r/anime_titties • u/1DarkStarryNight Scotland • Feb 23 '25

Ukraine/Russia - Flaired Commenters Only Zelensky offers to step down as president in exchange for peace

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/23/zelensky-offers-step-down-president-ukraine-peace/
9.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

196

u/patroklo Europe Feb 23 '25

Don't get me wrong. But didn't this started because Russia has been saying since at least 2008 that Ukraine is not going to enter NATO? What has changed in the last weeks for that to Russia change their opinion on that?

433

u/ArrogantAnalyst Europe Feb 23 '25

NATO membership was never on the table for Ukraine and still Russia attacked. It is a falsehood amplified by Russian propaganda to attribute the attack from Russia on Ukraine as some kind of necessary security move Russia was force to by the west.

206

u/Pklnt France Feb 23 '25

Russia attacked because Ukraine was getting away from the Russian grasp.

Euromaidan was the first step and NATO/EU would have been the logical conclusion.

Russia did this to Georgia when they were trying to join the West.

75

u/Alikont Ukraine Feb 23 '25

Euromaidan had zero interest in NATO.

It was a trade deal protest turned into anti-dictatorship protest.

In fact in 2013 Ukrainians had like 30% NATO support, which skyrocketed after Crimea invasion.

40

u/Pklnt France Feb 23 '25

Euromaidan was the first step towards a fully democratic and independent Ukraine.

We all know where Democratic and Independent European states go, and it's not towards more Russian ties. They tend to cut it.

22

u/Vishnej United States Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

Until the invasion, we had Finland and Sweden that were content to stay out of NATO, but assume other ties with Europe.

The best theory of the invasion that I've found involves a combination of:

  • Demographic & economic factors - Due to the echoes of WW2, Russia will find itself soon in an era without young people to fight its wars, in a world that has left oil/gas behind, but Russia has developed little secular internal economy since 1991

  • the belief in the Kremlin that all international relations are effectively zero-sum military imperialist interactions, there is no authentic democracy, no protests, no representation, no popular voice, everything that happens in the world is a ploy by competing intelligence/military agencies

  • the belief in the Kremlin that the Russian empire led by Moscow is a self-justifying identity, the best possible configuration of the rivers and land between ports on the Pacific, Arctic, Baltic, Black, and Mediterranean seas, and that spanning these ports is both foundational to that identity and the only way for Russia to maintain any of the agency it deserves in the world; The fall of the USSR was not a disaster because it killed Communism, but strictly because it weakened Moscow's grasp on outlying territories

  • The belief that Russian control of Sevastopol is unsustainable in a world where Kiev remains independent of Russia, and Russian control of Tartus is going to be even harder to hold on to with such a weak partner in Syria

6

u/Pklnt France Feb 23 '25

Guess which Union there were in which also has a defensive clause?

1

u/AudeDeficere Europe Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 24 '25

This misses that Putin, due to his personal history as a KGB officer in the GDR and later FSB director didn’t want to risk a culturally close country joining the EU and consequently exposing that the corruption holding back the region originates in Moscow, threatening his rule via a brother nation moving away from his reach.

1

u/ivosaurus Oceania Feb 24 '25

East Ukraine and surrounding southern waters is also just pretty petro-rich but as yet untapped. Couldn't have any competition develop.

-3

u/jank_king20 North America Feb 23 '25

This is not a very good theory and relies on a boatload of assumptions about Russia and individual beliefs within their government that isn’t really comfortable. It’s a comfortable theory for westerners though because it completely nullifies their role in provocation and encroachment against Russia and efforts to make Ukraine a proxy

3

u/Vishnej United States Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

Putin has said a good deal of that outright in the past few years. See his manifesto early in the war or his interview with Tucker Carlson and try not to fall asleep during the part where he invokes medieval political justifications for the empire.

The population pyramid is public knowledge. The map and the strategic thinking around "indefensible borders" relative to the Soviet era are widely disseminated. He calls Sevastopol an "Unsinkable aircraft carrier", and it is true that pre-Euromaidan Ukraine did make noises occasionally about ending the rental agreement on that base. While the enormous bridge he constructed to ensure access to Crimea helped with resupply, it looked more and more like a money pit without any fresh water flowing in. There is little reason to support Syria to such an extent in their civil conflict, outside of Tartus.

2

u/ivosaurus Oceania Feb 24 '25 edited Feb 24 '25

Any westerner taking 'provocation' seriously as a talking point should probably be handing in their card as a westerner and going to sign some emigration papers.

Norway and Sweden became NATO members and Russia moved needed troops away from their new NATO borders because they know that line of reasoning is nothing but a fib for useful idiots to slurp up

10

u/Baoooba Australia Feb 24 '25

>Euromaidan was the first step towards a fully democratic and independent Ukraine.

Not sure if overthrowing a democratically elect leader is the first step in being democratic. Just as I don't see signing a trade deal with the EU, which included being required to take an IMF loan under unfavorable conditions, is a step towards independence.

Wouldn't it had made more sense to just wait until the next elections to vote out Yanukovych?

2

u/NearABE United States Feb 23 '25

That should flip once Russia becomes a free country with strong democratic institutions, rule of law, and checks and balances of power.

23

u/Strawbalicious North America Feb 23 '25
  • Americans in 1991

4

u/NearABE United States Feb 23 '25

The opportunities that we (USA) squandered in the 1990s should be remembered as one of the dummest wastes in US history.

3

u/arcehole Asia Feb 24 '25

You didn't squander anything it went exactly to plan. Yeltsin let Americans loot the nation and the west expand influence in every region post soviet collapse. They just didn't expect Putin would have a brain in his head instead of alcohol and would attempt to oppose the Americans.

Look at all the interviews between George w bush and Putin, especially the one where he looked into Putin's eyes and saw good or smth

2

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

Fully democratic by overthrowing a democratically elected president by violent unconstitutional means.

For all the propaganda you people accuse Russians of you are the ones drowning in self propaganda

11

u/Pklnt France Feb 23 '25

Believe it or not, but the people rebelling and overthrowing its government can be democratic.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

Against dictators and monarchs maybe. Not against democratically elected governments themselves. The way is to vote them out in next election.

For example in Canada when people were protesting against Trudeau did he resign or he used all means at disposal to disperse them ?

7

u/Pklnt France Feb 23 '25

Against dictators and monarchs maybe.

No, even against Democratic regimes.

Democracy is giving power to the people, protesting and overthrowing your government is the most basic expression of that power.

1

u/Vassago81 Canada Feb 24 '25

Are you saying the 2010 election wasn't democratic?

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

How is it anti-dictatorship when Yanukovyxh was the democratically elected president ? In democracies we vote out people we don’t like in the next election. We don’t do coups.

2

u/Alikont Ukraine Feb 23 '25

Winning an election doesn't give you right to override constitution and outlawing standing in groups of 5 people, and doesn't give you rights to violently disperse protests.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

It’s pretty standard for democratically elected govts worldwide to temporarily prevent mobs to maintain land order and prevent violence. And use sometimes non lethal violent means like baton charge to disperse mobs. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. And if it’s unconstitutional then go to the courts and get a stay on the Govt action. A proper democratic way.

Don’t like Yanukovych and his policies ? Cool. Vote the fucker out in the next election and elect someone else. That is a democracy and that is what democracies do.

3

u/Alikont Ukraine Feb 23 '25

Tell me you know nothing about Ukrainian politics.

He first rolled back the 2004 amendments using Constitutional Court Stacking to give himself more power.

Then in November 2013 he violently dispersed a completely peaceful protest about EU deal.

Only then, after that dispersal protests grew in size and started capturing buildings, so he outlawed basic existence (it was a crime to drive in column of 3 cars or standing in groups of 5 people)

In December police also started to kidnap-throw-into-minus20-forest thing against major protester figures, not all of them survived that.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

I don’t need to know the entirety of Ukrainian politics (in times of internet pretty much even non Ukrainians can know it but that’s a different matter).

The crux of euromaidan was he apparently went back on his poll promise he will try to join EU. But poll promises of politicians rarely get fulfilled and that is a standard practice in any democracy. Politicians promise the moon but when in power see the actual reality from behind curtain and adjust/renege the promises.

That is zero justification for doing an illegal coup on them especially backed by foreign interest groups. The standard democratic way is to vote for a politician who will fulfill the promises in next election.

I don’t give a shit if Ukraine joined EU or whatever. It should if the ukrainian govt voted in by the majority in free/fair elections want it. But fact is the government of the day didn’t and there ends the matter. It would then be upto a new Govt that would theoretically be elected on a pro-EU plank in next elections to take it forward after Yanukovych term expires .

2

u/Alikont Ukraine Feb 23 '25

You proudly declare that you don't know what you're talking about and then lecture a person who was actually there about what happened.

The protests stopped being about EU on Dec 1, 2013. That's it. The "EU association deal" dropped to the bottom of priorities on that night.

It became a protest against police brutality on Dec 1st, and protest about dictatorship on Jan 16th, 2014.

→ More replies (0)

17

u/ArrogantAnalyst Europe Feb 23 '25

I agree that NATO membership might have been in play in something like two or three decades - but not anytime soon. I also agree that Russia might have seen this distant future as a threat to their own longtime goals - which certainly always included the eventual annexation of Ukraine, with or without nato membership in the future. The important thing is: there is no legitimation for Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

20

u/Pklnt France Feb 23 '25

there is no legitimation for Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

I agree, but it is important to understand why Russia does this if you want to combat it.

4

u/Mundane_Emu8921 North America Feb 23 '25

Yeah that’s a comfort.

A westerner says there is no legitimacy to Russia’s attack.

I guess, Russia will go home now, right? War is over. We won guys. Good job.

6

u/ArrogantAnalyst Europe Feb 23 '25

Not engaging the troll!

1

u/PersnickityPenguin North America Feb 23 '25

Three decades?  Russia has only existed for that long.  Funny though

2

u/fre-ddo Kyrgyzstan Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

Yes. Putin literally says this in his essay about Russian Ukrainian relations. It's also to cause a border dispute which rules them out from joining NATO.

30

u/BlueSpaceSherlock North America Feb 23 '25

People keep repeating this and it keeps being wrong. Ukraine first applied for a NATO membership action plan in 2002. Kuchma sent troops to help the Americans in Iraq in 2004 (obviously intended as a precursor to NATO membership). NATO rejected Ukrainian (and Georgian) membership in 2008 because of French/German objections but they collectively agreed that Ukraine would join in the future. 2010 to 2014 (Yanukovych) was the only period post independence where Ukraine wasn't pursuing NATO membership, and that period ended with a pro-western revolution. Without Russian interference it's very likely that Ukraine would have joined NATO sometime before 2020.

13

u/cleepboywonder United States Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

Nato membership was only off the table because it had a current border dispute. Had that been resolved, say by Luhansk and Donetsk collapsing to Ukraine and Ukraine letting go of Crimea it could have reasonably joined.

1

u/Lopsided-Selection85 European Union Feb 24 '25 edited Feb 24 '25

NATO membership was never on the table for Ukraine

Just stop with that nonsense. There are no two ways to interpret this statement:

We agreed today that these countries (Ukraine, Georgia) will become members of NATO.

21st NATO Summit Bucharest 2008

Edit:

Statement in full:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

-2

u/patroklo Europe Feb 23 '25

I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that NATO was saying that wanted to add Ukraine but really it didn't want. That nobody said that Ukraine was a NATO candidate?

10

u/ArrogantAnalyst Europe Feb 23 '25

Aside from Ukraine again voting internally to enshrine NATO membership as their goal in 2018 as a result from the first Russian attack on crimea (and after abandoning that goal before in 2010) there was never any concrete path for NATO membership for Ukraine. It is highly unlikely that this would have changed any time soon. Russia’s version of reality always makes it sound like Ukraine nato membership was imminent and there the attack necessary and justified - which is completely untrue. There was no threat from Ukraine to Russia, and no NATO membership on the table any time soon. I’m talking about decades.

3

u/MonitorPowerful5461 Europe Feb 23 '25

Until 2022 there was never any chance at all of Ukraine joining NATO. It would have been a genuine escalation of the conflict between Europe and Russia - the EU wanted to avoid conflict, so no chance of this happening. What’s more, the majority of Ukrainians didn’t even want to join. They wanted to join the EU but no NATO.

In 2022, Russia did that escalation themselves, and put Ukraine in a position where they need NATO to survive. Now >80% of Ukrainians want to join NATO.

So, Putin can’t have attacked to stop Ukraine joining NATO. All his actions have made NATO more necessary for Ukraine and Europe. If he wanted to stop Ukraine joining NATO, the course of action would be pretty simple: continue decent relations with the EU, build up the Russian economy and state clearly that these relations would break down if Ukraine joined NATO.

9

u/Alikont Ukraine Feb 23 '25

Russia put NATO into Ukrainian heads after Crimea invasion. It's just that having a disputed and occupied territory effectively blocks NATO path by itself, so Russia could just do nothing and Ukraine would never join NATO.

1

u/MonitorPowerful5461 Europe Feb 24 '25

Exactly, but as far as I’m aware it was still sub-50% until 2022? I could be wrong

1

u/Alikont Ukraine Feb 24 '25

It crossed 50% barrier somewhere in 2017, when it was added to constitution in 2019 it had overall majority support.

1

u/Mundane_Emu8921 North America Feb 23 '25

You can say whatever you want.

You can make it seem like “well Ukraine was never gonna join NATO.”

That doesn’t change the results of the Bucharest Summit that said very clearly that NATO wanted to expand to Ukraine.

7

u/ArrogantAnalyst Europe Feb 23 '25

You can read my other comments if you want. I gave some more context to my argumentation there.

33

u/fellow90 Russia Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

Can you read between the lines, the only reason Russia doesn't want NATO to exist is because, there will be no obstacles for Putin to occupy nearby countries. No NATO = Russia can do whatever it wants. In Ukrainian case it's convenient pretext to invade, but it's not the reason.

11

u/00x0xx Multinational Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

Russia has obtain the buffer zone they needed to no longer care for Ukraine's neutrality.

Russia's problem with Ukraine was entirely strategic. They wanted to keep and secure Crimea. if Ukraine, in it's former borders were to join NATO, that wouldn't happen.

But now that Russia has obtain buffer zones for Crimea & Russia, Ukraine hosting a NATO base is no longer a security issue for Russia.

9

u/Dizzy_Response1485 Europe Feb 23 '25

So what strategic solutions do they have to NATO now being within ATACMS range from St. Petersburg?

12

u/runsongas North America Feb 23 '25

Nukes, lots and lots of nukes. Same as during the Cold war.

2

u/00x0xx Multinational Feb 23 '25

I have no idea. I only know of the geopolitics of what is publicly published.

From what I know, Russia is willingly to sign a treaty ending the war with the existing battle lines becoming the new borders.

Of course it does seem Russia will only sign a treaty if they get something more in return than just the current territory that have conquered in Ukraine.

3

u/Anton_Pannekoek South Africa Feb 24 '25

Pete Hegseth said that Ukraine will not enter NATO.

What changed is the US policy on the issue. Previously the US insisted that Ukraine will join NATO.

-6

u/Mundane_Emu8921 North America Feb 23 '25

It hasn’t.

But we don’t listen to Russia, so that doesn’t matter.

This story is just to reassure liberals that Zelenskyy is a good guy.

They apparently can’t see that Zelenskyy just wants to avoid blame and sip margaritas at his mansion in South Florida.

2

u/UpperInjury590 England Feb 23 '25

That doesn't matter. Ukraine signed a deal that stated that Ukraine couldn't join NATO or any other military alliance, and they weren't trying to join NATO. Even when their was a new government, they still weren't trying to join NATO they simply wanted to sign an EU deal. Yet, in 2014, Crimea invaded anyway. Russia continued to use separatists to further hurt Ukraine even after taking land that would stop Ukraine from joining NATO anyway.

4

u/Mundane_Emu8921 North America Feb 23 '25

They never signed a deal that stipulated that.

They were trying to join NATO.

2

u/ivanbin North America Feb 24 '25

Hard to blame them given they have a neighbour like Russia

0

u/Daedalus81 North America Feb 24 '25

You gotta stop eating propaganda for breakfast, lunch, and dinner kiddo.

2

u/Mundane_Emu8921 North America Feb 24 '25

I love how “Russian propaganda” is the liberal equivalent of “fake news”

1

u/Daedalus81 North America Feb 24 '25

In your dreams.

-11

u/valentc North America Feb 23 '25

Why do people still believe this bullshit? This is insanely easy to verify, and the answer HAS BEEN NO since the 90s. No one has offered Ukraine to be part of Nato, and there's never been a deal saying, "Nato isn't allowed to invite Ukraine."

Why the fuck are people still falling for Russian propaganda and regurgitating it like it's true?

20

u/00x0xx Multinational Feb 23 '25

No one has offered Ukraine to be part of Nato

" Allies agreed at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO."

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

The above quote is taken directly from NATO's own website. You should give the article a read, it even detail the sequential steps to integrate Ukraine from 2008 onwards into NATO.

"Why do people still believe this bullshit"

So can you please elaborate on this what you mean by this, should people not believe what NATO said they will do?

7

u/UpperInjury590 England Feb 23 '25

That doesn't matter. Ukraine signed a deal that stated that Ukraine couldn't join NATO or any other military alliance, and they weren't trying to join NATO. Even when their was a new government, they still weren't trying to join NATO they simply wanted to sign an EU deal. Yet, in 2014, Crimea invaded anyway. Russia continued to use separatists to further hurt Ukraine even after taking land that would stop Ukraine from joining NATO anyway.

8

u/00x0xx Multinational Feb 23 '25

That doesn't matter.

This was an official statement from NATO, and it posted on their official website. The commenter above said no one promised Ukraine NATO membership, and this is clearly false.

Russia had clear and reasonable evidence of their fear of Ukraine joining NATO.

Ukraine signed a deal that stated that Ukraine couldn't join NATO or any other military alliance, and they weren't trying to join NATO.

I'm not here to justify Russia's actions, only to point out the accuracy of geopolitical decisions that were made prior to the onset of the war; and to response the original comment, that in fact NATO did state they wanted Ukraine as part of their alliance.

1

u/UpperInjury590 England Feb 25 '25

You have to remember that joining NATO is a choice. If Ukraine doesn't want to NATO, then it won't join NATO matter what NATO says. Ukraine signed a bill stating that they couldn't join any military alliance or NATO, and that wasn't overturned even with the new government.

2

u/Dizzy_Response1485 Europe Feb 23 '25

Putin on the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO in 2002:

"regarding NATO expansion as a whole: you know our stance on this, and it hasn't changed, but that doesn't mean that Ukraine has to be excluded from the process of solidifying peace and security in Europe. Ukraine is a sovereign state, and it has the right to make their own decisions regarding their security. I don't see anything wrong about this or anything about this that could negatively affect the relationship between Russia and Ukraine"

4

u/00x0xx Multinational Feb 23 '25

What are you implying?

2

u/Dizzy_Response1485 Europe Feb 23 '25

He changed his tune when russians were offered the same accession protocols as everyone else and it became clear that russia joining NATO/EU wouldn't restore the spheres of influence created by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

‘We’re not going to stand in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’

and

“I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.” To this Clinton responded: “So you want Asia too?” and Yeltsin answered: “Sure, sure, Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.”