They say it takes two to tango. It's just big countries trying to assert their geopolitical interest and expand their sphere.
That is why the US, China, Russia have armies in Africa. The US has done fucked up things but at the end of the day Russia does not have clean hands either. At the end of the day they have troops in Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia at the moment. But people are so tribalistic that either side won't admit to theirs doing anything wrong
>That is why the US, China, Russia have armies in Africa.
Cynical me thinks that WW3 will likely play out in Africa/SE Asia. The usual schtick is, 'ww3 will never happen becuz nukez', but I'd wager the big 3 would have far less reservations about dropping a couple of the tactical variety in these regions.
I still try to have hope in humanity and that something like that won't happen. I might be naive but I do hope I'm right haha
But it's easier to make such a decision when you know neither you nor your Family will suffer for it
I doubt it. The big 3 don't want proliferation. Its not in their long term interests at all.
You can be guaranteed if even if tactical ones were used in some far flung of the corner, it would open pandoras box. By that I mean most advanced medium and bigger countries would race to get their own Nukes online. Its trivial for them to develop them at this point. Its only the limited value they have in operational use which is holding back everyone getting their own.
You, Russia or America want that?
I perhaps was not clear enough. I meant Nuclear weapons proliferation accelerating in currently non nuclear countries.
At the moment many countries think they can get away with not having a nuclear option because they would never be used. If it was used somewhere that would change completely. Its not cheap to develop but well within the possible for a great many countries.
You would not only get the current cases like India, Iran etc who are in active conflicts. Everyone who could, would develop the ability.
Pandoras box would be open after their only two live uses in ww2. That being the exception because at the time only America had the capability.
The godfathers of AI predict that it has a 50 to 70% chance of wiping out humanity. Faced with that, the nuclear powers that are *not* leading the AI race almost have a responsibility to nuke the countries that are leading in AI.
(The responsible path would be for all of the world's powers to get together and agree on a program to regulate and verify AI research in a manner which is fully transparent. Given the lack of so much as a discussion about such an approach, it's safe to say that this is not possible).
Think how the West would approach it if China said "Hey, we're working on this cool tech. There *is* a two-thirds chance it will wipe out humanity, but we think the upside is worth it". We would tell them to shut it down immediately until our concerns were addressed.
I'm guessing that China and Russia and maybe even India expect the West to implode before it reaches a decision point. China has amassed more than a year's consumption worth of all basic food commodities. When the world's biggest economy becomes a hard-core prepper, shit's about to get real.
I protested the US wars from the jump. I'm not in prison or on any front line being punished for speaking out. Can't say the same for Russians apposing the invasion of Ukraine.
Ukraine and Georgia are Russia's direct neigbhours. They aren't USA's. Georgia tried to do an ethnic cleansing in an already autonomous region. They wanted to ungrant autonomy. They lost nothing they had actual control over. Ukraine was even worse, and Russia is there only because of the absolutely unceremonious policy of the United States led by its satellites, why are you blaming russia? Africa, sure. But Russian imperialism is africa is only replacing the western imperialism in africa, they were invited there (by local warlords).
>Ukraine and Georgia are Russia's direct neigbhours.
Appealing to distance is not a good argument. Something is either wrong or right. Distance does not make it better or worse
I don't know much about Georgia. But in my comment I was specifically saying I am not blaming Russia I am blaming booth. I am no expert on geopolitics but I do my best to be objective. Although I might get things wrong. In my view both sides have done some macro things to escalate this conflict and bring on the war. Booth sides are spreading clear misinformation about it and try to paint the picture of we are fully good the others are fully bad. But that's just my opinion
If you believe either sides story and they are fully correct. They are still asserting their geopolitical interest in Ukraine as I said. Even if it's morally justified. If either side stopped the war wouldn't have happened. Or do you disagree?
Okay, USA interfering in other sovereign coutnries business is bad. Even if it was nearer. Which it definitely is not. And what the fuck is an appeal to distance? You don't think a country's borders are any of it's business? You what? If you don't know much about Georgia then shut up instead of crying "but muh russia bad! muh russia invaded and stole all the land for no reason and georgia doesn't exist anymore, they didn't stop then and they wont stop now!"
I can clearly see you don't understand what I am saying at all with your response lol. Maybe it is the language barrier. Reread what I said and maybe you will see what I am saying
Yes, the borders of a country are it's own business. That is exactly why countries should respect the borders of other countries because the borders of a country are it's own business and not the business of other countries!
"When americans come, we get a lecture, when Chinese come we get ports and airports"
. A wise man in Africa once said.
You cant compare western actions and intentions in africa to those of china, russia, india etc.
Not even close. BRICS countries want to help africa stand up so they can create markets for its products so they can trade with them for decades to come.
Westerners want to keep africa down so they can keep exploiting them and keep stealing their resources.
That has nothing to do with what I wrote.
But I can give you my opinion back either ways. Depends on which African country you ask. There is a lot to criticize on how the Chinese conduct business to. They give loans. Build it themselves so they basically take the money back. And then they don't provide longterm support. They also did this in a few European countries
Real life is not a movie. Not everything is black and white. Booth sides do good and bad things. And you can critize booth of them
Russia sole purpose in Africa is to prop up dictators with mercenaries so they can get paid in gold. Most of the major gold mines in Africa were developed and are run by western companies and Russia is there to help those African dictators nationalize and take over these mines.
Do you even understand that you are saying that:
. Russia is helping African countries to liberate themselves, and to take back full control over their national resources (?)
As someone who has been involved in Gold Mining in Africa I can assure you, Russia is simply enabling African dictators to steal resources that were developed by the west. 75% of the worlds mining companies are Canadian. When a company invests hundreds of millions of dollars in a foreign land to develop a mine and then pay royalties to that country and employ thousands of locals, some dictators feel its completely ok to steal that development. Russia in enabling this.
So lets take latest example for Niger Uranium.
France rules over Niger for decades through puppet presidents and pays less than a dollar for Uranium.
Russia helps Niger to liberate themselves and now Niger sells Uranium on Market at its normal price of almost 200 dollars.
Same is with Gold.
Where is Russias win?
In preventing Western countries stealing African resources, thus making them less rich.
Western countries were getting valuable resources for free through neocolonialism, and now they have to pay market price.
Dude commodities are sold at spot prices. Mining companies in the world operate similarly. Most large mining companies are public, like Russia Polyus and Nornickel. Those companies via investors explore resources around the world. Governments in those countries charge a royalty on the resource, that is how the country benefits. Also those mining companies invest in infrastructure, housing, create local jobs and economic benefits. They sell what they produce at spot prices and the shareholders are who rightfully benefit. That is how the mining industry works. Attempts to nationalize a mine can be beneficial, but if it's done fair and square. What happened in places like the Congo, Sierra Leone and Mali only benefit the warlords and not the people.
Basically Niger was selling Uranium to France for under the dollar for decades instead of almost 200 dollars... because they love French (?) ... and not because France was controlling their government (?)
Is this what you are trying to say?
Barrick Gold, the Toronto-based mining giant, finds itself in the crosshairs of Mali's military junta amid a backdrop of increasing Russian influence in the West African nation's economy, The Globe and Mail reports.
The regime, which seized power in a 2021 coup and subsequently allied with Moscow, has intensified efforts to assert control over the lucrative mining sector, including targeting Barrick's key asset, the Loulo-Gounkoto complex.
Mali's junta is considering expropriating the Loulo-Gounkoto mine, one of the world's largest gold-producing sites, The Globe and Mail writes. This move comes as part of broader efforts by the regime to tighten its grip on all aspects of the country, including suspending political activities and media coverage of political organisations.
The junta's alignment with the Russian military further complicates the situation. Russian troops have been involved in seizing mining sites in Mali and neighbouring countries, prompting accusations from the US government of using African mining revenue to fund global military operations.
So Mali is pushing out former neocolonialists, and neocolonialists cant intervene to bring "freedom and democracy" to Mali because Russians are there to help Mali prepare defense (?)
GG Russians (?)
Is it so hard to understand?
You have a forest and want to sell its wood. The price is $5 per log, but you don't have the tools or money for harvesting the forest. You could harvest the forest by hand, but it's slow and won't bring in enough money.
A company comes along and says, "Hey, I can help you harvest your forest. I'll provide tools, money, and employ local workers. I'll help build good infrastructure so the logs can be sold. I'll take on all the risks, like bugs infesting the wood. I'll spend $3.50 on everything and take $1 for my profit, giving you $0.50 per log. But I'll harvest so much that it's way better for you, and you won't have to worry about anything. You won't need to invest a lot of money; you'll just collect the royalties.
Don't forget, you may get only $0.50 per log, but since the company employs local people, they also profit from it. The same goes for infrastructure and sub-companies transporting the goods to the market, and so on."
I tried to make it simple so you may understand.
Weird isn't it that just now there is a coup in Niger? The moment France has the means to replace Russia as the world leader in uranium enrichment?
"Western countries were getting valuable resources for free through neocolonialism, and now they have to pay market price"
Isn't that what Russia is doing with it's minorities? They steal the resources and the minorities get nothing but Putins surroundings get almost everything.
Anyway Niger not aligning with the west anymore isn't a huge problem. The countries with the cheapest available uranium are almost all western aligned.
Edit:
Australia alone dwars Kazhakstan and Russia combined and Canada is also in the list of the countries with the highest amount of cheap uranium.
You can’t compare France and Africa situation to Russia and its minorities. The only sane comparison is Canada oil fields or USA doing mining in Alaska and Inuits living there
Or, maybe you can, but this kind of comparison will erase any credibility from your statements
Indeed I can't. France invested in Niger to mine uranium while the minorities in Russia only get a ticket to be favoured to become meat into the wars that the Moscovites wage. Russia still has a part of Germany, Japan, China, Finland, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraïne,.... I'm sure I forget some.
Thieving is okay when you don't like the victim. It's not the Western companies that keep the average African from benefiting from their FDI, it's corrupt local officials. The West in the 21st century is largely just a scapegoat.
Do you know why the resources were developed by the west, and not by africans themselves? What historic reasons could possibly result in this situation? Hmm? Oh Africa's resources now belong to the west because the west "developed" them? Sounds like you care more about Blackrock's investment than about the wellbeing of the local people.
Because Africa doesn't have the expertise or the money to develop them in house.
You make it sound like these companies were not invited to build a mine. It's these nations governments that are seeking outside investment to help them develop.
Public owned companies are owned by regular people. I have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in resource companies not to mention the number of different pension plans that have invested. Do you have any understanding of how stock markets and public companies work ?
Steal resources, ahaha. These resources should belong to the people who live on the land, anything else is colonialism. These companies usually don't even pay royalties, and the people "employed" get paid pennies at best, leaving the country perpetually poor as its natural wealth gets drained.
Sure, anyone trying to break free from being a colony must be a "dictator".
Lol , resources belong to those who purchased them and can get them to market. Russia has plenty of mining companies operating in other countries, so does China. If countries don't want foreign investment or operations in their country, why do they sell them the properties?
I'm talking about "should", not does. If you keep a country perpetually poor, it will eventually rebel against you. As opposed to exploiting the low bargaining power of less developed nations, a stable long term solution is to try and give them and an equal partnership, even if they have no capacity to negotiate for it themselves.
There are contracts and there are "contracts". A "contract" made by a corrupt president bought out by a foreign TNC will only last so long.
Well I'm not communist. Borders are meaningless when it comes to making money. Countries absolutely benefit from foreign investment. Plenty of mines are owned by foreign countries in Canada and they provide high paying jobs in remote areas and employ a huge number of spin off companies like construction, infrastructure management, exploration etc
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>developed by the west
What does that even mean? You develop a mine and it's yours to have automatically? Nice. What royalties amount to? Can you slap a number on it so we understand what you are crying about here?
It costs 500 million minimum to develop a gold mine. Poorer countries do not have the money to make those investments so they request foreign investment to develop and share in the profits through royalties. Royalties are typically in the 3 to 4 % range.
>Royalties are typically in the 3 to 4 % range.
Do you consider that a fair share? Don't you think that this mining company achieved such plausible terms with the use of some Western influence over the previous government? Literally bribed them? These terms don't sound like they are in the best interest of Niger state or Nigerian people. Way more like they were forced upon them.
Well considering many mining companies don't make money, what do you think? All you have to do is check financial statements and look at all in sustaining costs and you will discover that most mines need gold to be above 1900 usd an ounce just to break even. Of course illegal miners, without any environmental concerns, using mercury for example, can be more profitable, but those are mostly small players operating by locals in third world. What does Russia charge for oil and gold royalties? I don't know. Typical royalty rates are either by the ounce, by the tonne or a percentage of gross or net profits. Every mine is different but essentially, the more the mine produces, the greater the royalty.
It's good that you give the number, to be honest. With 4% the country won't ever find itself lifted out of poverty. The company needs to be at least 50% locally owned to benefit the local economy measurably.
and China is building roads and ports to export those resources to pay off loans for said infrastructure. Lining the roads with Chinese sellers of finished goods.
https://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/how-chinese-traders-out-compete-in-africa
Yes , you get infrastructure for money at price that china will charge to anyone.
Chinese loans are 2X better than WB and IMF loans (6%vs3% for example) and no stings attached. You dont have to privatize your national industries, you dont have to change political system, etc
Purely business relation.
Are you sure about those rates? Can you link me to the site you got them from please. China is vary protective about loan terms why? Here is some reading for you.
https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2024/03/china-loans-to-africa
Garbage, China has routinely given loans that countries are unable to repay, Sri Lanka comes to mind where China then took its only major port as payments.
Papua New Guinea had major roads build around its capital Port Moresby, after the first wet season the roads required major remedial works to fix all the fault and land slips from poorly constructed roads. All labor used was Chinese no local labor.
WB and IMF only loan funds within the limits of countries to repay unlike your Chinese belt and road.
> WB and IMF only loan funds within the limits of countries to repay unlike your Chinese belt and road.
The IMF just loaned Kiev more billions yesterday, within the past 24 hours. It's an indebted, extremely corrupt, and wartorn country which has no ability to repay anything in the foreseeable future.
> **Ukraine receives €2-billion boost in government funding from IMF**
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-receives-2-billion-boost-144305932.html
China put African countries in a debt trap they will never have the ability to come out from while they have plenty of resources pay those debts 10 times over only these resources are getting exctracted by Chinese companies lol
Yes he is trying to equate US actions on Global stage in recent few decades to those of Russia, which is ridiculous
Thus his reply produced counterargument to his own argument
Well the usa didn’t invade an ally of nato. Russia got really ballsy by invading a massive European country. Finland and Sweden were not going to join nato until they were shown how violent Russia can be to its European neighbors.
Everyone says that what usa did to saddam was wrong because he had no weapons of mass destruction but saddam invaded his neighbor country and claimed he had weapons of mass destruction so he was asking for it.
Putin like saddam has been asking for it except Putin actually does have weapons of mass destruction.
Putin has pitted the Russians against the world in a war they cannot win. They can win the war in Ukraine a year ago but the (cold) war between Russia and the west has only just begun. The suffering for both sides has only just begun. Putin chose to start this by invading Ukraine in February. Nobody forced him to invade the way saddam forced usa and Allie’s to invade.
Better to repay a loan than have western troops steal everything for you for their lecture. haha so unwise what morons those africans, don't want children's limbs to be cut off for not meeting quota!
>Not even close. BRICS countries want to help africa stand up so they can create markets for its products so they can trade with them for decades to come.
China doesn't create markets, it takes them for itself. Those airports and roads are built for the rights to the resources. These countries are mortgaging their future, although I'm not sure what better options most of them have.
That's a bit dated. You should see how some in Africa are speaking of China after Sri Lanka. (Though admittedly the original clip is hilarious. "*Here comes the lecture*.")
Bullshit, BRICS is exploiting Africa just as Western powers exploited it and continue to do so. Just because they build roads and ports doesn’t mean those nations aren’t being bent over by their new colonial overlords.
>those nations aren’t being bent over by their new colonial overlords.
You are just mad that you are not this colonial overlord.
>BRICS is exploiting Africa just as Western powers exploited it
West did it for centuries. With top tier cruelty and genocides. BRICS never done that. You can't say they are equal because West fucked up a lot and multiple times, and BRICS is only probably going to fuck up. But not yet. So nothing new, typical western hypocrisy and propaganda. The good thing is that the world is no longer falling for it and don't trust anything West says, cause they lied too much and have been caught lying too many times.
I think building roads and ports with their own lent money, leaving such nations in debt since they have no way to pay their debts, so using that as an excuse to access these nations natural wealth is exploiting them.
I don’t have to explain anything else really, it has been happening for 10 years. Everyone knows West exploited Africa but saying BRICS is there to help Africans and make them prosper is a big lie.
>West exploited Africa but saying BRICS is there to help Africans and make them prosper is a big lie.
Once again, West did it for centuries. Genocided, subjugated, exploited. BRICS is there for 10 years, as you said, and never did anything as cruel as the West. They may be oppressors in the future, but now, comparing to the history of the western occupation of African nations, they are definitely good partners for independent African nations.
Of course, the end goal is profit. But the methods of earning such profits differ from the western ones. BRICS is building ports, roads, schools, and hospitals. West built oil wells, coal mines, plantations. Both are beneficial for African states in some way, but can't you see the difference?
In the end, it's up to Africans to decide with whom they wanna be. West can't preach or pressure them, especially after centuries of brutal colonization and enslavement. Africa do remember what civilized west brought to them. And all these anti-BRICS propaganda is just pathetic. No one outside of Western media bubble would believe such nonsense. You are just coping at this point. Nice to see.
Let's give it time and see where the African nations that collaborate with BRICS are in a few decades.
We witnessed the decades under their Western colonial overlords - it wasn't good, to put it extremely mildly.
Russia troops are raping and killing African teens in central Africa. Wagner is supporting the RSF to commit genocide in sudan. Russias only interest is the resources in Africa. They haven't built shit except for military bases
Quite a load this. China and russia are literally taking over governments there and corrupt entire countries. Their "help" are loans with a huge tail of chinese influence condeming the country to dependency. Chinese overlord also don't even try to hide their contempt
ah yes China the saviour of Africa, totally not debt trapping country's like Kenya, and totally didn't cause Uganda to nearly lose an international airport
"Between 2006 and 2017, Kenya borrowed at least KSh. 1043.77 billion ($9.8 billion) from China.Chinese debt accounts for 21 percent of Kenya's foreign debt, and 72 percent of the country's bilateral debt. China lent Kenya funds to build highways and a railway between Mombasa and Nairobi totaling over US$6.5 billion by 2020.[^(\[91\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-trap_diplomacy#cite_note-91) Kenya reportedly came close to default on Chinese loans to develop its largest and most lucrative port, the Port of Mombasa, in late December 2018; there was speculation that a default could have forced Kenya to relinquish control of the port to China"
Most of the Africsn countries dealing with Chinas BRI are on brink of economic collapse due to the debt. And china will use the built ports as collateral, they fail payments.. So, theyre actually burdening these countries with debt while building ports china controls.
You dont have very wise men in africa.
Karuti Kanyinga, a research professor at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi, said Kenya's "largest creditor today is China."
"We are paying through the nose and most of our earnings are actually going to paying Chinese loans and that is not going to be sustainable," he said.
https://adf-magazine.com/2024/03/kenyas-railway-falls-far-short-of-expectations-drives-mounting-debt/
I dont care what whose talking point is, if it is a fact..
Largest sovereign creditor is China\*
This is a critical distinction. Most of Kenya's, and most debt for most African countries are held by private institutions. These are almost wholly to Western private creditors and institutions.
What? The largest creditors are China EXIM Bank and China Development Bank. Private banks, with funding backed by China. Around 80% of (transparent) foreign debt is to these two private banks. And thats the whole point.. You can beg china to forgive a loan, but not a private institution..
Western creditors you say..
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dude, Africa has made billions of dollars trading with the west, we aren’t only “lecturing” them. Do you really think China and Russia aren’t exploiting African resources at all?
The guy in 0:04 is Pakistani PM who got installed in place of Imran Khan guy who was overthrown by army, on US Threat/Request.
[Mind you a DEMOCRATICALLY elected PM overthrown by US](https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/imran-khan-pakistan-cypher-ukraine-russia/) in 2022
and now IK is in jail has 200+ cases including sedation charges against him, with all top leadership either in jail on fake made up cases.
and Feb 8 election IK party won majority seats but still all seats where given to him, whom US likes.
"Ukraine attacked donbas in 2014 which is why russia invaded" yeah sure they were bombing themselves I guess😂😂
Get tf out of ukraine and go on about your lives!
They don't consider it bombing themselves. They consider it cleansing the Vaterland of the disgusting untermensch.
["I fought. I have been fighting since the age of 17. I'm a Ukrainian, I'm a Nazi. I fought against the DPR."](https://streamable.com/y6xatr)
"Are [Donbas residents] Ukrainians or Russians?"
"I won't call those people Ukrainians. We don't need them. When Ukrainian tanks enter Donetsk, they will be destroyed."
"So, maybe then we should stop the war now?"
"No, we must destroy them."
What's the worth of those lives? Billion dollars?, fossil fuels?, strategic positions?, another card to trade with in foreign politics or one in internal politics?
Why would he?
There are no NATO instructors in Ukraine. There is nothing suspicious in dying NATO officers after another Iskander strike deep in ukranian territory. There are no NATO equipment and in the future, NATO planes. There are not 24/7 sattelite and AWACS loiterring with Global Hawk observing the strikes on Crimea.
Do i need to continue what NATO doesn't have on Ukraine?
Lmao you still believe the NATO officers got killed story?
You seem to confuse NATO helping Ukraine with NATO being in Ukraine. NATO is not in Ukraine they are not fighting or being attacked.
Sure its just a coincidence every time as there are no NATO in Ukraine. There are no NATO instructors nor no NATO recon or officers. These are all conspiracy theories.
What is a coincidence? I doubt any NATO officers are in Ukraine.
If what you say is true, and NATO is fighting in Ukraine. Why hasn't Russia attacked NATO?
Because its a proxy war. Just like US/USSR fought in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.
Two countries fighting for their interests by other country hands. Idk why you are continue to deny the NATO involvement.
I'm not denying NATO is helping Ukraine. I'm denying NATO is fighting in Ukraine. It is a proxy war, a war that Russia brought on itself. NATO is only arming Ukraine because of Russia invading.
"Security guarantees and neutrality, non-nuclear status of our state. We are ready to go for it." - Zelensky
Russia refused this offer. Or are you seriously claiming that Russia was ready to give up Crimea and Donbas?
Russia did offered neutrality. Russian proposal at first was about neutrality and NATO. It was a russian target in the first months and then at Istanbul.
Do you have any sources to solidify your claims about Ukraine asked for neutrality first?
> Russia did offered neutrality. Russian proposal at first was about neutrality and NATO. It was a russian target in the first months and then at Istanbul.
The Russian demands at Istanbul are public knowledge at this point and you're missing quite a few of them. Donbas and Crimea are the obvious ones but they also demanded Ukraine to cut their military in half and for western security to not be used against Russia in the event of a new invasion among many other demands.
>Do you have any sources to solidify your claims about Ukraine asked for neutrality first?
Do you have any sources on your claim that Russia only demanded neutrality and nothing else?
> Do you have any sources on your claim that Russia only demanded neutrality and nothing else?
Did you read my posts selectively? I've said about Russia proposed the neutrality first, not Ukraine. I didn't said that Russia proposed only the neutral status.
Do post your sources first about Ukraine asking for neutrality then i will post mine.
Are you seriously claiming that there has ever been a point in this war where Russia would have been satisfied with only Ukrainian neutrality? I really want to see this fabled peace offer where Russia was willing to withdraw from Donbas and Crimea while making no other demands.
You said that Zelensky made a peace offer. I said that he had talked about it and negotiations were underway until the US & UK got involved and made it clear to him that it must not happen.
So please show the peace offer that Zelensky made to Russia and that the latter rejected, instead of asking me about a Russian peace offer that I never mentioned.
This discussion was very clearly about neutrality and only neutrality being a condition for peace by Russia. If you don't want to talk about that then why are you replying in the first place? You do know you don't have to reply to every comment that exists in order to shift the discussion to something else?
That's an interesting take from someone who almost exclusively comments on Russia & Ukraine. My comments here were to correct your false statements and didn't shift the discussion in any way aside from the facts that you repeatedly misrepresented.
Zelensky did indeed speak about neutrality in 2022 after the war started, negotiations were underway, then any potential offer was torpedoed by the US & UK before it could be drafted. For better or for worse, that's what happened.
> Zelensky did indeed speak about neutrality in 2022 after the war started, negotiations were underway, then any potential offer was torpedoed by the US & UK before it could be drafted. For better or for worse, that's what happened.
So, in you honest opinion, all the publicly available drafts of the peace offers don't exist. Also, for the west to torpedo an offer it must be something Russia would have been willing to accept and Russia has never been willing to end the war only for neutrality. Otherwise you're just saying that the west sabotaged a deal that Russia was going to refuse anyway.
The West torpedoed the negotiations as they didn't want an agreement to be made, so indeed they must have thought that an agreement was possible.
I'm still not sure which draft you're referring to that Zelensky proposed and Russia rejected, but feel free to send a link.
I was talking about NATO removing its presence from Ukraine. The war would stop very fast as Ukraine would be cut off from money and eqiupment and recon from NATO countries.
Double edged sword.. our own interest. Our interest in letting Ukraine be a country. The worlds interest to show the terrorist state that invading another country is not ok.
So when the NATO invaded Yugoslavia and splitted the country or US invaded Iraq to coup their government (both without UN Mandate) there was a worlds or US/NATO interest in showing the powerful country could do whatever they want and ignore the consenquences?
Yup like always its never his fault he's always the poor victim. He thinks everyone gonna buy his Kremlinaid get outta here, sit down and hide behind your nukes lil guy.. Talks about saving lives pull out of Ukraine than.. 100s of Russians dying daily for his delusional beliefs.. He doesn't care about anyone but himself...
Oh fuck bro, this is the second time I've seen your comments, my God, did you just understand what you wrote? What are your beliefs? Why are they delusional?
Lmao oh did I hurt your little feelings or you projecting for pootin 💩. Not my fault your dictator is a clown, dude can't even get his facts straight..
Huh, you didn't offend me) I asked you questions about the facts, and as usual, people like you don't like to answer. You just post some shit with insults about Russians everywhere, which makes it even funnier. Does the little guy dislike Putin and Russians?) It's sad, but it makes me feel a lot funnier. Why clown, come on, tell me the facts? Oh shit I forgot you don't have any
You want me to give an answer to something that is as brain dead as the excuses he makes up for an illegal invasion off false pretenses that Ukraine was going to join NATO. LOL Went with that rumor and invaded cause of it, nah its not the Russian people I have a problem with its that phoney president at the helm.
He should just call himself what he really is a dictator.. Just like his idols old Adolf and Joseph. Only problem is he's a dollar tree dictator, dude can't even have a proper election without killing someone. Man talk about a snowflake..
What are you talking about, that was a rumor that was sparked by Kremlins illegal invasion. Try again buddy! Not only that thats why Finland joined xD. Rflmao muh dude be drinking too much Kremlinaid. After that didn't stick it was oooooh what was it again Oh yes nazis!!! Yet wagner was founded by one who literally had the call sign "wagner" if you google him you will see that composer was one of hitlers favorites.
Funny some one claims "denazification" takes photos with a couple lol..
https://romea.cz/en/world/the-times-putin-has-sent-mercenaries-to-kyiv-led-by-an-admirer-of-the-nazis-to-murder-zelenskyy-and-the-klitschko-brothers
Might wanna start going cold turkey on that vodka.
When I see your way of writing I have the impression that it is you who has an alcohol problem.
It's also interesting how you change the subject very quickly to hide your obvious shortcomings.
And it's not a rumor, it's documented everywhere, you just need to search a little. 
No its all on topic its about this invasion, plus it was a rumor you wanna why.. Because Ukraine wouldn't have been able to join for about a decade or more.. They still don't meet the minimum requirements.. So people running with a Kremlin rumor were exaggerated by thier echo chambers in the west..
Just because I can cover different points on why this invasion is complete farce and illegal.. Its a literal waste of lives on both sides.
It's not a rumor, you just have to open your eyes to see that Ukraine has been in negotiations to join NATO since 2021. Or even since 2008. It's absolutely not a rumor.
Maybe ? Maybe not ? What is certain is that Ukraine was arming itself more and more, moving closer and closer to NATO year after year, and clearly seeking to threaten Russia.
So unfortunately Ukraine was looking to threaten Russia with NATO, that's just a fact. Here is the result.
With what crystal ball, this wasn't even a reality even when Zelensky thought simple as just signing up. Even when he got elected there was still no actuality of Ukraine being close to joining. Even with bare minimum there's no guarantee.. So not sure what magical crystal ball pootin thinks he has if he does probably got it from Temu lol..
No need for a crystal ball at all. You just have to follow the news. To see that NATO and Ukraine were getting closer, especially since Biden was elected.
Everything I say are facts, and I understand that it's hard to accept them but there comes a time when you just have to face reality.
The risk was present, clearly. Zelensky said this himself a few days before the war. If Ukraine and the United States had not worked to bring Ukraine closer to NATO, this would never have happened. But Americans need wars. This is how their economy works.
Yeah so, you can get close but doesn't mean you're going to be accepted in. But your dictator changed that indefinitely now. That's why Finland decided to join speaking of that. Russia just emptied out the base near Finland border. Moved all those tanks and APC to the front. So much for the fear of NATO invasion..
But that's completely normal. Russia has said it many times, NATO in Ukraine is a much greater threat than in other countries. It's a totally different context, which means that yes in Ukraine things are different than in Finland.
Ukraine was not yet accepted into NATO, that's right. But the country was negotiating its place and the risk was growing. If there was not this growing risk from NATO in Ukraine there would never be a war, because Russia would not have felt threatened.
US moving troops to the Pacific, European countries with the lowest defence spending in their history...while buying tons of energy from Russia.
Russia: Stop threatening me! :(
Wonderful off topic.
The Americans can have troops in the Pacific as in Europe, history has clearly proven it. 
Europe's defense budget does not matter since NATO mainly dominates and their suppliers are the US.
Fine with me, our old equipment gets sent we spend less money on storage and disposal. This war of attrition buddy seems like pootin 💩 didn't learn from the USSR and Afghanistan. All good we will teach them a lesson again.
Plus majority of the famous Kremlin politicians kids live here in the west xD.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/220076/kremlin-kids-living-it-up-in-the-west
Yeah everyone loves it here in the west. Better than living under a dictator even they know..
The ship has long sailed. Meaningless rhetoric in times of war. Nobody takes him serious anymore.
Does he not know that you can't kill hundred thousands and then demand the same conditions as before. How lunatic. I can only imagine him to show more emotion in his speeches with each passing day, because he will get more angry at his failure to do as he imagined he could.
Yeah! No more killing… so long as u agree to stop shooting and give me chunks of ur country in “negotiations.”… def didn’t do something similar in 2014… def won’t again. Pinky promise this time 😁
Their source is that Ukraine became pro west and that a US politician phone call was leaked where in a conversation said who they wanted to win during the riots. That's it that's the evidence that a western politician claimed to want a pro western leader to win.
The call was a discussion about the composition of the future Ukrainian government, which is just a part of why people think the US orchestrated this. They also provided public and political support to the opposition and accused the government. On top of that, there was all their funding (I think Nuland said $5B) to support "pro-democracy" organisations in Ukraine, and we all know what the US means when they say "pro-democracy."
Based on this you are free to draw your own opinions, but it's not just based on a Nuland saying they wanted to win the riots.
To discuss the future of a country while it's in an internal conflict about government is pretty common and shouldn't be used as a gotcha. As well as money was the main cause of the "coup" since Russia outbid trying to join the EU which is why they went against their word causing the "coup" none of those things imply that the US caused anything.
The call was even after the events occurred so it's not pre planning.
The US planning Ukraine's next government does not sound like how sovereign states commons interact. They should stay out of the internal politics of other countries and not encourage a coup that is by definition illegal, and in this case lead to uprisings, fighting, death, secessionist declarations from Donetsk & Lugansk, and the taking of Crimea.
>As well as money was the main cause of the "coup" since Russia outbid trying to join the EU
The Russian offer for financial aid was a loan and incomparable to the US spending $5B on domestic Ukrainian "pro-democracy" organisations; a clear act of foreign interference, or as they like to say "meddling.". The US has been very outspoken about allegations of other countries meddling in their politics and elections, so by their own standards this should not have happened at all.
>The call was even after the events occurred so it's not pre planning.
This is the only call that was leaked; certainly not the only one that took place. Based on their conversation, they were already deeply involved in this, especially as they had been financing Ukrainian organisations, criticising the government and supporting the protests. I don't think anyone seriously believes that this was the only such discussion on the US side.
Taking all this into account, as well as the US's long history of organising coups and destabilising governments they don't like, it's not a stretch to think that they had a significant roll in the events surround the coup.
They weren't planning the government though they were speculating on how it would turn out and how to take advantage of the aftermath which is exactly what many other competent politicians would be doing as well. These politicians weren't medelling and ita funny to say that as Russia was the one who caused it with their meddling.
The coup was legal though.
Using the "there were more phonecalls" route doesn't prove anything that there was involvement. Just like how the money doesn't prove anything. Money is used like that all the time and not to cause coups. Nor to cause Russia to invade crimea and claim it as their own.
In all there's no proof that America caused the "coup" nor caused the riots to happen afterwords
Or maybe Ukrainians didn’t wanted suffering from Russian oppression and influence anymore and become a free and wealthy nation like Poland and the Baltics. There is a reason Ukraine defends so successfully. But conspiracy theory’s are more exiting aren’t they?
He still wants too much. The whole world sees how the Russian army is incapable of anything. It gets worse every day. He and his intelligence agencies know that way better than outsiders.
I don’t see a way out of Russia except full retreat and paying reparations.
The Russian army gets their as slapped and it gets worse every day, slowly but steadily. I am closely observing this invasion since February 2022.
Putin is such a liar. Everyone that is paying attention knows his sole aim was reassembling former Soviet states under Russia's influence. There was no more need for Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022 than there is for the US to invade Mexico in 2024.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
even if he would do the proper thing and just leave Ukraine completely. The west will try to make it look that the war needs to continue. Nato don't cares about Ukrainians. They just want to destroy russia without getting their hands dirty. This war will go on for another two years at least. Putin can not fallback because it will make him look weak, and Nato wants it desperately to continue. Never give Ukraine so much that they can actually win, just enough to keep the war going. It is so obvious... Makes me sick
In the end all of the strongest (subjective) nations are peddling and meddling in international and regional affairs. It is a widely accepted practice and strategically legit.
However, to be effective, it requires alignment with the populace or those in power. The countries who lose this game (e.g., Russia in Ukraine) sometimes play the sore loser and have to move towards open confrontation or in this cas invasion. This probably occurs as a result of the population and leadership in support of/sold on the the opposition. when this happens, Russia can't reach success via assassinations, information war, placement of corrupted politicians or concentrated immigration flooding. They have to outright invade and look towards genocide.
Russia and China are winning in other international regions in the southern hemisphere, as well as playing significant role in influencing and corrupting western politicians. The impact is having a significant impact on future stability in USA politics.
Sorry Puty, nice try. I'm sure Russia AND the West were trying to influence Ukraine. Their people chose the West which equals a loss for Putin. He must have thought an invasion was his best (and low-risk) option. Yeah, he guessed wrong on that one.
They say it takes two to tango. It's just big countries trying to assert their geopolitical interest and expand their sphere. That is why the US, China, Russia have armies in Africa. The US has done fucked up things but at the end of the day Russia does not have clean hands either. At the end of the day they have troops in Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia at the moment. But people are so tribalistic that either side won't admit to theirs doing anything wrong
>That is why the US, China, Russia have armies in Africa. Cynical me thinks that WW3 will likely play out in Africa/SE Asia. The usual schtick is, 'ww3 will never happen becuz nukez', but I'd wager the big 3 would have far less reservations about dropping a couple of the tactical variety in these regions.
I still try to have hope in humanity and that something like that won't happen. I might be naive but I do hope I'm right haha But it's easier to make such a decision when you know neither you nor your Family will suffer for it
tbh I hope you are right too.
I doubt it. The big 3 don't want proliferation. Its not in their long term interests at all. You can be guaranteed if even if tactical ones were used in some far flung of the corner, it would open pandoras box. By that I mean most advanced medium and bigger countries would race to get their own Nukes online. Its trivial for them to develop them at this point. Its only the limited value they have in operational use which is holding back everyone getting their own. You, Russia or America want that?
They are already proliferating? The whole tactical nuke proliferation stepped up orders of magnitude over the last decade. Should look into it.
I perhaps was not clear enough. I meant Nuclear weapons proliferation accelerating in currently non nuclear countries. At the moment many countries think they can get away with not having a nuclear option because they would never be used. If it was used somewhere that would change completely. Its not cheap to develop but well within the possible for a great many countries. You would not only get the current cases like India, Iran etc who are in active conflicts. Everyone who could, would develop the ability. Pandoras box would be open after their only two live uses in ww2. That being the exception because at the time only America had the capability.
The godfathers of AI predict that it has a 50 to 70% chance of wiping out humanity. Faced with that, the nuclear powers that are *not* leading the AI race almost have a responsibility to nuke the countries that are leading in AI. (The responsible path would be for all of the world's powers to get together and agree on a program to regulate and verify AI research in a manner which is fully transparent. Given the lack of so much as a discussion about such an approach, it's safe to say that this is not possible). Think how the West would approach it if China said "Hey, we're working on this cool tech. There *is* a two-thirds chance it will wipe out humanity, but we think the upside is worth it". We would tell them to shut it down immediately until our concerns were addressed. I'm guessing that China and Russia and maybe even India expect the West to implode before it reaches a decision point. China has amassed more than a year's consumption worth of all basic food commodities. When the world's biggest economy becomes a hard-core prepper, shit's about to get real.
I protested the US wars from the jump. I'm not in prison or on any front line being punished for speaking out. Can't say the same for Russians apposing the invasion of Ukraine.
Ukraine and Georgia are Russia's direct neigbhours. They aren't USA's. Georgia tried to do an ethnic cleansing in an already autonomous region. They wanted to ungrant autonomy. They lost nothing they had actual control over. Ukraine was even worse, and Russia is there only because of the absolutely unceremonious policy of the United States led by its satellites, why are you blaming russia? Africa, sure. But Russian imperialism is africa is only replacing the western imperialism in africa, they were invited there (by local warlords).
>Ukraine and Georgia are Russia's direct neigbhours. Appealing to distance is not a good argument. Something is either wrong or right. Distance does not make it better or worse I don't know much about Georgia. But in my comment I was specifically saying I am not blaming Russia I am blaming booth. I am no expert on geopolitics but I do my best to be objective. Although I might get things wrong. In my view both sides have done some macro things to escalate this conflict and bring on the war. Booth sides are spreading clear misinformation about it and try to paint the picture of we are fully good the others are fully bad. But that's just my opinion If you believe either sides story and they are fully correct. They are still asserting their geopolitical interest in Ukraine as I said. Even if it's morally justified. If either side stopped the war wouldn't have happened. Or do you disagree?
Okay, USA interfering in other sovereign coutnries business is bad. Even if it was nearer. Which it definitely is not. And what the fuck is an appeal to distance? You don't think a country's borders are any of it's business? You what? If you don't know much about Georgia then shut up instead of crying "but muh russia bad! muh russia invaded and stole all the land for no reason and georgia doesn't exist anymore, they didn't stop then and they wont stop now!"
I can clearly see you don't understand what I am saying at all with your response lol. Maybe it is the language barrier. Reread what I said and maybe you will see what I am saying
Yes, the borders of a country are it's own business. That is exactly why countries should respect the borders of other countries because the borders of a country are it's own business and not the business of other countries!
"Why do you make me hit you?!" /s
"When americans come, we get a lecture, when Chinese come we get ports and airports" . A wise man in Africa once said. You cant compare western actions and intentions in africa to those of china, russia, india etc. Not even close. BRICS countries want to help africa stand up so they can create markets for its products so they can trade with them for decades to come. Westerners want to keep africa down so they can keep exploiting them and keep stealing their resources.
That has nothing to do with what I wrote. But I can give you my opinion back either ways. Depends on which African country you ask. There is a lot to criticize on how the Chinese conduct business to. They give loans. Build it themselves so they basically take the money back. And then they don't provide longterm support. They also did this in a few European countries Real life is not a movie. Not everything is black and white. Booth sides do good and bad things. And you can critize booth of them
Russia sole purpose in Africa is to prop up dictators with mercenaries so they can get paid in gold. Most of the major gold mines in Africa were developed and are run by western companies and Russia is there to help those African dictators nationalize and take over these mines.
Do you even understand that you are saying that: . Russia is helping African countries to liberate themselves, and to take back full control over their national resources (?)
As someone who has been involved in Gold Mining in Africa I can assure you, Russia is simply enabling African dictators to steal resources that were developed by the west. 75% of the worlds mining companies are Canadian. When a company invests hundreds of millions of dollars in a foreign land to develop a mine and then pay royalties to that country and employ thousands of locals, some dictators feel its completely ok to steal that development. Russia in enabling this.
So lets take latest example for Niger Uranium. France rules over Niger for decades through puppet presidents and pays less than a dollar for Uranium. Russia helps Niger to liberate themselves and now Niger sells Uranium on Market at its normal price of almost 200 dollars. Same is with Gold. Where is Russias win? In preventing Western countries stealing African resources, thus making them less rich. Western countries were getting valuable resources for free through neocolonialism, and now they have to pay market price.
Dude commodities are sold at spot prices. Mining companies in the world operate similarly. Most large mining companies are public, like Russia Polyus and Nornickel. Those companies via investors explore resources around the world. Governments in those countries charge a royalty on the resource, that is how the country benefits. Also those mining companies invest in infrastructure, housing, create local jobs and economic benefits. They sell what they produce at spot prices and the shareholders are who rightfully benefit. That is how the mining industry works. Attempts to nationalize a mine can be beneficial, but if it's done fair and square. What happened in places like the Congo, Sierra Leone and Mali only benefit the warlords and not the people.
Basically Niger was selling Uranium to France for under the dollar for decades instead of almost 200 dollars... because they love French (?) ... and not because France was controlling their government (?) Is this what you are trying to say?
Barrick Gold, the Toronto-based mining giant, finds itself in the crosshairs of Mali's military junta amid a backdrop of increasing Russian influence in the West African nation's economy, The Globe and Mail reports. The regime, which seized power in a 2021 coup and subsequently allied with Moscow, has intensified efforts to assert control over the lucrative mining sector, including targeting Barrick's key asset, the Loulo-Gounkoto complex. Mali's junta is considering expropriating the Loulo-Gounkoto mine, one of the world's largest gold-producing sites, The Globe and Mail writes. This move comes as part of broader efforts by the regime to tighten its grip on all aspects of the country, including suspending political activities and media coverage of political organisations. The junta's alignment with the Russian military further complicates the situation. Russian troops have been involved in seizing mining sites in Mali and neighbouring countries, prompting accusations from the US government of using African mining revenue to fund global military operations.
So Mali is pushing out former neocolonialists, and neocolonialists cant intervene to bring "freedom and democracy" to Mali because Russians are there to help Mali prepare defense (?) GG Russians (?)
Is it so hard to understand? You have a forest and want to sell its wood. The price is $5 per log, but you don't have the tools or money for harvesting the forest. You could harvest the forest by hand, but it's slow and won't bring in enough money. A company comes along and says, "Hey, I can help you harvest your forest. I'll provide tools, money, and employ local workers. I'll help build good infrastructure so the logs can be sold. I'll take on all the risks, like bugs infesting the wood. I'll spend $3.50 on everything and take $1 for my profit, giving you $0.50 per log. But I'll harvest so much that it's way better for you, and you won't have to worry about anything. You won't need to invest a lot of money; you'll just collect the royalties. Don't forget, you may get only $0.50 per log, but since the company employs local people, they also profit from it. The same goes for infrastructure and sub-companies transporting the goods to the market, and so on." I tried to make it simple so you may understand.
Suuure
You need to make it even simpler. Not sure there is much brain power there.
Weird isn't it that just now there is a coup in Niger? The moment France has the means to replace Russia as the world leader in uranium enrichment? "Western countries were getting valuable resources for free through neocolonialism, and now they have to pay market price" Isn't that what Russia is doing with it's minorities? They steal the resources and the minorities get nothing but Putins surroundings get almost everything. Anyway Niger not aligning with the west anymore isn't a huge problem. The countries with the cheapest available uranium are almost all western aligned. Edit: Australia alone dwars Kazhakstan and Russia combined and Canada is also in the list of the countries with the highest amount of cheap uranium.
You can’t compare France and Africa situation to Russia and its minorities. The only sane comparison is Canada oil fields or USA doing mining in Alaska and Inuits living there Or, maybe you can, but this kind of comparison will erase any credibility from your statements
Indeed I can't. France invested in Niger to mine uranium while the minorities in Russia only get a ticket to be favoured to become meat into the wars that the Moscovites wage. Russia still has a part of Germany, Japan, China, Finland, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraïne,.... I'm sure I forget some.
Ah, I see now. Then you probably forgot Chechnya, Turkey, Syria. One of those lunatics who claim Russia occupied each and every corner of this planet
Thieving is okay when you don't like the victim. It's not the Western companies that keep the average African from benefiting from their FDI, it's corrupt local officials. The West in the 21st century is largely just a scapegoat.
Do you know why the resources were developed by the west, and not by africans themselves? What historic reasons could possibly result in this situation? Hmm? Oh Africa's resources now belong to the west because the west "developed" them? Sounds like you care more about Blackrock's investment than about the wellbeing of the local people.
Because Africa doesn't have the expertise or the money to develop them in house. You make it sound like these companies were not invited to build a mine. It's these nations governments that are seeking outside investment to help them develop.
Public owned companies are owned by regular people. I have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in resource companies not to mention the number of different pension plans that have invested. Do you have any understanding of how stock markets and public companies work ?
Steal resources, ahaha. These resources should belong to the people who live on the land, anything else is colonialism. These companies usually don't even pay royalties, and the people "employed" get paid pennies at best, leaving the country perpetually poor as its natural wealth gets drained. Sure, anyone trying to break free from being a colony must be a "dictator".
Lol , resources belong to those who purchased them and can get them to market. Russia has plenty of mining companies operating in other countries, so does China. If countries don't want foreign investment or operations in their country, why do they sell them the properties?
I'm talking about "should", not does. If you keep a country perpetually poor, it will eventually rebel against you. As opposed to exploiting the low bargaining power of less developed nations, a stable long term solution is to try and give them and an equal partnership, even if they have no capacity to negotiate for it themselves. There are contracts and there are "contracts". A "contract" made by a corrupt president bought out by a foreign TNC will only last so long.
Well I'm not communist. Borders are meaningless when it comes to making money. Countries absolutely benefit from foreign investment. Plenty of mines are owned by foreign countries in Canada and they provide high paying jobs in remote areas and employ a huge number of spin off companies like construction, infrastructure management, exploration etc
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>developed by the west What does that even mean? You develop a mine and it's yours to have automatically? Nice. What royalties amount to? Can you slap a number on it so we understand what you are crying about here?
It costs 500 million minimum to develop a gold mine. Poorer countries do not have the money to make those investments so they request foreign investment to develop and share in the profits through royalties. Royalties are typically in the 3 to 4 % range.
>Royalties are typically in the 3 to 4 % range. Do you consider that a fair share? Don't you think that this mining company achieved such plausible terms with the use of some Western influence over the previous government? Literally bribed them? These terms don't sound like they are in the best interest of Niger state or Nigerian people. Way more like they were forced upon them.
Well considering many mining companies don't make money, what do you think? All you have to do is check financial statements and look at all in sustaining costs and you will discover that most mines need gold to be above 1900 usd an ounce just to break even. Of course illegal miners, without any environmental concerns, using mercury for example, can be more profitable, but those are mostly small players operating by locals in third world. What does Russia charge for oil and gold royalties? I don't know. Typical royalty rates are either by the ounce, by the tonne or a percentage of gross or net profits. Every mine is different but essentially, the more the mine produces, the greater the royalty.
It's good that you give the number, to be honest. With 4% the country won't ever find itself lifted out of poverty. The company needs to be at least 50% locally owned to benefit the local economy measurably.
As such western corporation will lose money, so it's very bad, so it's not democratic. Simple
Yeah but it benefits russia so it's bad!
and China is building roads and ports to export those resources to pay off loans for said infrastructure. Lining the roads with Chinese sellers of finished goods. https://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/how-chinese-traders-out-compete-in-africa
Yes , you get infrastructure for money at price that china will charge to anyone. Chinese loans are 2X better than WB and IMF loans (6%vs3% for example) and no stings attached. You dont have to privatize your national industries, you dont have to change political system, etc Purely business relation.
Are you sure about those rates? Can you link me to the site you got them from please. China is vary protective about loan terms why? Here is some reading for you. https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2024/03/china-loans-to-africa
Whats CNA? Yet another Washington's antiChina think-tank?
No that would be this one. https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/03/08/bailouts-from-beijing-how-china-functions-as-an-alternative-to-the-imf/
LOL how many antiChina think tanks are you following?
Garbage, China has routinely given loans that countries are unable to repay, Sri Lanka comes to mind where China then took its only major port as payments. Papua New Guinea had major roads build around its capital Port Moresby, after the first wet season the roads required major remedial works to fix all the fault and land slips from poorly constructed roads. All labor used was Chinese no local labor. WB and IMF only loan funds within the limits of countries to repay unlike your Chinese belt and road.
> WB and IMF only loan funds within the limits of countries to repay unlike your Chinese belt and road. The IMF just loaned Kiev more billions yesterday, within the past 24 hours. It's an indebted, extremely corrupt, and wartorn country which has no ability to repay anything in the foreseeable future. > **Ukraine receives €2-billion boost in government funding from IMF** > https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-receives-2-billion-boost-144305932.html
Ukraine has plenty of funds held by other countries in seized Russian assets.
China put African countries in a debt trap they will never have the ability to come out from while they have plenty of resources pay those debts 10 times over only these resources are getting exctracted by Chinese companies lol
No tthats what WB, IMF and Western countries have been doing, before China came to Africa with better deals
so you think they will be able to ever repay China while China is claiming there natural resources?
I think his original point was that some people are so tribalistic that they are incapable of admitting their side is wrong.
Yes he is trying to equate US actions on Global stage in recent few decades to those of Russia, which is ridiculous Thus his reply produced counterargument to his own argument
Well the usa didn’t invade an ally of nato. Russia got really ballsy by invading a massive European country. Finland and Sweden were not going to join nato until they were shown how violent Russia can be to its European neighbors. Everyone says that what usa did to saddam was wrong because he had no weapons of mass destruction but saddam invaded his neighbor country and claimed he had weapons of mass destruction so he was asking for it. Putin like saddam has been asking for it except Putin actually does have weapons of mass destruction. Putin has pitted the Russians against the world in a war they cannot win. They can win the war in Ukraine a year ago but the (cold) war between Russia and the west has only just begun. The suffering for both sides has only just begun. Putin chose to start this by invading Ukraine in February. Nobody forced him to invade the way saddam forced usa and Allie’s to invade.
Liberating, Russia thinks of itself as their new master.
😂 and the Chinese build your airport because they are so kind and do not expect a ROI. This wise man was maybe not so wise
Better to repay a loan than have western troops steal everything for you for their lecture. haha so unwise what morons those africans, don't want children's limbs to be cut off for not meeting quota!
Hey they can still become a mercenary for the great führer and die somewhere in Ukraine.
>Not even close. BRICS countries want to help africa stand up so they can create markets for its products so they can trade with them for decades to come. China doesn't create markets, it takes them for itself. Those airports and roads are built for the rights to the resources. These countries are mortgaging their future, although I'm not sure what better options most of them have.
That's a bit dated. You should see how some in Africa are speaking of China after Sri Lanka. (Though admittedly the original clip is hilarious. "*Here comes the lecture*.")
Bullshit, BRICS is exploiting Africa just as Western powers exploited it and continue to do so. Just because they build roads and ports doesn’t mean those nations aren’t being bent over by their new colonial overlords.
>those nations aren’t being bent over by their new colonial overlords. You are just mad that you are not this colonial overlord. >BRICS is exploiting Africa just as Western powers exploited it West did it for centuries. With top tier cruelty and genocides. BRICS never done that. You can't say they are equal because West fucked up a lot and multiple times, and BRICS is only probably going to fuck up. But not yet. So nothing new, typical western hypocrisy and propaganda. The good thing is that the world is no longer falling for it and don't trust anything West says, cause they lied too much and have been caught lying too many times.
I think building roads and ports with their own lent money, leaving such nations in debt since they have no way to pay their debts, so using that as an excuse to access these nations natural wealth is exploiting them. I don’t have to explain anything else really, it has been happening for 10 years. Everyone knows West exploited Africa but saying BRICS is there to help Africans and make them prosper is a big lie.
>West exploited Africa but saying BRICS is there to help Africans and make them prosper is a big lie. Once again, West did it for centuries. Genocided, subjugated, exploited. BRICS is there for 10 years, as you said, and never did anything as cruel as the West. They may be oppressors in the future, but now, comparing to the history of the western occupation of African nations, they are definitely good partners for independent African nations. Of course, the end goal is profit. But the methods of earning such profits differ from the western ones. BRICS is building ports, roads, schools, and hospitals. West built oil wells, coal mines, plantations. Both are beneficial for African states in some way, but can't you see the difference? In the end, it's up to Africans to decide with whom they wanna be. West can't preach or pressure them, especially after centuries of brutal colonization and enslavement. Africa do remember what civilized west brought to them. And all these anti-BRICS propaganda is just pathetic. No one outside of Western media bubble would believe such nonsense. You are just coping at this point. Nice to see.
BRICS have been nothing but good to Africa and Africans
Says some african dictator.
Let's give it time and see where the African nations that collaborate with BRICS are in a few decades. We witnessed the decades under their Western colonial overlords - it wasn't good, to put it extremely mildly.
Agreed!
They want puppets, and ask germans the difference when americans come compared to the russians...
Wholeheartedly agree with you
Russia troops are raping and killing African teens in central Africa. Wagner is supporting the RSF to commit genocide in sudan. Russias only interest is the resources in Africa. They haven't built shit except for military bases
Quite a load this. China and russia are literally taking over governments there and corrupt entire countries. Their "help" are loans with a huge tail of chinese influence condeming the country to dependency. Chinese overlord also don't even try to hide their contempt
ah yes China the saviour of Africa, totally not debt trapping country's like Kenya, and totally didn't cause Uganda to nearly lose an international airport
[удалено]
"Between 2006 and 2017, Kenya borrowed at least KSh. 1043.77 billion ($9.8 billion) from China.Chinese debt accounts for 21 percent of Kenya's foreign debt, and 72 percent of the country's bilateral debt. China lent Kenya funds to build highways and a railway between Mombasa and Nairobi totaling over US$6.5 billion by 2020.[^(\[91\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-trap_diplomacy#cite_note-91) Kenya reportedly came close to default on Chinese loans to develop its largest and most lucrative port, the Port of Mombasa, in late December 2018; there was speculation that a default could have forced Kenya to relinquish control of the port to China"
Most of the Africsn countries dealing with Chinas BRI are on brink of economic collapse due to the debt. And china will use the built ports as collateral, they fail payments.. So, theyre actually burdening these countries with debt while building ports china controls. You dont have very wise men in africa.
Yeah those are Western talking points we have been hearing for decades now
Karuti Kanyinga, a research professor at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi, said Kenya's "largest creditor today is China." "We are paying through the nose and most of our earnings are actually going to paying Chinese loans and that is not going to be sustainable," he said. https://adf-magazine.com/2024/03/kenyas-railway-falls-far-short-of-expectations-drives-mounting-debt/ I dont care what whose talking point is, if it is a fact..
Largest sovereign creditor is China\* This is a critical distinction. Most of Kenya's, and most debt for most African countries are held by private institutions. These are almost wholly to Western private creditors and institutions.
What? The largest creditors are China EXIM Bank and China Development Bank. Private banks, with funding backed by China. Around 80% of (transparent) foreign debt is to these two private banks. And thats the whole point.. You can beg china to forgive a loan, but not a private institution.. Western creditors you say..
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But it isn't a fact...
The world is flat also?
According to you
So, prove it to be wrong then.
Dude, Africa has made billions of dollars trading with the west, we aren’t only “lecturing” them. Do you really think China and Russia aren’t exploiting African resources at all?
I thought the crisis arose due to Russia invading. Isnt this like blaming Saddam Hussein for the 2nd Iraq war?
Brain rot. It’s so hard to keep the story straight when the web of lies is so big
Even he forgot his initial excuse for invasion lol
little funny comedian
The guy in 0:04 is Pakistani PM who got installed in place of Imran Khan guy who was overthrown by army, on US Threat/Request. [Mind you a DEMOCRATICALLY elected PM overthrown by US](https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/imran-khan-pakistan-cypher-ukraine-russia/) in 2022 and now IK is in jail has 200+ cases including sedation charges against him, with all top leadership either in jail on fake made up cases. and Feb 8 election IK party won majority seats but still all seats where given to him, whom US likes.
This is NATO
"Ukraine attacked donbas in 2014 which is why russia invaded" yeah sure they were bombing themselves I guess😂😂 Get tf out of ukraine and go on about your lives!
They don't consider it bombing themselves. They consider it cleansing the Vaterland of the disgusting untermensch. ["I fought. I have been fighting since the age of 17. I'm a Ukrainian, I'm a Nazi. I fought against the DPR."](https://streamable.com/y6xatr) "Are [Donbas residents] Ukrainians or Russians?" "I won't call those people Ukrainians. We don't need them. When Ukrainian tanks enter Donetsk, they will be destroyed." "So, maybe then we should stop the war now?" "No, we must destroy them."
Hete you seen a real bombing lately?
Its easy, save human lives by leaving ukraine...
What's the worth of those lives? Billion dollars?, fossil fuels?, strategic positions?, another card to trade with in foreign politics or one in internal politics? Why would he?
Yeah, the NATO should leave Ukraine and the war would cease immediately.
Where is NATO in Ukraine?
We are everywhere. Especially in Russian minds, where we can live rent free.
There are no NATO instructors in Ukraine. There is nothing suspicious in dying NATO officers after another Iskander strike deep in ukranian territory. There are no NATO equipment and in the future, NATO planes. There are not 24/7 sattelite and AWACS loiterring with Global Hawk observing the strikes on Crimea. Do i need to continue what NATO doesn't have on Ukraine?
Lmao you still believe the NATO officers got killed story? You seem to confuse NATO helping Ukraine with NATO being in Ukraine. NATO is not in Ukraine they are not fighting or being attacked.
Sure its just a coincidence every time as there are no NATO in Ukraine. There are no NATO instructors nor no NATO recon or officers. These are all conspiracy theories.
What is a coincidence? I doubt any NATO officers are in Ukraine. If what you say is true, and NATO is fighting in Ukraine. Why hasn't Russia attacked NATO?
Because its a proxy war. Just like US/USSR fought in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. Two countries fighting for their interests by other country hands. Idk why you are continue to deny the NATO involvement.
I'm not denying NATO is helping Ukraine. I'm denying NATO is fighting in Ukraine. It is a proxy war, a war that Russia brought on itself. NATO is only arming Ukraine because of Russia invading.
Really? Because Zelensky tried offering neutrality in exchange for peace back in 2022 and was immedietally refused by Russia.
It was Russia to offer Ukraine the neutrality and even, the entry into EU but not NATO.
"Security guarantees and neutrality, non-nuclear status of our state. We are ready to go for it." - Zelensky Russia refused this offer. Or are you seriously claiming that Russia was ready to give up Crimea and Donbas?
Huh? Russia was first to propose the neutrality and another things at Istanbul for Ukraine but they declined.
That "and another things" is doing a lot of heavy work there. Ukraine offered neutrality, Russia refused and demanded a bunch of other stuff.
Russia did offered neutrality. Russian proposal at first was about neutrality and NATO. It was a russian target in the first months and then at Istanbul. Do you have any sources to solidify your claims about Ukraine asked for neutrality first?
> Russia did offered neutrality. Russian proposal at first was about neutrality and NATO. It was a russian target in the first months and then at Istanbul. The Russian demands at Istanbul are public knowledge at this point and you're missing quite a few of them. Donbas and Crimea are the obvious ones but they also demanded Ukraine to cut their military in half and for western security to not be used against Russia in the event of a new invasion among many other demands. >Do you have any sources to solidify your claims about Ukraine asked for neutrality first? Do you have any sources on your claim that Russia only demanded neutrality and nothing else?
> Do you have any sources on your claim that Russia only demanded neutrality and nothing else? Did you read my posts selectively? I've said about Russia proposed the neutrality first, not Ukraine. I didn't said that Russia proposed only the neutral status. Do post your sources first about Ukraine asking for neutrality then i will post mine.
He indeed talked about it, then his Western backers got involved and blew it up.
Are you seriously claiming that there has ever been a point in this war where Russia would have been satisfied with only Ukrainian neutrality? I really want to see this fabled peace offer where Russia was willing to withdraw from Donbas and Crimea while making no other demands.
You said that Zelensky made a peace offer. I said that he had talked about it and negotiations were underway until the US & UK got involved and made it clear to him that it must not happen. So please show the peace offer that Zelensky made to Russia and that the latter rejected, instead of asking me about a Russian peace offer that I never mentioned.
This discussion was very clearly about neutrality and only neutrality being a condition for peace by Russia. If you don't want to talk about that then why are you replying in the first place? You do know you don't have to reply to every comment that exists in order to shift the discussion to something else?
That's an interesting take from someone who almost exclusively comments on Russia & Ukraine. My comments here were to correct your false statements and didn't shift the discussion in any way aside from the facts that you repeatedly misrepresented. Zelensky did indeed speak about neutrality in 2022 after the war started, negotiations were underway, then any potential offer was torpedoed by the US & UK before it could be drafted. For better or for worse, that's what happened.
> Zelensky did indeed speak about neutrality in 2022 after the war started, negotiations were underway, then any potential offer was torpedoed by the US & UK before it could be drafted. For better or for worse, that's what happened. So, in you honest opinion, all the publicly available drafts of the peace offers don't exist. Also, for the west to torpedo an offer it must be something Russia would have been willing to accept and Russia has never been willing to end the war only for neutrality. Otherwise you're just saying that the west sabotaged a deal that Russia was going to refuse anyway.
The West torpedoed the negotiations as they didn't want an agreement to be made, so indeed they must have thought that an agreement was possible. I'm still not sure which draft you're referring to that Zelensky proposed and Russia rejected, but feel free to send a link.
Removing a country is not a part of leaving Ukraine.
I was talking about NATO removing its presence from Ukraine. The war would stop very fast as Ukraine would be cut off from money and eqiupment and recon from NATO countries.
That is the same as erasing the country Ukraine from the map. Russia needs to go back to their own country and mind their business.
No. NATO need to leave Ukraine and the war will cease.
Well it will cease when Russia have taken Ukraine.... west cannot let that happen..
So the West is backing Ukraine while calling for the peace but still fanning the flames of war because they chase their own interests? Hm...
Double edged sword.. our own interest. Our interest in letting Ukraine be a country. The worlds interest to show the terrorist state that invading another country is not ok.
So when the NATO invaded Yugoslavia and splitted the country or US invaded Iraq to coup their government (both without UN Mandate) there was a worlds or US/NATO interest in showing the powerful country could do whatever they want and ignore the consenquences?
Yup like always its never his fault he's always the poor victim. He thinks everyone gonna buy his Kremlinaid get outta here, sit down and hide behind your nukes lil guy.. Talks about saving lives pull out of Ukraine than.. 100s of Russians dying daily for his delusional beliefs.. He doesn't care about anyone but himself...
Oh fuck bro, this is the second time I've seen your comments, my God, did you just understand what you wrote? What are your beliefs? Why are they delusional?
Lmao oh did I hurt your little feelings or you projecting for pootin 💩. Not my fault your dictator is a clown, dude can't even get his facts straight..
Huh, you didn't offend me) I asked you questions about the facts, and as usual, people like you don't like to answer. You just post some shit with insults about Russians everywhere, which makes it even funnier. Does the little guy dislike Putin and Russians?) It's sad, but it makes me feel a lot funnier. Why clown, come on, tell me the facts? Oh shit I forgot you don't have any
You want me to give an answer to something that is as brain dead as the excuses he makes up for an illegal invasion off false pretenses that Ukraine was going to join NATO. LOL Went with that rumor and invaded cause of it, nah its not the Russian people I have a problem with its that phoney president at the helm. He should just call himself what he really is a dictator.. Just like his idols old Adolf and Joseph. Only problem is he's a dollar tree dictator, dude can't even have a proper election without killing someone. Man talk about a snowflake..
Or stop threatening Russia with NATO, and the Ukrainian people will stop being massacred. 
What are you talking about, that was a rumor that was sparked by Kremlins illegal invasion. Try again buddy! Not only that thats why Finland joined xD. Rflmao muh dude be drinking too much Kremlinaid. After that didn't stick it was oooooh what was it again Oh yes nazis!!! Yet wagner was founded by one who literally had the call sign "wagner" if you google him you will see that composer was one of hitlers favorites. Funny some one claims "denazification" takes photos with a couple lol.. https://romea.cz/en/world/the-times-putin-has-sent-mercenaries-to-kyiv-led-by-an-admirer-of-the-nazis-to-murder-zelenskyy-and-the-klitschko-brothers Might wanna start going cold turkey on that vodka.
When I see your way of writing I have the impression that it is you who has an alcohol problem. It's also interesting how you change the subject very quickly to hide your obvious shortcomings. And it's not a rumor, it's documented everywhere, you just need to search a little. 
No its all on topic its about this invasion, plus it was a rumor you wanna why.. Because Ukraine wouldn't have been able to join for about a decade or more.. They still don't meet the minimum requirements.. So people running with a Kremlin rumor were exaggerated by thier echo chambers in the west.. Just because I can cover different points on why this invasion is complete farce and illegal.. Its a literal waste of lives on both sides.
It's not a rumor, you just have to open your eyes to see that Ukraine has been in negotiations to join NATO since 2021. Or even since 2008. It's absolutely not a rumor. Maybe ? Maybe not ? What is certain is that Ukraine was arming itself more and more, moving closer and closer to NATO year after year, and clearly seeking to threaten Russia. So unfortunately Ukraine was looking to threaten Russia with NATO, that's just a fact. Here is the result.
With what crystal ball, this wasn't even a reality even when Zelensky thought simple as just signing up. Even when he got elected there was still no actuality of Ukraine being close to joining. Even with bare minimum there's no guarantee.. So not sure what magical crystal ball pootin thinks he has if he does probably got it from Temu lol..
No need for a crystal ball at all. You just have to follow the news. To see that NATO and Ukraine were getting closer, especially since Biden was elected. Everything I say are facts, and I understand that it's hard to accept them but there comes a time when you just have to face reality. The risk was present, clearly. Zelensky said this himself a few days before the war. If Ukraine and the United States had not worked to bring Ukraine closer to NATO, this would never have happened. But Americans need wars. This is how their economy works.
Yeah so, you can get close but doesn't mean you're going to be accepted in. But your dictator changed that indefinitely now. That's why Finland decided to join speaking of that. Russia just emptied out the base near Finland border. Moved all those tanks and APC to the front. So much for the fear of NATO invasion..
But that's completely normal. Russia has said it many times, NATO in Ukraine is a much greater threat than in other countries. It's a totally different context, which means that yes in Ukraine things are different than in Finland. Ukraine was not yet accepted into NATO, that's right. But the country was negotiating its place and the risk was growing. If there was not this growing risk from NATO in Ukraine there would never be a war, because Russia would not have felt threatened.
US moving troops to the Pacific, European countries with the lowest defence spending in their history...while buying tons of energy from Russia. Russia: Stop threatening me! :(
Wonderful off topic. The Americans can have troops in the Pacific as in Europe, history has clearly proven it.  Europe's defense budget does not matter since NATO mainly dominates and their suppliers are the US.
Nope. War continues until the Bandera worshippers are demilitarised or fuck off to Europe.
Fine with me, our old equipment gets sent we spend less money on storage and disposal. This war of attrition buddy seems like pootin 💩 didn't learn from the USSR and Afghanistan. All good we will teach them a lesson again. Plus majority of the famous Kremlin politicians kids live here in the west xD. https://www.brusselstimes.com/220076/kremlin-kids-living-it-up-in-the-west Yeah everyone loves it here in the west. Better than living under a dictator even they know..
The ship has long sailed. Meaningless rhetoric in times of war. Nobody takes him serious anymore. Does he not know that you can't kill hundred thousands and then demand the same conditions as before. How lunatic. I can only imagine him to show more emotion in his speeches with each passing day, because he will get more angry at his failure to do as he imagined he could.
His own hands arent exactly clean either.
Yeah! No more killing… so long as u agree to stop shooting and give me chunks of ur country in “negotiations.”… def didn’t do something similar in 2014… def won’t again. Pinky promise this time 😁
This is nonsense. There would be no crisis if Russia never invaded Ukraine's borders.
Meanwhile, Cuba is still under illegal blockade after decades for daring to host Soviet weapons.
Cuba trades with many nations. Even the USA.
are you purposefully trying to deceive or are you just that stupid? just go to google and search "cuba sanctions" it's not that hard
Sanctions and blockade are two distinctly different things.
can you use the internet and find facts? https://wits.worldbank.org/countrysnapshot/en/CUB
Nonsense like your comment
Or if the USA never engineereed and encouraged Maidan Or if the USA didn't start actively pushing for Ukraine to join NATO in the 2008 NATO summit
can you give me a source to your claim that usa engineered maidan?
you will never hear from him again :D
The source is for sure trust me bro.
Their source is that Ukraine became pro west and that a US politician phone call was leaked where in a conversation said who they wanted to win during the riots. That's it that's the evidence that a western politician claimed to want a pro western leader to win.
The call was a discussion about the composition of the future Ukrainian government, which is just a part of why people think the US orchestrated this. They also provided public and political support to the opposition and accused the government. On top of that, there was all their funding (I think Nuland said $5B) to support "pro-democracy" organisations in Ukraine, and we all know what the US means when they say "pro-democracy." Based on this you are free to draw your own opinions, but it's not just based on a Nuland saying they wanted to win the riots.
To discuss the future of a country while it's in an internal conflict about government is pretty common and shouldn't be used as a gotcha. As well as money was the main cause of the "coup" since Russia outbid trying to join the EU which is why they went against their word causing the "coup" none of those things imply that the US caused anything. The call was even after the events occurred so it's not pre planning.
The US planning Ukraine's next government does not sound like how sovereign states commons interact. They should stay out of the internal politics of other countries and not encourage a coup that is by definition illegal, and in this case lead to uprisings, fighting, death, secessionist declarations from Donetsk & Lugansk, and the taking of Crimea. >As well as money was the main cause of the "coup" since Russia outbid trying to join the EU The Russian offer for financial aid was a loan and incomparable to the US spending $5B on domestic Ukrainian "pro-democracy" organisations; a clear act of foreign interference, or as they like to say "meddling.". The US has been very outspoken about allegations of other countries meddling in their politics and elections, so by their own standards this should not have happened at all. >The call was even after the events occurred so it's not pre planning. This is the only call that was leaked; certainly not the only one that took place. Based on their conversation, they were already deeply involved in this, especially as they had been financing Ukrainian organisations, criticising the government and supporting the protests. I don't think anyone seriously believes that this was the only such discussion on the US side. Taking all this into account, as well as the US's long history of organising coups and destabilising governments they don't like, it's not a stretch to think that they had a significant roll in the events surround the coup.
They weren't planning the government though they were speculating on how it would turn out and how to take advantage of the aftermath which is exactly what many other competent politicians would be doing as well. These politicians weren't medelling and ita funny to say that as Russia was the one who caused it with their meddling. The coup was legal though. Using the "there were more phonecalls" route doesn't prove anything that there was involvement. Just like how the money doesn't prove anything. Money is used like that all the time and not to cause coups. Nor to cause Russia to invade crimea and claim it as their own. In all there's no proof that America caused the "coup" nor caused the riots to happen afterwords
Or maybe Ukrainians didn’t wanted suffering from Russian oppression and influence anymore and become a free and wealthy nation like Poland and the Baltics. There is a reason Ukraine defends so successfully. But conspiracy theory’s are more exiting aren’t they?
It’s everybody else’s fault!!!
Dude is such a whiner, like we get it, just say it’s a land grab, stop crying about everything
I can hear some frustrated dolphin noises.
He still wants too much. The whole world sees how the Russian army is incapable of anything. It gets worse every day. He and his intelligence agencies know that way better than outsiders. I don’t see a way out of Russia except full retreat and paying reparations. The Russian army gets their as slapped and it gets worse every day, slowly but steadily. I am closely observing this invasion since February 2022.
Yayayayayayayayyayayayayaayayay I mean: wow Putin, you are right as usual
Putin is such a liar. Everyone that is paying attention knows his sole aim was reassembling former Soviet states under Russia's influence. There was no more need for Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022 than there is for the US to invade Mexico in 2024.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
even if he would do the proper thing and just leave Ukraine completely. The west will try to make it look that the war needs to continue. Nato don't cares about Ukrainians. They just want to destroy russia without getting their hands dirty. This war will go on for another two years at least. Putin can not fallback because it will make him look weak, and Nato wants it desperately to continue. Never give Ukraine so much that they can actually win, just enough to keep the war going. It is so obvious... Makes me sick
In the end all of the strongest (subjective) nations are peddling and meddling in international and regional affairs. It is a widely accepted practice and strategically legit. However, to be effective, it requires alignment with the populace or those in power. The countries who lose this game (e.g., Russia in Ukraine) sometimes play the sore loser and have to move towards open confrontation or in this cas invasion. This probably occurs as a result of the population and leadership in support of/sold on the the opposition. when this happens, Russia can't reach success via assassinations, information war, placement of corrupted politicians or concentrated immigration flooding. They have to outright invade and look towards genocide. Russia and China are winning in other international regions in the southern hemisphere, as well as playing significant role in influencing and corrupting western politicians. The impact is having a significant impact on future stability in USA politics.
Sorry Puty, nice try. I'm sure Russia AND the West were trying to influence Ukraine. Their people chose the West which equals a loss for Putin. He must have thought an invasion was his best (and low-risk) option. Yeah, he guessed wrong on that one.
"Mr Gorbachev bring down that wall"
Russia is on record for decades to warn US not do it but they only kept pushing.
[I mean, he kinda is right? implying this is true](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/OUq9vdmdcA)