temujin
Regular Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2017
- Messages
- 890
- Likes
- 5,621
You're late to this thread as your first point has already been debated to death here. Essentially what was being offered to Ukraine by the EU was an 'association agreement' requiring Ukraine to accept all EU external tariffs without a role in setting them and all EU single market rules without being part of the SM i.e. a form of taxation without representation similar to the one that triggered the US war of independence. In trade terms this would also have been deeply damaging to the Ukrainian economy and decimated whatever remained of Ukraine's post Soviet manufacturing by flooding the market with tariff free European goods. More importantly, 75% of Ukraine's trade at the time was with Russia under a mutual tariff free regime (plus what was essentially free movement allowing millions of Ukrainians to work and live in Russia)- this was under threat from the EU agreement since the latter would have opened up a backdoor to the Russian market for the EU if Ukr-Russian trade remained tariff free. Putin rightly objected to this and also threatened to cease the sale of heavily discounted gas to Ukraine as it could also in theory be resold by Ukraine to the EU at a profit- gas transit had been a sore point in Russia- Ukrainian relations since the 2000s due to the exponential rise in the price of gas, sale volumes to Europe and increasingly brazen instances of Ukrainian gas theft- this wasn't just Russian propaganda either as Gazprom actually won its case against Ukrainian Naftogaz over alleged theft in the International Court of Arbitration.Euro maidan happened because of that free trade agreement with Europe right ? Which pro Russian President prevented from happening .. That does not justify invasion . India is signing a free trade agreement with Europe in few years .. what if some other country attack india for signing free trade agreement with a different country ?
What ll you do if some parts of india is occupied by a foreign force ? You ll want the fight to go on for eternity as long as occupied areas are not under your control no matter the consequence . Its very easy to advice to give up the areas of your country sitting in foreign lands .
Once reality dawned on Yanukovich, he swiftly junked the EU treaty but forces including right wing paramilitaries and ultra nationalists from Western Ukraine and soccer hooligans had already been mobilised by the US state department by this stage to orchestrate Euromaidan- Yanukovich's refusal to sign the EU surrender document was portrayed as a great betrayal of the nation, which was followed by the staged murder of the ' 100 angels' etc and culminated in the coup.
@ww2historian, as for Akim's claim about Russia starting the war, I was listening to Denis Seleznyov, a DNR based analyst who is known to present a ver balanced, objective account of the campaign- in his latest video, he was analysing satellite images from two years ago which show Ukrainian bunkers and fortifications deep inside civilian areas across the South East of the country, which clearly suggests this was a war Ukraine had been preparing for years- Russia merely chose to move preemptively, perhaps judging this to be an opportune moment given the current global financial context and it's influence on the West's response.