Really, you fall for the Talmudic lies?
Ukraine is a Russian country and was the birthplace of Russia for 1000 years. It only became "Ukraine" 40 years ago in 1989. Ukraine is Russian for 'borderlands'. So saying the borderlands of Russia is not part of Russia is just absurd, first of all.
Kyivan Rus’ is not modern “Russia.” The Rus’ were a Norse-Slavic polity centered in Kyiv, not Moscow. Moscow didn’t even exist when Kyiv was the dominant power. Modern Russia is a political bloc, not a monolithic nation anymore. It is now the bastardized Mongoloid mutation of that original Kyivan state, soaked in the blood of its assimilated subject peoples.
Moscow was a minor outpost and was not even relevant until the 14th century. After the Mongol invasion in the 13th century Russia and Ukraine developed separately with Moscow falling under Mongol-Tatar rule and Kyiv being part of Lithuania and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Ukraine has had a distinct identity for centuries and even during Russian imperial rule and Soviet occupation there were constant Ukrainian national movements resisting foreign domination.
The word "Ukraine" does mean "borderland" but that doesn’t mean it was part of Russia, just like the Balkans being a "crossroads" of Europe doesn’t mean they belong to Austria or Turkey. By that logic, “Germany” comes from the Latin
Germania, so I guess modern Germany belongs to Italy?
The name “Ukraine” also predates modern Russia. It was used in medieval sources to describe the independent lands of the Cossacks, long before Muscovy started claiming to be the “Third Rome.”
Second, it's about a 5 hour drive from Eastern Ukraine to Moscow. Obviously the political risk of having an enemy force stationed so close to your capital is completely unacceptable to any serious political entity that wants to survive.
If being “close” to another country makes it a threat, then Belarus is even closer to Poland’s capital than Ukraine is to Moscow. Should Poland invade Belarus? Helsinki is only 200 miles from St. Petersburg. By this logic Russia should invade Finland at any moment because it’s "too close."
In modern warfare distance is irrelevant. Missiles, drones, and cyberattacks don’t care about a 5-hour drive.
Third, the millions of Russians living in Eastern Donbass revolted against the corrupt Ukrainian leadership after the 2014 Maiden coup, in which the rightfully elected leader of Ukraine was deposed by the CIA. This same CIA backed government then builds up a huge military and marched against the millions of Russians living in the Donbass region. That is an invasion. They were shelling civilians in Donbass for over 7 years before Russia counter-attacked, and thousands of civilians had been murdered at that point.
Russia didn't ask for this war, NATO didn't need to expand into Ukraine overthrow the elected leader, nor did they need to send a genocidal military force against the Russians in eastern Ukraine. The Russians living in eastern Ukraine WANTED mother Russia to help them, they were begging for it for years since 2014, however, Putin tried to avoid war as much as possible and sought a diplomatic solution.
However, no diplomatic solution was forthcoming, since the (((West))) is controlled by Reform Jews, who never compromise and want absolute domination over Earth.
All of this is theater, other than Slavic concerns. You are focusing on recent sensationalism but the roots of this conflict that the jews on both sides are exploiting go back centuries. None of these Washington or Kremlin mouthpieces will talk about this.
Ukraine was never truly part of Russia until the late 17th century when it became a protectorate of the Russian Tsar. Ukrainians have long fought to preserve their distinct identity, language, and culture, though it is not much different than Russians on the surface.
From the time of the Cossack Hetmanate in the 17th century Ukrainians were keenly aware of the distinction between themselves and the Russian Empire. The Cossacks fought fiercely to maintain their autonomy but the Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654) and subsequent Russian imperial expansion gradually subordinated Ukrainian autonomy to Moscow.
Despite this the regional differences between the two were significant. Over the centuries the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union eroded the Ukrainian language, traditions, and political independence in a systematic effort to assimilate Ukraine into its imperial fold.
By the time of the Ukrainian independence movement in the early 20th century ethnic Ukrainians were already deeply attuned to the risks of cultural assimilation and suppression. The creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic in 1917 was met with fierce opposition from Soviet Russia, culminating in the Red Army’s invasion and the subsequent forced incorporation of Ukraine into the USSR.
Under Stalin’s rule the enforced policies of Russification and collectivization led to mass starvation in the Holodomor, a deliberate attempt to eliminate Ukrainian nationalism and resistance to Soviet rule (but you know this already). The Soviet government saw Ukraine as an obstacle to its imperial vision and sought to break its national spirit.
Ukraine’s independence in 1991 was the culmination of a long-standing desire for autonomy. The Orange Revolution of 2004 and the Maidan Revolution were expressions of a deeply ingrained national identity that refuses to be subsumed by external powers, even if the glowies in DC were attempting to corral it for their own ends. The Maidan movement was rooted in the Ukrainian people’s desire to forge a future that was not under Moscow’s shadow but rather as an independent sovereign state. I have no doubt that the tensions have escalated to kinetic war because of provocateurs on both sides, but that still doesn't invalidate the desire for an ethnicity of a race to have unblemished posterity.
From the Ukrainian perspective, particularly those who have been fighting to preserve their sovereignty and cultural identity, it’s hard to ignore the complicated web of influences that have brought them to this point. Yes the Ukrainian government like many post-Soviet states, has been corrupted by oligarchs, trafficking, and Western influence, but that doesn’t negate the ethnic Ukrainian’s right to self-determination and independence. The Ukrainian people especially those in the western regions have a long history of resisting both Russian and Western imperialism. And as much as the West has meddled in Ukrainian affairs, Russia’s heavy-handed approach has been far more destructive in its attempts to rein in Ukraine’s independence and annex it back into the Russian sphere.
Western elites have exploited Ukrainian instability for their own purposes as the situation with BlackRock, Nuland, and the ulterior role of NATO in Ukraine’s internal politics is troubling. For the average Ukrainian however, the corruption of their government doesn’t invalidate their desire for freedom. The point here is that the Ukrainian people have fought for independence for centuries and they don’t want to be a puppet of Washington, no more than they want to be one of Moscow.
From the Ukrainian perspective, not the Washington talking points, one of the most glaring dangers of being absorbed into the Russian Federation is the death of Ukrainian nationalism. Under Putin’s Russia, Slavic nationalism is anathema. There is a systematic suppression of ethnic identity and Slavic autonomy within Russia itself. We saw it with ethnic Russian nationalism, and we see it with the marginalization of nationalists within Russia, they are either oppressed or outright criminalized. A strong Russian Federation doesn’t tolerate Slavic national identities or independence movements that would resist multipolarity.
For ethnic Ukrainians this is an existential concern not a theoretical one. The Russian state does not respect the autonomy of Slavic groups outside its direct control, even within Russia. Here are the laws once again within mother Russia:
-Federal Law No. 129-FZ on Public Associations (1996)
-Federal Law No. 25-FZ on the Protection of the Rights of National Minorities (1996)
-Federal Law No. 114-FZ on Extremist Activity (2002)
-Federal Law No. 31-FZ on the Fight Against Extremist Activity (2002)
-Article 280 of the Russian Criminal Code (Public Calls for Extremism)
-Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Article 282)
-Federal Law No. 149-FZ of 2009 (Glorification of "Nazism" meaning any European nationalism even Slavic Russian)
-Article 354.1 of the Russian Criminal Code (Denial of the USSR's Role in WWII)
-The Law on Information, Information Technologies, and Information Protection (2011) (used to shutdown any Nationalist websites)
-Federal Law No. 121-FZ on "Foreign Agents" (2012)
-Federal Law No. 150-FZ (2013) on "Hate Speech" and Nationalism
-Federal Law No. 303-FZ (2014) on "Historical Lies" and Criticisms of WWII (it's a verified fact that the Red Army raped and murdered millions of innocent women and children and elderly civilian non-combatants but a crime to state this in modern Russia)
These laws may mean nothing to you, but you're not a Slav and you live in America, so there you go. I am not sticking up for jew zelensky, he needs to go of course, and so do his backers, but only Europeans care for the cause of the Ukrainians themselves. Whether under NATO blackrock taxes or CSTO Eurasian occupation, the Ukrainians are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Russia had no choice but to defend itself, just like it had no choice against Hitler, Napoleon, or King Karl. Sitting by idly while a massive military genocides millions of Russians 5-hours from their capital would have been suicide.
What simpleton history books are you reading?
You still believe this jew nonsense that Germany was the instigator and aggressor in World War II. It didn't invade Russia, there was no more "Russia" it ceased to exist the second the Red Bolsheviks defeated the White Russian Army.
The German invasion of the then USSR, not Russia, was preemptive due to Stalin's violations of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and his offensive buildup on the Reich border, a buildup of the largest attack force in human history that was preparing to invade Europe.
Wind the clocks back a bit more.
Napoleon didn’t invade Imperial Russia just because he felt like it, Tsar Alexander I forced his hand by violating an agreement that was crucial to France’s survival.
After Napoleon defeated Russia at Friedland Alexander I agreed to align with France in The Treaty of Tilsit (1807). A major part of this was the Continental System, a massive embargo meant to economically strangle Britain by forbidding European nations from trading with it. Britain depended on trade, without European markets, its economy would collapse.
By 1810, Alexander secretly resumed trade with Britain effectively undermining Napoleon’s entire strategy. If Russia could ignore the Continental System, so could others meaning the whole plan would collapse and Britain could continue financing anti-French coalitions.
At the same time, Russia was rearming and feared Napoleon’s influence over Poland (the Duchy of Warsaw). Alexander worried Napoleon might restore an independent Poland, which would threaten Russian territory.
Napoleon tried negotiating but Alexander refused to return to the Continental System. France couldn’t afford a major power openly defying it as it would encourage Britain, Austria, and Prussia to unite against Napoleon again (at it later did).
With no diplomatic solution in sight Napoleon launched a preemptive campaign to force Russia back into compliance in 1812. He expected a quick victory but Russia’s scorched-earth tactics and brutal winter turned it into a catastrophe.
So Russia wasn’t some innocent victim, Alexander broke a legally binding treaty, sabotaged Napoleon’s war against Britain, and built up his military while plotting against France. Napoleon responded as any ruler would when faced with a treacherous ally becoming a threat.
Let's go back to King Karl now.
The Great Northern War Begins in 1700 where Russia along with Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland attacked Sweden first. Peter the Great wanted access to the Baltic Sea and saw Sweden as the main obstacle. Sweden was under the young but brilliant King Charles XII (Karl XII) and was the dominant Baltic power then.
Instead of crumbling Karl XII attacked all three of his enemies. He defeated Denmark quickly, then defeated a much larger Russian force at Narva (1700) humiliating Peter. After that he turned to Poland and forced Augustus II to abdicate.
Karl didn’t just randomly decide to invade Russia, Peter refused to surrender and kept rebuilding his army. Meanwhile Russia harassed Swedish supply lines and supported resistance in Poland. Karl saw this as betrayal and marched to Moscow to force Peter to end the war (1707-1708).
Russia avoided direct battle using scorched-earth tactics to starve and exhaust the Swedes. By the time Karl reached Poltava, his army was too weak. Russia defeated Sweden’s forces, turning the tide of the war. At this point Sweden went from a great European power to a secondary state and Russia became the new dominant power in Eastern Europe.
So in this case as well Russia wasn’t just “defending itself," it started the war, Karl XII retaliated, and Russia used underhanded tactics to bleed the Swedes dry over two decades.
In every example you use, Imperial Russia, or the USSR has always been the aggressor. In almost every war it fights is dressed up in the language of “defense” while it grabs land and exterminates its enemies. You could have mentioned the Sino-Russian wars, but these were also primarily Russian expansionism that caused them, or the Russo-Japanese war, which was imperial competition between two rising powers in the context of global rivalry. Only Russia lost that one and that didn't help with strengthening Tsarism against the rising Bolshevism.
That's what empires do, not that I blame them for that, but this kvetching and claiming victimhood is very jewish and not Slavic at all, no wonder given how many jews there are in Russia writing their history books the last hundred years just like they've been doing in America and occupied Europe.
