts, analysts, organizations and governments.

You are not a military analyst and if you were then you’d be getting paid from the Kremlin.

 

There are lots of incentives for this invasion from Russia's side of the isle. Doesn't make it right but Russia would be so much better off if they just effectively learned to stop being so paranoid and stay in their gd lanes. They do that well enough and they could have even formed a second Union of trade and commonality with sorrounding regions after enough time.

 

The US has been a threat to Russia since the end of the cold war when Bush promised Gorbachev not to expand NATO in exchange for dissolving the Soviet Union and the US (surprise!) broke their promise. The US supported the right-wing coup in 2014 in Ukraine and has been shelling Donbas for 8 years. What to you think the US would do if there were Russian bases in Cuba, Canada, Mexico and Latin America?

 

I understand your point of view and believe that it is too simplified.

Your point of view is “inclusion of Crimea into Russia was illegal and bad and it does not matter that ethnic Russians are majority in Crimea. POINT!”

But I consider this question in a wider context.

If you take into account that in modern Ukraine ethnic Russians are discriminated, i.e. they are third-grade citizens – compared with first-grade ethnic Crimean Tatars or second-grade ethnic Hungarians and Romanians - can you unambiguously say that inclusion of Crimea into Russia was bad?

I personally cannot say it.

And I cannot say that Ukrainian authorities really have full rights to use military measures for “de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea” in such a case.

And I hope that you understand my point of view too.

 

"Was Ukraine a threat to Russia before start of Russian military operation?"

nope

 

Trump's quid pro quo is what made Russia concerned, then Trump gave them weapons, and it became more public, and they seemed weaker due to Trump, cause Trump was manipulating them

 

Have you translated the text from the official web-site of the Ukrainian President who is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Army (see the first post of this thread)?

Are there words about military measures for “de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea” on this web-site or there aren’t such words?

 

You conveniently want to sweep Russia's illegal and bogus annexation of Crimea under the table as if it never happened.

 

Well, for starters, Russia is already conducting military operations in Ukraine and have been since 2014. Second, the measure being presented is to prepare for an upcoming Russian onslaught after that bridge in Crimea was attacked. It was their bottleneck in military operations and Ukraine took full advantage of it.

Russia, and more specifically, Putin, has said that Alaska still belongs to them and it was "stolen" by the US.

 

I understand point of view of my opponents.

Their picture of situation is based on 2 components which are constantly repeated by Western media (please see below).

Item 1
Western media many times have been telling to my opponents that Russia “has illegitimately annexed the Crimean Peninsula”.

Item 2
Western media many times have been telling to my opponents that it does not matter that ethic Russians are majority in Crimea.​

On the basis of these two points, my opponents conclude that the plans of present Ukrainian government to take back Crimea by military force are fair.

But I ask my opponents to add to their picture of situation a third element which
Western media NEVER told to my opponents (please see below).

Item 3
Under present Ukrainian legislation ethnic Russians are discriminated in Ukraine, i.e. they are third-grade citizens there – compared with first-grade ethnic Crimean Tatars or second-grade ethnic Hungarians and Romanians.​

On the basis of this wider look on the situation – Can my opponents say that the plans of present Ukrainian government to take back Crimea by military force AND to turn the majority of Crimean population into third-grade people are fair?

In my opinion, such plans are not fair. Therefore, Russian military operation for preventing Ukrainian military measures could be justified.

And my goal is that my opponents would include the above-mentioned third element into their picture of situation.

 

How's life going in that little shack in Russia? Do you have your very own cubicle?

 

In terms of the third element, I have found nothing to support that claim at all. Have there been "Russiaphobia?" Yes, but given the history of Communist Russia with the Region, it is still fresh. Second, although Russians are the largest minority in the country, very few Ukrainian Russians have expressed that they were discriminated against. As Ukraine formed after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine, even under a pro-Putin politician, believed that there should be only one official language in Ukraine, Ukrainian, and not Russian. But even this does not support that third wheel. Finally, there is a Ukrainian law that deals with the expropriation of property from the Russian Federation. What the law states is as follows, "allows for the expropriation of movable and immovable property, funds, bank deposits, securities, corporate rights, and other property and assets located or registered in Ukraine. It targets legal entities, their branches, and their representative offices operating in Ukraine when the founder, shareholder, or beneficial owner is the Russian Federation, or in which the Russian Federation, directly or indirectly, owns an interest in the capital, shares and membership units. (Art. 1(1).)

"According to the law, the forcible seizure of property of the Russian Federation in favor of the Ukrainian state is to be carried out without any compensation of its value due to the war waged by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the Ukrainian people."

I think you are playing very loose with the terms "Russian people in Ukraine" and the Russian Federation in Ukraine." Not every Russian in Ukraine is a member or even supports the Russian Federation. Some do, and some don't. And because Russia invaded Ukraine, this law was inevitable in a time of war.

 

There is a link in the first sentence of the first post of this thread.
We have already discussed discrimination of ethnic Russians in Ukraine in the thread under that link.