@ShapeShiffer

Russia wanted to represent their own interest and had to start a war.

Russia didn't want to star a war. War costs money and contrary to US in Russia the military industrial complex isn't really that private, it's state controlled. It would be a gamble with rather flimsy economy this is why they circled around the bush since 2014 and din't want to risk it. They had their choice made for them when Ukr baited them into attacking.

Ukraine should [looking at history of abuse as satellite country] do everything to get away from Russia

They should have done even more not to to act against it and not to provoke it.

Ukr was still being used by Ru

It was used by everyone, mostly b/c it was so corrupt. The corruption wasn't the fault of anyone else than Ukr. All they had to do is not to take the money.

loose chance to take over the whole country at some much later date

The entire goal of this was is to prevent NATO from having a border with Russia in Ukraine. Why would Russia want to take over if they would just end up on the NATO border anyway? A much more realistic assumption is that Rus wanted a neutral country that would be a buffer from the NATO.

Ukrainians were shelling their own land, maybe not exactly cool

They weren't shelling empty land, they were shelling cities. This is well known since the very start of the 2014 conflict.

If UKR wants to get away, they need to bleed Russia as much as possible and HOPE for the best.

All Ukr had to do is to agree it will not enter NATO. This is pretty well understood even in the West, it's admitted this was the agreed upon condition during the unsuccessful negotiations just after the war started.

They need to get Russia to the point where even internal problems would destabilise Russia

How many years will it take for people who believe in this that this isn't going to happen? Do you realize that Russia has been placed under more economic sanctions than ALL other countries combined - and not only it haven't broken them it actually made their eco more resilient?

I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas was supported by Russia

Yes indeed Hamas is supported by Russia by supplying them with weapons the West sent to Ukraine. Much more probable than Ukrainians making money on the side.

Russia has rather close ties to Israel due to the fact that a lot of Rus Jews went to Israel and a lot of Israeli Jews do business in Russia, sanctions or not. This is pretty well know.

Hamas was allowed to grow and prepare by Bibi, this is also documented.

@polishknight

Russia as a society has no respect for the individual life of its members

Whether Russian government has or doesn't have respect for individual life doesn't contradict the fact that Russian society is accustomed to death and sacrifice due to historic invasions of their country.

some animals are more equal than others

The statement about not recruiting from certain regions is true. Same thing happens in Ukraine.

Putin is a psychopath

Don't forget that he's gone mad, he died a few times, he was supposed to be removed by his own generals and his regime was supposed to fall a few times already.

Everything you wrote is PiS or NATO talking points and propaganda. Didn't expect I will encounter a Wukrainiec on this site. It is pointless to argue with people like you, which admittedly I had to learn the hard way during last 2 years, so I'm going to leave you with a quote from Dmowski: "There are many Poles who hate Russia more than they love Poland".

@Assad2024

"Political decisions as function of how much Russian Sasha likes Ukrainian Sasha" So much for brotherhood.

You misunderstand or I didn't phrase it clearly enough: by "Russians didn't want a war" I mean common people. The rulers of the Russia made a political call for the good of the Russia, despite the "brotherhood" - this is why Ukrainians had to provoke the invasion by massively amping up the artillery strikes on the Donbas in last few days before the invasion.

This is why nations need to split,

No idea what you mean here.

It is not exactly easy to oppose central gov in Russia.

Not disputing that. That being said:

The fact whether it's easy or not to oppose it has no bearing on whether Russians had faced nation-ending historical invasions that brought massive death and required massive sacrifice to oppose. One doesn't mean the other is incorrect.

hanging on keeping people generally poor, misinformed, uneducated.

Russian economy is a long discussion, so are the other 2.

, they absolutely had a right to invade Ukraine

Yes they did. Ukraine was and is controlled by USA/NATO and was their tool used to weaken, destroy or convert Russia b/c Russia, specifically Putin, refused to join their modern version of NWO, whatever it currently supposed to be.

@polishknight

More like THIS is what USSR 2.0 collapse is going to look like when Glorious Leader leaves power vacuum:

If anyone has fake nationalism, it's Russia.

Russia didn't partition in the deepest economic crisis during the 90s, it won't now when it's much more developed. On top of that Russians feel Russian, they don't feel Siberian etc. As for the "fake" - Russias history ingrained in them the "defend the Motherland" idea - which is why it's so effective right now: it is simply a historical facts that lead to developing this mentality over the course of last 800years. There's nothing fake here, they really do think like that.

Putin is NOT a nice guy.

Whether Putin is a nice guy or not is irrelevant. What matters is his actions, which, from the historical perspective are good for Russia and Russians b/c they secure their existence in a country free from predatory exploitation and assures they won't be sacrifices as proxy vs China.

Why didn't NATO want Putin to join?

NATO is a defensive pact. Let's do Europe with that in mind: defensive against what or who? Estonians? Finns? Italians? Clearly the only on-par player who can realistically threaten NATO in Europe is Russia. Thus if you have Russia in NATO - who is to going to be defending from? NATO is implicity hostile to Russia b/c lack of Russia as enemy is an existential crisis for NATO.

This will ultimately define whether Ukraine can sufficiently muster masculine energy and support (and lives) to reclaim their ancestral lands.

Can you tell me how much "masculine energy" is needed to destroy T-72? Or how much of it is needed to detect a cruise missile? Perhaps you can muster masculine energy to use instead of ammunition?

Few are shedding tears over Wagner mercenaries that died to take Bakhmut or the Storm Z's or Eurasian conscripts being thrown into the Avdiivka

You don't understand Russia at all. They do mourn them. It's just that when you move from individual level to the level of society Russians are historically used to death and sacrifice.

Ukrainians are the indigenous people of their lands

Kyiv was the origin of Slavic culture so Russians are merely confused Ukrainians

Doesn't really matter if they are or aren't. Being native in your own land is not a permission to act against the important interests of other nations especially if it's done under the auspices of hostile entity, which what NATO is to Russia.

Israel, on the other hand, is the homeland of the Jews with this caveat: the Bible claims they invaded and genocided the region 3000 years ago,

It's not their homeland if they invaded and genocided the locals. But that's beside the point. Even if they were natives (which they aren't just to be clear), it is not a permission to kill non-Jews who live there among them.

Putin laughably thinks that Kievan Rus justifies Russia conquering Kyiv

This is not the basis for a political decision of why Russia went to war. This is propaganda for normies like you. A common Russian didnt' want to invade Ukraine ("it must be ours again"), simply b/c they considered them a "brotherly" nation, many of Russians had family in Ukraine and vice versa, both countries had major economic ties linking them. You have to distinguish propaganda from the real reasons.

@AndrewTatesPancreas

I reject anybody’s assessment of me on here

No, you don't. You want to be read and you want your victim mindset validated - which you have proven dozens of times by lashing out at people who disagree with your preferred interpretation. That is both damaging to you and waste of people's time.

So let’s assume I am a narcissist - again - NOW what?

The point is not to get you to admit it

The point is to get though the truth behind your statements. Just as we deconstruct female speak and meaning behind it. The point is to explain to others who are they dealing with and thus take it into account when interacting with you. For example I can clearly see that you toned down the outbursts - but I see this not as improvement but as adaptation, you went too far and it became too obvious. I think you didn't grow or make progress, you adapted your victim mindset and narcissism, dialed it down to the levels that are not obvious as before. If that is the correct explanation - why not just actually be like that, if you can?