Please add more options. "Russia" is not a person.
Do you mean all 140 000 000 citizens of Russian Federation?
Only Vladimir Putin and he's cronies ("Sovbez") are responsible, not whole Russia. Army generals and officers are responsible. Not pacifist who are jailed for anti-war protests and die in prison.
While it's legitimate to criticize US policy toward Russia over the last 35 years, that doesn't mean Russia is not responsible. It's legitimate to criticize policy toward Germany in the interwar period, the Treaty of Versailles, and so on. That doesn't mean the Nazis weren't responsible for WWII. I think it's a similar sort of situation. We should have Marshall Plan'd Russia in the 90's and not talked so much about NATO expansion. I think those things are more important than the Serb war and Yanukovych. But anyway, Russia is the one who invaded Ukraine.
@nathanwei honest question: do you mean NATO expansion to include Russia? Because that was offered. I don't remember if Russia refused or it just never really got implemented.
@BrunoParga NATO expansion to include Russia was offered and if Russia took that it would have been amazing. But no, what I was referring to was talking about inviting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO in 2008 right before Russia invaded Georgia. Needless provocation of Putin with no upside. Now, of course for his part, Putin has been doing everything in his power to want to make neutral countries join NATO. Look at Sweden and Finland.
Also I even mean the earlier waves. Perhaps it was in fact right to admit Poland and the Baltics to NATO, but we promised Gorbachev we wouldn't do it and then did it anyway. I think that was a mistake. We probably should not have promised Gorbachev that in the first place.
Russia is ultimately responsible but the context is important and almost never talked about... the US backed a coup of a democratically elected russian friendly president of Ukraine that was overwhelmingly supported by ukraine's eastern ethnic russians, and opposed by the ukranians in the west. After the coup, Ukraine waged war against the separatist donbass region and striped them of their voting rights while at the same time trying to claim they were still ukrainian. Russia used all of this to plant seeds and increase support for a future invasion.
Point being: IF ukraine can end the war by giving away the parts of eastern ukraine that don't want to be Ukrainian, that they prevent from voting, and they've been bombing for a decade - it's almost criminal not to end the enormous bloodshed.
1) the US didn't back a "coup", this was a popular demonstration against Yanukovych that ended up with him fleeing the country after he ordered the police to shoot at protesters (approx 100 dead)
2) Yanukovych was democratically elected on a pro EU programme that he didn't fulfill, that's why protests
3) Ukraine's eastern ethnic Russians are a minority in the east, you got confused about russophones that are a majority. Examples of such russophones: Poroshenko and Zelensky. That is to say, russophones ≠ Russians. Like anglophones ≠ Englishmen.
4) the separatism emerged in 2014 after Russia launched an anti Ukraine propaganda campaign and sent agents such as Girkin to set up local militia. Look up pro Ukraine protests in the east in 2014 and 2022.
5) no voting rights or speaking rights were removed
6) the only region that may have wanted to separate from Ukraine was Crimea and that's all, because historically it has had a majority ethnic Russian population. But Russian ≠ pro Russia, and we'll never know because the referendum was highly irregular in addition to being absolutely illegal with regards to many treaties that Russia signed, such as the Budapest memorandum and other treaties recognizing Ukraine's borders
7) Ukraine hasn't bombed the Donbas for nine years, but Russia did. Just compare Luhansk and Donetsk with Mariupol, Avdiivka, Bakhmut.
8) bloodshed? Please, Russia has invaded so many countries and "pacified" so many regions in a century, this is ridiculous.
@FoxKHTML ... and the invasion was a failure and Cuba didn't become a US puppet state, which is a good thing. Small states have the right to choose their own allies to protect their independence from their imperialistic neighbors.
Especially when treaties were signed to establish and protect borders, to end an history of oppression.
Former USSR states joined NATO not to threaten Russia, but not to be threatened anymore. You're blaming the victim here.
@RatUziCat The US failed so it doesn’t count? What kind of logic is that? My point is that the US is putting Russia in a situation that it itself would find completely unacceptable.
@FoxKHTML that's not what I said and I had taken your point into account. What I said was: it does not matter how imperialistic powers feel they are entitled to do to their neighbors (often, former colonies). It's a good thing that their power is kept in check.
@FoxKHTML It always boils down to this - Why would Mexico, Cuba, and Canada join a Russian military alliance and move weapons right up to the US border, when the United States has not in any way threatened them or had any history of invading and annexing their neighbors?
@Snarflak the USA has already been at war with Mexico (1846) and Cuba (1961) and even Canada, kind of (1812).
Cuba has been under American embargo since 1958.
Mexico is currently under threat (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-proposed-attacks-mexican-cartels-could-lead-american-casualties-2023-09-22/).
Russia ultimately takes all responsibility for starting the war. However, I think it may not have ever happened if the US had acted differently leading up to and after the Crimean annexation, which began exactly ten years ago today.
As far as the continuation of the war is concerned, Russia still retains all responsibility, but terms for a ceasefire or truce are being routinely rejected by the other side. From Ukraine's perspective, it is morally justified to retake everything Russia has taken illegally, but it undoubtedly comes at a cost to human life and resources.
@thepurplebull You're blaming the US for starting the war because … of how they responded to Russia invading Ukraine?
@thepurplebull Ukraine doesn't accept Russian offers of ceasefires and truces because they're meaningless. Russia would wait ten years, committing forced nationalization, abduction of activists, russification, deportation, colonization as they have done in Crimea & Donbas since 2014, then attack again, as they did in Chechnya, to finish the job.
Also, soldiers from defeated regions are used in the next war – Chechens, Donbas residents.
Liberating territories in not only "morally justified", it is a matter of survival as a country and a people.
@BrunoParga only Crimea had an ethnic Russian majority in 2014, after centuries of Russian colonialism and genocide of the indigenous population. And still, the Russian invasion happened in violation of the Budapest memorandum signed by Russia, the US, and the UK. Russia is responsible.
@SemioticRivalry They also drew the Armenian-Azeri border, and cut Moldova off from the rest of Romania. Bad guys.