War, this monster that has devoured countless human lives and social wealth throughout the ages, all good people curse it and do not want to see it. However, it still came, and on February 24, 2022, the Russo-Ukrainian War broke out.
War in Ukraine
Who is to blame for this war?
First, some people say that this is still necessary to ask, of course, it is Russia, it is Russia that has started the war, not Ukraine.
Yes, on the surface it is, but there are deeper reasons for this.
Do you know NATO?
NATO, also known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is an international military bloc established in April 1949 by major developed countries in the United States and Europe to prevent the expansion of the world communist movement led by the Soviet Union in Europe. The original member states were the United States, Canada, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Portugal and Italy, a total of 12 countries, followed by Greece, Turkey, West Germany, Spain, with the world's largest number of the most advanced offensive weapons (including nuclear bombs) and the most modern combat forces, military expenditure accounted for about 70% of the world's total. To counter NATO, the former Soviet Union and the socialist states of Eastern Europe (with the exception of Yugoslavia) established the Warsaw Pact in May 1955, or the Warsaw Pact, which began the 36-year Cold War.
At the long instigation and flickering of the United States, in July 1991, the Warsaw Pact announced its dissolution, and at the end of that year, the Soviet Union collapsed, marking the defeat of the world communist movement in Europe and the end of the Cold War. Logically speaking, NATO has fulfilled its historical mission and should be disbanded. But in fact, not only did it not dissolve, but continued to expand eastward, and so far it has been five rounds, the former Warsaw Pact countries of East Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, the three Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia independent from the former Soviet Union, Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro, and Macedonia from the former Yugoslavia have joined, and so far 30 countries have joined NATO. The former Warsaw Pact states were left with only Belarus and Ukraine (with the exception of Russia), which had gained independence from the Soviet Union, and had not joined NATO. Most of these NATO members have U.S.-led NATO troops and a large number of offensive weapons deployed, with guns pointed at Russia.
Nato has expanded eastward through five rounds, forming a semi-encirclement posture against Russia
Russia has protested against NATO's eastward expansion on many occasions, but the United States has turned a deaf ear and gone its own way. Today, Ukraine also wants to join NATO and deploy offensive weapons, which has touched Russia's bottom line, and Russia can't stand it.
The purpose of the United States is obviously to find ways to squeeze Russia's strategic space, find reasons to impose round after round of economic sanctions on Russia, limit Russia's economic development, create opportunities to lead the little brothers to beat Russia in groups, force Russia to obey, drive Putin out of power, support pro-Western puppet governments, force it to destroy nuclear weapons, and free up its hands to encircle and suppress China with all its might.
Some people follow behind the American ass, condemning Russian aggression every day with righteous and stern condemnation, standing and talking without waist pain. If Russia did not have nuclear weapons, I am afraid that it would have been buried in the mouth of the Wolves of the United States and NATO long ago, and its fate can only be worse than that of Yugoslavia, Romania, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria: fragmentation, national ruin, social chaos, economic downturn, people's livelihood, and the killing of national leaders.
Second, some people say that Russia instigated the Russians in Crimea and The Eastern Regions to make independence and split Ukraine, which was the trigger for the Russo-Ukrainian War.
But I don't think the brains of these independent Russians will be so simple, and it is unlikely that they will be provoked and let go of a good life, but they will not be wrong, and they will dig a pit for themselves. Crimea and The Eastern Regions followed Ukraine, like married girls, usually the family wants them to live well, and does not expect them to divorce. However, if you have been abused by your in-laws for a long time, or even committed domestic violence, and you have repeatedly warned and repeatedly failed to change, what should the mother's family do? It is definitely to support divorce, split up, or directly take back to the mother's house. If the mother's family is a turtle with a shrunken head, watching her own girl being beaten and angry and indifferent, is it very nestled? Will you be looked down upon by the people around you? Is it not good to mix in the market in the future? The mother's family took the initiative to provoke the daughter and son-in-law to divorce? Unless the head is kicked by a donkey.
Map of the current political situation in Ukraine
It is assumed that the first independent states of Ukraine were Crimea, but it was actually Ussi's most pro-Western Lviv (February 19, 2014), followed by Crimea (March 17, 2014), Luhansk (April 28, 2014), and Donetsk (May 12, 2014).
What was the purpose of Lviv's declaration of independence? Forced the then pro-Russian President Yanukovych to step down.
Who instigated Lviv independence? Is It possible for Russia? Who can guess.
And later? Yanukovych stepped down, and Lviv's independence was over.
Some people say that Putin is very ambitious, a modern tsar, a modern Hitler, and the purpose of launching the Russo-Ukrainian War is to restore the territory of the Soviet Union.
But this argument is clearly untenable. Because putin has been elected president of Russia for more than 20 years, why didn't he do it before 2014? Moreover, when the Soviet Union disintegrated and separated, it seems that the Russians in Crimea and Ukraine did not say anything, and if they did not want to insist with Ukraine or Russia at that time, it is likely that they would have been divided into Russia, and there would not have been so many things that followed.
Did the crimean and Udong states become independent during the Soviet era? Never heard of it. Crimea, in particular, was originally part of Russia and was allocated to Ukraine in the 1950s when Khrushchev came to power.
Did the collapse of the Soviet Union last until independence in 2004? There was a small-scale disturbance, and then it was stopped. Why? Because the then presidents Kravchuk and Kuchma pursued a policy of neutrality between Russia and the United States, the Russians in Crimea and Wudong were relatively calm and calm.
When did independence start again? In 2004. Why? Because the American son-in-law Yushchenko, who came to power by the Orange Revolution, pursued a pro-American and anti-Russian policy, forced the pro-Russian leader Yanukovych to give up power, toppled the statue of Lenin, banned the singing of Soviet songs, demanded to join NATO, declared Nazi accomplice Stepan Bandra as a national hero of Ukraine, built a memorial to the Great Famine and held mourning activities, which greatly hurt the national feelings of the Russians in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
U.S. son-in-law Yushchenko, who won ukraine's presidential election in 2004, and prime minister Tymoshenko
Why didn't there be a fuss before 2014? Yanukovych, who succeeded Yushchenko as president of Ukraine in 2010, pursued a pro-Russian policy to appease Russians in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Why is there a stir again in 2014? And it's a big deal? Because pro-Russian President Yanukovych was ousted from power, the successor President Poroshenko continued Yushchenko's pro-American anti-Russian policy, purchased American weapons, actively demanded to join NATO, the Russians in Crimea and Ukraine opposed, declared independence, the Ukrainian authorities carried out suppression, which caused many bloody incidents, leading to Russian intervention and the incorporation of Crimea into Russia.
How's the fight going on lately? Because the incoming president Zelenskiy in 2019 ignored Russia's repeated warnings, intensified his efforts to the West, strongly demanded to join NATO, and deployed American offensive weapons on its territory, Russia felt that its own security was seriously threatened, so it announced its recognition of the independence of the two eastern Ukrainian states and sent troops to intervene militarily in Ukraine.
The brothers of the original family are fighting each other, who is instigating it? Who is condoning? Who is supporting it? Is it still explicit?
Some people say that Russia has been aggressive in history and has plundered large areas of territory in neighboring countries, and today's Russia is no exception.
But today's Russia is, after all, different from the Russia of history. At that time, the Soviet Union was the world's first socialist country, and anti-aggression, anti-oppression, and anti-slavery were the proper meanings of socialism. During Lenin's time, the Soviet Union never invaded any other country. Stalin's period until the collapse of the Soviet Union practiced great power chauvinism and interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, such as supporting the independence of Outer Mongolia in the 1940s, sending troops to Poland and Hungary in the 1950s, Czechoslovakia in the 1960s, and Afghanistan in the late 1970s. But compared with the United States, after all, it is a small witch.
On August 20, 1968, the Soviet Union interfered in the internal affairs of Czechoslovakia and sent troops to occupy its capital, Prague, and was besieged by citizens
In order to counter NATO, he learned from the United States to station troops overseas and build military bases on the territory of other countries, but did not plunder the territory of other countries. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was even more low-key, not only announcing the abandonment of communism, implementing the capitalist system, and actively integrating into the capitalist camp, but also putting up patience with NATO subverting the pro-Russian regimes of the former Eastern European countries, supporting pro-AMERICAN leaders to come to power, violating its commitments for five rounds of eastward expansion, and encouraging the former Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO one after another, shrinking the overseas garrison from hundreds of thousands of people to less than 20,000 people, and reducing the number of military bases in dozens of countries to 8, of which 6 were former Soviet republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova) plus a Syria and Sierra Leone in Africa, almost all poor and small countries. For more than 20 years before 2014, except for internal disputes in the former republics (such as Chechnya, Georgia, etc.), there was no interference in the internal affairs of other countries or invasion of neighboring countries.
Some people say that Stalin in the Soviet Union was worse than Hitler, and that he pursued a policy of genocide against Ukrainians, and in addition to indiscriminate killing and emigration, he also took advantage of the great famine of the 1930s to starve a large number of Ukrainians to death, and at the same time moved a large number of Russians to occupy Ukrainian land, laying the foundation of mutual hatred between the two major peoples of Ukraine and Russia, which was one of the reasons for the Russo-Ukrainian War.
I am not a historian and do not know much about the great famine in Ukraine in the 1930s, but common sense tells me that Stalin's claims of genocide are pure nonsense.
Stalin was a communist, and communism advocated the unity of the world, the equality of all peoples in the world, big and small, and opposed aggression, racial discrimination and racial oppression, which were incompatible with the ultra-nationalism advocated by Hitler. To say that Stalin is worse than Hitler is completely logically unjustifiable. It is hard to imagine that a man worse than Hitler had such a lofty prestige in the Soviet Union, had such a strong appeal and cohesion, could lead the Soviet people to defeat German fascism, could not be liquidated at the end of The Second World War, and could build one of Europe's most backward Russia into the world's second most powerful power in less than thirty years.
Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are all East Slavic, all originating in Kievan Rus', close relatives, and of different ancestry. Among them, Ukraine is also known as Little Russia, and since the middle of the 17th century, there have been three hundred years of Russian-Ukrainian alliance, and Ukraine has become part of Russia. Two ethnic groups live in the same place, some places have more Ukrainians, such as the Ussi region, and some places have more Russians, such as the Wudong region. If Stalin's policy of genocide had been true, other ethnic groups not related to the Russians should have borne the brunt of it, not Ukraine, and the Soviet Union should have been almost exclusively Ethnic Russian in its country in the later period. In fact, by the end of the collapse of the Soviet Union, ethnic Russians accounted for only 51% of the total population.
Political stability and national unity are the foundation of national progress and economic prosperity, and genocide within one's own country is tantamount to digging one's own grave. Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, the world's first socialist country, ruled the Soviet Union for nearly thirty years. Don't you understand this? Hitler dared to commit genocide against the Jews in his own country during World War II because the national problem in Germany at that time was very simple, the Germanic nation accounted for more than 90%, and the Jews were only 560,000, accounting for about 7 ‰ of the total population, almost negligible. By the end of World War II, Hitler had slaughtered 140,000 Jews in Germany and 6 million Jews throughout Europe. The ethnic problems of the Soviet Union are far more complex than those of Germany, and it is said that there are nearly 200 ethnic groups, Ukraine, as the second largest ethnic group in the Soviet Union, accounting for more than 15%, and the population of the Soviet Union in the 1930s was about 150 million, and there were 22.5 million Ukrainians alone. Is genocide possible?
There are no official authoritative figures for the number of people who died from the famine, all of which are speculative estimates, ranging from 2 million to more than 10 million. In fact, the population of Ukraine at that time would not exceed 20 million (41.41 million as of June 2021), of which more than 10 million Ukrainians (there are more than 100 ethnic groups in Ukraine) If they all starved to death, would the current Ukrainians fall from the sky?
On November 22, 2014, then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, together with his wife and government officials, mourned in front of the Monument to the Great Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 in Kiev
In addition, Stalin was Georgian and did not belong to ethnic Russians. If Stalin had committed genocide, it would have been all ethnic groups except georgians, including ethnic Russians. I wonder how the rumor-mongers explained why Stalin had a soft spot for Russians.
Some people say that Ukraine is an independent sovereign state, and it is its own country's internal affair to want to join NATO, to deploy weapons on its territory, and to allow Nazi activities, and Russia has no right to interfere.
This statement sounds reasonable at first glance, but it doesn't seem to make sense when analyzed in detail.
Let me ask you: Is it wrong for the younger brother to ally himself with his brother's enemies against his brother?
The brother's house was already surrounded by guns, and the enemy set up guns in the courtyard of his brother across the wall, aiming the muzzle at his brother, could the brother be willing?
The Nazis were the common enemies of Russia and Ukraine, and the younger brother allowed the Nazis to move in his own yard, didn't he pour salt on his brother's wounds? Can my brother say yes?
Because of this, the brother ran over and beat his brother, and the enemy beckoned a group of small followers to coax him to the side, instigating his brother to resist, and while handing a knife and a gun to his brother, he reprimanded his brother sternly and righteously. Is this scenario very similar to the current Russo-Ukrainian War?
The savannah eats the weak
Some people say that Russia does not allow Ukraine to join NATO, and it itself has asked to join NATO four times, which is "only allowed state officials to set fires, and the people are not allowed to light lamps."
Yes, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has indeed asked to join NATO (Yeltsin in 1991, Putin in 2000, 2003, 2008), plus the one before the collapse of the Soviet Union (Khrushchev 1954), a total of 5 times, but all were rejected. Why is that?
The main reason, I am afraid, is that the Soviet Union's accession to NATO is not in the strategic interests of the United States. The United States needs to reserve an enemy state for Europe, a reason for NATO's continued existence and its own control of Europe, and thus continue its hegemony in Europe. Just think, if Russia joins NATO, the entire European continent will be one family, will NATO still have the need to exist? What reason does the United States have for not to go in Europe?