To think we cannot afford to support Ukraine anymore

NATO don't invade by putting boots on the ground, but they are/have been expanding and increasing the areas under their control through other means. A soft invasion if you will. The EU/NATO have attempted to court Ukraine into their fold for ages. Prior to the ousting of the pro-russian government the EU/NATO offered Ukraine various economic and diplomatic incentives, Russia then countered with a better offer, which the democratically elected Ukrainian government accepted. That led to internal protests and next thing you know the Pro-Russians are out and the EU/NATO get
what they've been hankering after.

A question that has been studiously avoided by apologists. Should any of the former Warsaw Pact countries have been allowed to make sovereign decisions for themselves such as joining the EU or NATO? Should they be permanently required to remain within Moscow's sphere of influence? Would you say Estonia is more secure from Russian expansion or less secure by being a member of NATO?

So we started with the idea that supporting Ukraine was against Britain's national interests. Many good posts were made explaining that actually it is very much in Britain's national interests for us to support Ukraine.

So now we are moving on to the idea that actually Russia was forced to launch a massive, bloody invasion of Ukraine against their will by Nato / EU / pesky Ukrainian's wanting to be free.

In case that doesn't work we can be reminded that in the past the UK / America have also done bad things.

For what it is worth I thought that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible mistake. I went on a lot of protest marches about it and luckily living in the UK wasn't sent to a gulag as a result. I still think however that it wasn't half as bad as Russia's invasion of Ukraine given that Saddam was an evil tyrant and Ukraine a democracy.

Afghanistan was in a terrible state before, during and after the intervention. 50% of the population now have no rights at all (and it's not the UK / USA that are doing that) but I don't know what the solution is given that the military intervention was a failure.

Russia's impact on the world today is totally negative. Invading Ukraine, threatening nuclear war, killing countless civilians in Syria, stirring trouble all over Africa with the Wagner group, assassinating people with deadly poisons in South East England.

There's a reason why when given a free choice Eastern Europeans would rather align themselves with the USA.

From every perspective, both practical and moral supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do.

Yes, I am posting from Russia. I have many friends in the UK and used to study in the UK, that's why I was reading this forum. I'm already regretting posting in this thread, actually, but what did I expect?
Any news sources are available from here. Facebook and Instagram work only through VPN

The irony... criticising the West, on a western forum, whilst not able to post freely and be able to criticise Russia without fear of death or long jail sentences....

They'd better go and invade Turkey & Greece too... You are aware of how Russia gets into the Med and how many NATO countries border the Med... then there is Gibraltar.

Or you re just another Russian apologist.

Prior to the ousting of the pro-russian government the EU/NATO offered Ukraine various economic and diplomatic incentives, Russia then countered with a better offer, which the democratically elected Ukrainian government accepted. That led to internal protests and next thing you know the Pro-Russians are out and the EU/NATO get what they've been hankering after.

Again, do you fancy talking us through that process including the role of all Ukraine's democratically-elected institutions and their constitutional powers?

Weird. It's been grounds for invasions/intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen etc, etc. Ah, but that was when we were they invaders, so it was OK.

NATO don't invade by putting boots on the ground, but they are/have been expanding and increasing the areas under their control through other means. A soft invasion if you will. The EU/NATO have attempted to court Ukraine into their fold for ages. Prior to the ousting of the pro-russian government the EU/NATO offered Ukraine various economic and diplomatic incentives, Russia then countered with a better offer, which the democratically elected Ukrainian government accepted. That led to internal protests and next thing you know the Pro-Russians are out and the EU/NATO get
what they've been hankering after.

Strange wouldn't you say? Especially when you consider that the eventual leader installed in the pro-eu government had been chosen as "the best candidate for the job" by the US secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs....before the Euromaiden movement had even begun.

You're incredibly naive if you think this whole situation hasn't been carefully engineered to keep the great western war machines fed and funded.

No; I think that's been covered....

Anyone with half a brain would have known the Russians wouldn't sit back and allow that fleet to be surrounded by what they considered hostile forces, or be willing to loose the stategic position it gave them.

I am disappointed none of the apologists have made reference to 'poking the Russian bear'.

Very disappointed

Yanukovych fled after he refused to sign to sign the parliament approved European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement which led to civil unrest and demands for his resignation.

The port of Sevastopol belonged to Ukraine after 1991, Russia's Black Sea Fleet were allowed continued use of the port under lease from the Ukraine. Russia, following Yanukovych's removal led an illegal annexation and held an internationally unrecognized referendum supporting reunification. Russia would probably still have use of the port as per the lease agreement if had continued to honour Ukraine's territorial integrity.

So; are you advocating that self determination does not apply to the Ukrainian people? They've witnessed what happened in Chechnya and chose a different path for themselves that was more pro EU; but it was a choice that they made.

It wasn't sudden. Your Bahrain analogy doesn't work.

Putin also had other reasons for invading Crimea- it gave him access to a strategic port.

I'm just wondering how many posts it's going to take he/she/it before they cotton on...

The 'wide political reading' hasn't got that far.

Honestly, this gets even funnier. Do you know much about the recent history of Afghanistan, by any chance? Say, the bits that happened before the Taliban got in?

@Thebestwaytoscareatory

"Anyone with half a brain would have known the Russians wouldn't sit back and allow that fleet to be surrounded by what they considered hostile forces, or be willing to loose the stategic position it gave them"

Interesting use of the word "allow"

Its fuck all to do with russia what sovereign nations do within their own borders. That's it at its most basic. Not too difficult to understand except for the contrarian genocide apologist.

That was the sound of the point whooshing way over your head there.

It's interesting though, the more intelligent Russian apologist in the thread had enough awareness not to bring up Afghanistan when he or she was whatabouting. You clearly don't.

Which happened because the pro-russian Ukrainian government was overthrown and a pro-EU one installed in it's place.

You're using the words 'overthrown' and 'installed' again.

Can you talk us through the process of both the overthrowing and the installation?

Do Afghanistan and Iraq make everything the russians do acceptable to you OP?

I'm just wondering the relevance of your whataboutism.

Which happened because the pro-russian Ukrainian government was overthrown and a pro-EU one installed in it's place.

Crimea houses Russia's Black Sea fleet and is/was a very important strategic position as it provides them with relatively quick naval access to the Mediterranean (and beyond), as well as a presence in the area.

Anyone with half a brain would have known the Russians wouldn't sit back and allow that fleet to be surrounded by what they considered hostile forces, or be willing to loose the stategic position it gave them.

Using the USA again, what do you think their response would be if Bahrain suddenly fell under the control of a pro-Iranian or Iraqi government and the US Fifth fleet was surrounded by perceived hostile forces? You think they'd just sit back and abandon their middle eastern naval presence or would they look to go in and secure and protect it?

Not sure Afghanistan is the example you want to go for while you're whatabouting....

This is what it all boils down to, OP. So we're not doing it out of the goodness of our hearts - it's a strategic decision that we can't yet afford to change.

By 'we', I mean the British government.

I thought Yanukovych ran away after u-turning on alignment with European values and then setting the dogs on the citizens who protested

But no. EU/NATO bad

Or the "Jewish clique/Zionist coup"!

Those damn Jewish Nazis.