Russian-Ukrainian War: Live Thread

[drstrangelove]

The issue Russia had is that once Ukraine becomes apart of NATO nukes can be moved there. Russia has never been concerned about being invaded. They love being invaded. Just ask Napoleon or Hitler. What they fear is what the United States feared when Russia moved nukes into Cuba.

If we are speaking strictly Geopolitics, nothing Russia has done is in breach of the international rules-based system. And if there are going to be two nuclear powers capable of destroying civilization who are at odds with one another, then it's in everyone's best interest to maintain a buffer fringe of neutral nations between the regions of those two powers to ensure that both feel secure. The security and sovereignty of those neutral nations between them is less important. This sounds unfair but it's geography. The politics of geography. Geo-poltiics.

It is not unreasonable for Russia to feel insecure about a NATO nation on its border.

Ukraine felt it was a sovereign nation which had the right to join NATO. Russia said "No you're not" and invaded.

That said i believe this war is 60% artificial.

[Gnomad]

It is not about nukes, Europe is already full of nukes. It does not matter at all. No country on Russias borders has ever had any reason to attack them. They have always just wanted to be left alone and not threatened by Russia.

https://theconversation.com/what-countr ... hey-180382

About half of the roughly 200 U.S. shorter-range weapons are believed to be deployed in five NATO countries in Europe: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey – though the U.S. does not confirm or deny their locations. In wartime, allied planes would take off from those locations and fly toward their targets before dropping the bombs.

That in addition to Germany, UK and France having their own.

And the last border countries not in NATO were Ukraine and Finland.
Everyone else already saw Russia as such a threat (Baltic countries) that they joined the moment they could.

If Russia was afraid of Nato on their borders, why the fuck did they keep pushing and pushing so Finland and Sweden now feel threatened enough to apply for membership? We were staunchly neutral and proud of it up until now, yet Russia has always been belligerent towards us, increasingly so ever since Putin grabbed power. Neither Sweden or Finland would ever have applied for membership without this bullshit from Russia.

I cannot see any other reason but Putins dreams of glorious days gone and Russian Empire, and Ukraines natural gas supplies, and Ukraine being an example of an ex-soviet country going the other way and acting as an example for the russian population as well.

With Belarus population almost having a rebellion against their dictatorship as well just a little while ago - it would have been better for everyone if they had succeeded in overthrowing Lukashenka. Except that in that case Russia would surely have invaded Belarus instead of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%8 ... n_protests

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/15 ... st-news-vn

This is why Lukashenka has not dared join Putin in his war directly. He fears that his own army might rebel if they were told to invade Ukraine. Belarusian rebels have also repeatedly blown up train tracks leading to Ukraine already...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastu%C5% ... i_Regiment
And there are Belarusian fighters, fighting for Ukraine - around 1500 of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusians_in_Ukraine

In Ukraine, the number of Belarusians is estimated at over 275,000 (the 2001 Ukrainian Census).[8] Most of the Belarusians diaspora in Ukraine appeared as a result of the migration of Belarusians to the Ukrainian SSR during the Soviet Union. Lviv has been an important center of Belarusian social and cultural life during the Russian Empire and interwar Poland. There are now Belarusian organizations in major cities like Lviv, Sevastopol in the Crimea, and others. A notable Ukrainian of Belarusian descent is Viktor Yanukovych, the fourth president of Ukraine.

And what do you think would have been next for Putin, if nobody helped Ukraine, Russia conquered the whole Ukraine swiftly? Do you really think that would have been the end of it?

[drstrangelove]

Yes I believe that would be the end of it. Invading Ukraine is not evidence of expansionary ambition as Ukraine was under Russian control less than a decade ago. It's evidence of them attempting to restore what they lost control of.

[Gnomad]

Less than a decade? Are you smoking crack there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarati ... of_Ukraine

The Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Акт проголошення незалежності України, romanized: Akt proholoshennya nezalezhnosti Ukrayiny) was adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR on 24 August 1991.[1] The Act reestablished Ukraine's state independence.[2][1]
Adoption

The Act was adopted in the aftermath of the coup attempt in the Soviet Union on 19 August, when hardline Communist leaders attempted to restore central Communist party control over the USSR.[1] In response (during a tense 11-hour extraordinary session),[3] the Supreme Soviet (parliament) of the Ukrainian SSR, in a special Saturday session, overwhelmingly approved the Act of Declaration.[1] The Act passed with 321 votes in favor, 2 votes against, and 6 abstentions (out of 360 attendants).[3] The text was largely composed during the night of 23 August–24 August mainly by Levko Lukyanenko, Serhiy Holovatyi, Mykhailo Horyn, Ivan Zayets and Vyacheslav Chornovil.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukra ... referendum

A referendum on the Act of Declaration of Independence was held in Ukraine on 1 December 1991.[1] An overwhelming majority of 92.3% of voters approved the declaration of independence made by the Verkhovna Rada on 24 August 1991.

Voters were asked "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?"[2] The text of the Declaration was included as a preamble to the question. The referendum was called by the Parliament of Ukraine to confirm the Act of Independence, which was adopted by the Parliament on 24 August 1991.[3] Citizens of Ukraine expressed overwhelming support for independence. In the referendum, 31,891,742 registered voters (or 84.18% of the electorate) took part, and among them 28,804,071 (or 92.3%) voted "Yes".[2]

On the same day, a presidential election took place. In the month up to the presidential election, all six candidates campaigned across Ukraine in favour of independence from the Soviet Union, and a "Yes" vote in the referendum. Leonid Kravchuk, the parliament chairman and de facto head of state, was elected to serve as the first President of Ukraine.[4]

From 2 December 1991 onwards, Ukraine was globally recognized by other countries as an independent state.[5][6][7] Also on 2 December, the President of the Russian SFSR Boris Yeltsin recognized Ukraine as independent.

If you look at the map at the link, only Crimea could be considered more russian-minded - 42% voted no, everywhere else support for independence was overwhelming.

And if you are referring to -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

Euromaidan (/ˌjʊərəˌmaɪˈdɑːn, ˌjʊəroʊ-/;[82][83] Ukrainian: Євромайдан, romanized: Yevromaidan, lit. 'Euro Square', IPA: [jeu̯romɐjˈdɑn][nb 6]), or the Maidan Uprising,[87] was a wave of demonstrations and civil unrest in Ukraine, which began on 21 November 2013 with large protests in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kyiv. The protests were sparked by the Ukrainian government's sudden decision not to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. Ukraine's parliament had overwhelmingly approved of finalizing the Agreement with the EU,[88] while Russia had put pressure on Ukraine to reject it.[89] The scope of the protests widened, with calls for the resignation of President Viktor Yanukovych and the Azarov Government.[90] The protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, the influence of oligarchs,[91] abuse of power, and violation of human rights in Ukraine.[92] Transparency International named Yanukovych as the top example of corruption in the world.[93] The violent dispersal of protesters on 30 November caused further anger.[5] The Euromaidan led to the 2014 Revolution of Dignity.

During the uprising, Independence Square (Maidan) in Kyiv was a huge protest camp occupied by thousands of protesters and protected by makeshift barricades. It had kitchens, first aid posts and broadcasting facilities, as well as stages for speeches, lectures, debates and performances.[94][95] It was guarded by 'Maidan Self-Defense' units made up of volunteers in improvised uniform and helmets, carrying shields and armed with sticks, stones and petrol bombs. Protests were also held in many other parts of Ukraine. In Kyiv, there were clashes with police on 1 December; and police assaulted the camp on 11 December. Protests increased from mid-January, in response to the government introducing draconian anti-protest laws. There were deadly clashes on Hrushevsky Street on 19–22 January. Protesters occupied government buildings in many regions of Ukraine. The uprising climaxed on 18–20 February, when fierce fighting in Kyiv between Maidan activists and police resulted in the deaths of almost 100 protesters and 13 police.[71]

As a result, an agreement was signed on 21 February 2014 by Yanukovych and leaders of the parliamentary opposition that called for the creation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections. Shortly after the agreement, Yanukovych and other government ministers fled the country.[96] Parliament then removed Yanukovych from office[97] and installed an interim government.[98] The Revolution of Dignity was soon followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea and pro-Russian unrest in Eastern Ukraine, eventually escalating into the Russo-Ukrainian War.

It was a widely popular domestic movement of an independent country, and it was followed by several fair elections and government changes.
It is ridiculous to claim that they were under "russian control". The population wanted to move towards Europe, corrupt leadership did not. Yanukovych was the Lukashenka equivalent in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Ukraine

You may claim CIA interference or whatever, but such things cannot happen and are not succesful without large support from a population.

And what you claim actually supports the reason I stated - Russia fears ex-soviet countries becoming more like European nations, and cannot accept that. It wants them part of their totalitarian rule, just like I said. It has nothing to do with nukes, and everything to do with european values. Now russian actions have given USA the perfect excuse to get their dirty hands involved in this, all the way up to the armpits.

Also while the russian population suffers once again for the acts of their dictators, like Stalin wasn't enough. Over a hundred thousand russians dead, probably 2-3 times that many wounded, 700 000 men escaped conscription abroad...

[Gnomad]

And pretty certainly Russia would have picked off all the smaller neighbours next, like Moldova.

https://www.intellinews.com/russian-law ... ce=moldova

Two influential Russian lawmakers warned on January 24 that Moldova considering Nato membership “may lead to its destruction”, after another Russian senator said the day before that President Maia Sandu risks repeating the "suicidal policy" of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

The statements were prompted by Moldovan President Maia Sandu telling Politico that her country may seek membership of “a larger defence alliance” in order to consolidate its security. Moscow’s vehement objection to Ukraine joining Nato was one of the reasons for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year. Like Ukraine, Moscow considers Moldova to be part of its sphere of influence.

Sandu and other members of the pro-EU authorities have emphasised recently that Moldova’s military neutrality, enshrined in its constitution, shouldn’t impede the development of defence capacities.

Moldova lies on Ukraine’s western border, and part of the country is occupied by Russia-backed separatists, making it highly vulnerable to spillovers from the war in the neighbouring country. Several Russian missiles have crossed or crashed onto its territory since the start of the war.

...............
"If Moldova wants to destroy its own state, this is the best way … If they think that, like Finland or Sweden, secretly, quickly, taking advantage of the situation, they can join Nato and that nothing will happen to them for this in their own country, they should remember something else. The fact that Finland has two official languages and respects its people.”

The other official language is not russian, though. But swedish.

And do you think for a moment that Finland and Sweden could have just looked on as Russia swallows Ukraine, without doing anything?
Secretly, quickly? For fucks sake.

[drstrangelove]

No to smoking crack. Yes to CIA coup.

Democratic elections tend to favor those who have taken power undemocratically and held them after the fact. For instance, the regions Putin annexed held democratic elections which favored them joining Russia. So it's no surprise the democratic elections post 2014 showed support for the coup just as they did for the invasion.

I suppose you could argue one was fair and the other was not. But then who decides which elections are fair and which are not. Is it Wikipedia?

For the same reason you believe the post-invasion elections in the annexed regions were rigged - which they obviously were, i believe the post-coup elections were rigged - which they were. Neither of us has any evidence.

Ukraine isn't a sovereign independent country. It is not capable of holding fair elections to determine what is in its best interest. Which is why it's being stripped of all its resources by those to its east and west. Same thing happened to Poland.

[Gnomad]

Then the same could be said for all Baltic countries - they also gained their independence in the 1990s.
And guess what - anticipating the fate of Ukraine, they all joined NATO and EU promptly.

Putin and fair elections? Oh fuck come on now. You can't be serious.

You have absolutely no evidence that any Ukrainian elections would have been rigged either. And they do let international observers there, unlike Russia.
https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukra ... l_election

A total of 2,344 international observers from 17 countries and 19 organizations were officially registered to monitor the elections.[12][13] A record number of 139 non-governmental Ukrainian organizations were registered as observers.[14]

https://www.epde.org/en/news/details/bo ... tions.html

With the gradual systemic decline of the democratic character of Russian presidential, parliamentary, and other elections, Vladimir Putin’s regime found it increasingly difficult to secure their international legitimacy. In the past, the European Parliament often criticised the conduct of elections in Russia, let alone the general political situation in the country characterised by the unfair competition between the parliamentary and non-parliamentary political forces. However, this year, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs went as far as to call on the EU to “be prepared not to recognise the Parliament of Russia [...] if the 2021 parliamentary elections in Russia [were] recognised as fraudulent and having been conducted in violation of democratic principles and international law.” This potential move has precedence: after the massively fraudulent presidential elections in Belarus last year, the EU does not recognise the self-declared presidency of Aliaksandr Lukashenka as legitimate.

Especially during 2021, Putin’s regime took several major steps to de-legitimise Russian parliamentary elections. Russia’s most prominent opposition figure Alexey Navalny, whom the regime failed to assassinate in 2020, was jailed for what many believe to be political reasons. Navalny’s movement was declared extremist and eventually criminalised, forcing its leaders to leave the country or face imprisonment. An entire range of the most popular Russian independent media critical of the regime was declared either as foreign agents or undesirable organisations, which led to the financial collapse and closure of many of them. In summer this year, Russian authorities announced that not only residents of Crimea and Sevastopol under control of the Russian occupation forces since 2014 would be able to cast their votes in the Russian parliamentary elections, but that also residents of the Russia-occupied eastern parts of Ukraine who were issued Russian passports in violation of international law would be allowed to participate in the electoral process. Moreover, Russian authorities have blocked open access to CCTV cameras that were installed at polling stations in 2012 and helped observers monitor potential vote rigging; access to the cameras became limited only to representatives of the parties allowed to take part in the elections and monitoring organisations approved by the Putin regime.

Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext, Russia imposed limitations on the election observation mission by the most respectable and influential monitoring institution, OSCE ODIHR. The OSCE assessed that it would need to deploy 80 long-term and 420 short-term observers in Russia, but Moscow would invite only 60 OSCE observers. Eventually, the OSCE was compelled not so send its observers to Russia. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) did not send a regular election observation mission either, but it did send an Election Assessment Mission composed of five representatives of all five political groups in the Council of Europe.

Jesus fucking christ with you people.

[drstrangelove]

CIA and fair elections? Oh fuck come on now. You can't be serious.

[Gnomad]

CIA and fair elections? Oh fuck come on now. You can't be serious.

Show some proof, any proof for your claims. You are talking out of your ass now.

Are you saying all europeans are CIA agents now?

You can say "I believe in CIA, God Almighty and All-Powerful", but that is a belief.

But Putin using Covid for election rigging, thats all well and beautiful. What double standards. What critical thinking.

[drstrangelove]

You have reading comprehension issues. I said all elections held in Ukraine are rigged because they aren't sovereign, but neither of us can produce evidence that they were.

CIA is a placeholder for the complex array of Western institutions. I only used it because you used the term CIA coup and I'm not trying to write an essay.

[Gnomad]

https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/ ... 5cfvz.html

Moscow-link to Koran-burning stunt that could stop Sweden joining NATO

A far-right journalist with links to the Kremlin has been accused of being behind a Koran-burning stunt that has infuriated Turkey and threatened Sweden’s attempt to join NATO.

Chang Frick, who previously worked for RT (formerly Russia Today) and sister agency Ruptly, paid the administrative fee for the demonstration outside the Turkish embassy in Stockholm where far-right MP Rasmus Paludan torched the holy book.

The involvement of the 39-year-old has raised fears that Russia may have plotted the incident to disrupt the expansion of NATO. Frick’s Twitter feed includes pictures of him posing in a Putin T-shirt and showing off a Putin calendar.

An effigy of the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was strung from a lamppost a week earlier. Turkey also wants Sweden to extradite people it says are militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

After the Koran-burning stunt, Turkey immediately cancelled a visit to Ankara by Swedish Defence Minister Pal Jannson and threatened to block its NATO accession.

Paludan, is Danish far-right politician who also holds Swedish citizenship, has previously sparked riots in Sweden by announcing a “Koran-burning tour” during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. He has burnt the book in Denmark and been found guilty of racism there three times receiving suspended or one-month jail sentences.

But he told Swedish media that Frick, who runs the right-wing populist site Nyheter Idag and hosts a show on a TV station funded by the nationalist Sweden Democrats party, paid for this stunt. He said Frick even promised to cover any damages Paludan incurred as a result of the action.

In 2019, The New York Times profiled Frick in a report on how the Kremlin was befriending and amplifying divisive voices in Sweden. Frick accused The New York Times of misrepresentation on Twitter after the article was published, saying RT was his client but not his employer.

Frick, who was in a relationship with a Russian woman at the time, told the newspaper he had been invited to observe Russian elections and meet Vladimir Putin.

While denying he worked for Russia, he jokingly pulled out a wad of rubles from a trip to the country and said: “Here is my real boss! This is Putin”.

Analysts said Frick’s involvement in the Koran-burning suggested possible direction from Moscow.

“The person who most stands to benefit from NATO not expanding eastward towards Russia’s border is Putin,” said Paul Levin of the Institute for Turkish Studies at Stockholm University.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/r ... ervatives/

We know Russia funds Europe’s far Right. But what does it get in return?

Many influential European ultra-conservatives share an ideological alignment with Moscow – particularly on the rights of women and LGBTIQ people

That Russia serves as a reliable cash machine for Europe’s far-right political forces has long been an open secret.

Back in 2014, for example, French media reported that the country’s far-right National Front party had funded its election campaign with loans worth €11m from Russian banks. The party, which has since rebranded as presidential candidate Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National, has famously struggled to raise funds, with French banks declining to lend it money due to its racist and anti-Semitic past.

Two years later, journalists in Italy alleged that then-interior minister Matteo Salvini’s far-right Lega party had struck an oil deal with Russia, which would see profits diverted to Lega to finance its 2019 European Parliament election campaign. Buzzfeed later reported having obtained an audio recording of a meeting at which the deal was negotiated, which was attended by a close aide of Salvini’s, though there is no evidence the deal was ever executed and Salvini has rejected the allegations as “fantasies”. The case is being investigated by prosecutors in Milan.

Elsewhere, the enthusiasm for Russian money was such that it brought down Austria’s ruling coalition. In a 2019 sting operation that came to be known as the ‘Ibiza Affairs’, Heinz-Christian Strache, Austria’s then-deputy chancellor and the leader of the far-right Freedom Party, was filmed trying to accept a bribe from a fake Russian oligarch while holidaying in Ibiza.

What did Russia get in return for this financial largesse? Political support at key moments. In 2017, French far-right MEPs supported the annexation of Crimea, while, the following year, Salvini said the Italian government would veto EU sanctions against Russia. Just last month, NewsLines magazine detailed the extensive links between the European far-right and Moscow, with Kremlin operatives allegedly drafting pro-Russian talking points and amendments for their far-Right allies to propose in the European Parliament.

But this is not just about money. European conservatives – not only political parties, but also organisations opposing the rights of women and LGBTIQ people – share an ideological alignment with the ultra-conservative thinking prevalent in the Kremlin.

Take, for example, the Madrid-based online platform for conservative campaigners, CitizenGO. The platform, which is known for “coordinating large-scale e-petitions, including against transgender rights and abortion”, was recently forced to deny it has ever received funding from Russian oligarchs. Yet Wikileaks’ Intolerance Network last year published a dataset that includes a 2013 fundraising letter allegedly sent by CitizenGO to pro-Putin oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev – who has close links to CitizenGO board member Alexey Komov – and an apparent subsequent funding agreement between the two parties.

Thank heavens it is only the CIA always.
You can take off the black-and-white shades now.

https://www.thearticle.com/the-russia-r ... for-brexit

£8.4 million — it was the biggest ever political donation in British history, and made by an insurance salesman made uneasy by immigration and who opposed Britain’s membership of the European Union. Arron Banks gave this enormous sum of money to the 2016 Brexit campaign.

If that money came direct from Banks’s bank account, then it was perfectly legal. (Banks has not been found to have breached electoral law). Foreign donations to elections and referendum campaigns have to be declared and identified. One of the biggest failures of the 1997 Labour government was not to adopt clear laws limiting political donations. Britain failed to ban donations by rich individuals or rich trade unions who want to buy influence.

Instead money continues to flow into political parties from the super rich, in exchange for access, peerages, and contracts.

Banks’s close associations with the Russian government are not disputed. His own published accounts of his involvement in the Brexit campaign recorded meetings with the Russian ambassador Alexander Yakovenko, a close Putin associate. A Russian spy, Alexander Udod, was tasked with getting close to Nigel Farage, Ukip and Aaron Banks. Udod was expelled from the UK in 2018 following the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury.

The Skripal killer squad came from the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency, headed up to 2016 by Igor Sergun. He was a strong advocate of Brexit, not from any reasons of “taking back control” or other anti-EU arguments advanced over many years by British politicians and journalists of right and left but simply because Putin intensely disliked the role of the EU as a supra-national body which imposed sanctions on Russia after Putin’s invasion and annexation of Crimea.

Putin also disliked the EU Commission’s competition directorate using EU law to stop Gazprom’s monopolistic practices in EU energy supply chains. Putin’s foreign policy is easily summed up. “Russia up. America down. Europe out.”

Putin had funded other anti-EU politicians like Marine le Pen in France, the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany and the anti-EU Lega party of Matteo Salvini in Italy. In a sense this was no more than the continuation of a long-standing Russian practice since the 1920s of providing money for politicians and organisations which sympathised with Russian foreign policy objectives.

In evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, Banks and his associate, Andy Wigmore, denied any Russian connection.

Banks had been in Moscow and at least three business deals were offered at the Russian embassy or by Russian agents to the pair. The Russian ambassador and the spy Udod were invited to parties hosted by Banks.

The Electoral Commission did refer Banks to the National Crime Agency but Theresa May did not order the intelligence agencies help provide evidence. She refused to accept that any question mark might be placed over the very narrow win for Brexit when 36 per cent of the total registered electorate voted to leave the EU. Jeremy Corbyn has been a life-long opponent of EU membership and had voted against every EU treaty in the House of Commons since 1983.

With the arrival of Boris Johnson and a 100 per cent Brexit cabinet, the political establishment began to instinctively retreat from the notion that Russia may have influenced Brexit. Labour’s new leader, Sir Keir Starmer, also wants to shut down Brexit, believing that to challenge it would alienate Labour Red Wall voters who voted out in 2016.

In a new book Going Dark, Julia Ebner, a researcher at London’s Institute for Strategic Dialogue, reports on Russia’s Internet Research Agency, a Putin trolling operation that reached one in three Americans between 2015 and 2017 when Putin tried to get Trump elected. The Internet Research Agency set up 3,841 fake twitter accounts to pump out Kremlin lines on Trump and also Brexit. The Russian state-controlled TV station, RT, and linked news agency, Sputnik, based in in Edinburgh, provided endless platforms for anti-EU commentators, economists and politicians.

Is it so hard to see that both USA and Russia run their respective criminal empires? Neither is anything nice.
Putin wants so hard to be another Peter the Great. He is an old sociopathic man with megalomaniac tendencies.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/06/ ... sts-a77960

After visiting an exhibition in Moscow dedicated to the 350th birthday of tsar Peter the Great, Putin told a group of young entrepreneurs that "you get the impression that by fighting Sweden he was grabbing something. He wasn't taking anything, he was taking it back."

When Peter the Great founded St. Petersburg and declared it the Russian capital "none of the countries in Europe recognized this territory as belonging to Russia," Putin said.

Putin just said the quiet part out loud: "Peter the Great ... fought with Sweden & supposedly seized [territory]. He didn't seize it, he took it back! ... Now it seems it's our turn to take things back" pic.twitter.com/Zdor1KCia7
— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) June 9, 2022

"Everyone considered it to be part of Sweden. But from time immemorial, Slavs had lived there alongside Finno-Ugric peoples," the Russian leader added.

"It is our responsibility also to take back and strengthen," Putin said, in an apparent reference to Russia's offensive in Ukraine.

"Yes, there have been times in our country's history when we have been forced to retreat, but only to regain our strength and move forward," he said.
news

The defeat of Sweden in the Great Northern War (1700-1721) made Russia the leading power in the Baltic Sea and an important player in European affairs.

But with ties Russia's ties with the West currently shattered by the Ukraine invasion, Moscow authorities are downplaying Peter's affinity for Europe and focusing on his role in expanding Russian territories.

More than three centuries after he sought to bring Russia closer to Europe, Russians on Thursday marked the 350th birthday of tsar Peter the Great with the country deeply isolated over the Ukraine conflict.

[Gnomad]

You have reading comprehension issues. I said all elections held in Ukraine are rigged because they aren't sovereign, but neither of us can produce evidence that they were.

CIA is a placeholder for the complex array of Western institutions. I only used it because you used the term CIA coup and I'm not trying to write an essay.

Yeah, and I pointed out that according to international law and agreements, Ukraine is recognized as sovereign. You just voiced your opinion, backed with nothing at all. And Ukrainian elections have been deemed much more reliable than Russias, by scores of international election observers - that Russia mostly blocks from observing their "elections". Its not Wikipedia, its international election observers that can assure integrity in elections. Those Wikipedia links contained info on the presence of these observers.

My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you very much.

https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ho ... n-observer

An ODIHR election observation mission (EOM) consists of a core team of experts, long-term observers (LTOs), and short-term observers (STOs). Candidates for all positions must be citizens of OSCE participating States, excluding the country where the election is taking place. Other ODIHR observation activities (limited observation missions, election assessment missions and election expert teams) comprise a smaller number of mission members.

ODIHR’s Election Observation Handbook: 6th Edition explains in greater detail the format and composition of ODIHR election-related activities and provides a complete overview of the ODIHR election observation methodology.

Individuals interested in joining ODIHR observation activities, including as core team experts and seconded and funded observers, are required to create a personal account in the new OSCE/ODIHR Election Expert Database.

Core Team

The core team is composed of 10 to 15 international experts, depending on the size of the mission and the specific needs of the OSCE participating State to which a mission is deployed, and includes both analysts and operations experts. Their assignments typically vary between 2 and 8 weeks.

Experts are selected through an open recruitment procedure, based on their qualifications and experience according to the responsibilities and requirements stipulated in the terms of reference for each position. To ensure balance and diversity, ODIHR considers nationality and gender in the team’s composition.

https://www.ndi.org/DoP

The Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and the Code of Conduct for International Election Observers establish the basis for credible international election observation. The Declaration was developed through a multi-year process involving more than 20 intergovernmental and international nongovernmental organizations concerned with election observation around the world. The process began informally in 2001 at the initiative of NDI and the United Nations Electoral Assistance Division (UNEAD) and included an initial meeting at the UN in New York and a meeting in Washington co-hosted by the OAS and NDI. The declaration was commemorated at the UN on Oct. 27, 2005, and is now endorsed by 55 intergovernmental and international organizations, which are engaged in the process of improving international election observation. A list of the endorsers of the Declaration can be found here.

[drstrangelove]

I observed a similar trend during the pandemic when people started referencing authoritative sources under the false assumption the primary literature, which of course these people hadn't read, would back up the claims they'd come across in the news and regurgitated. I remember reading the public assessment documents compiled by the FDA on the mRNA vaccines and being surprised at how candid their language was about what was and wasn't known. It turned out all the lying had been done on the media front. Those who read the primary source of information were pretty well informed and I would suspect the majority of them didn't take the vaccine.

So i wasn't surprised to find evidence of the 2014 Ukrainian elections being rigged in the actual reports compiled on the observations carried out by the very NGO you assumed had ruled them democratic. Which you are now bound to as an authoritative source of information.

UKRAINE EARLY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 26 October 2014 OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report
https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/123759

While voting, and to a lesser extent the vote count, were assessed positively by IEOM observers,
significant problems were noted during the tabulation process in some election districts, including
cases of manipulation of results.

Page 1.

While the electoral authorities made resolute efforts to organize elections throughout the country, they could not be held in substantial parts of
the eastern regions (oblasts) of Donetsk and Luhansk and in Crimea.

Page 1.

The elections were conducted under a mixed proportional-majoritarian system, which has long been the subject of controversy in
Ukraine and is viewed by many stakeholders as being particularly vulnerable to fraud. Despite this
and notwithstanding public demand, the outgoing parliament did not reform the electoral system.

Page 1.

Two thirds of DEC members, including those in executive positions, were replaced, mainly by the nominating parties. This high turnover is believed to partly have been the result of wide-scale corruption among electoral subjects, aimed at allowing some interested contestants to obtain a majority in, and hence control over, certain election commissions. This raises concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of election commissions.

Page 2.

While
candidates were generally able to campaign freely in most parts of the country, the campaign was marred by violent incidents, which increased markedly in the last ten days of the campaign. The OSCE/ODIHR EOM received a high number of credible allegations of vote buying and provision of commodities or services to individuals or groups paid for by candidates, with many cases being investigated by the authorities. Unlike in past elections, the misuse of administrative resources was not raised as an issue of predominant concern. However, President Petro Poroshenko and, to a lesser extent Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, took unfair advantage of their positions with televised appeals to voters to elect a pro-reform parliament during the campaign-silence period.

XIV. TABULATION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESULTS
The tabulation of results lasted more than two weeks. Results for the proportional component of the
elections and for all but two single-mandate districts (DECs 38 and 63, where recounts were
ordered by district courts)95 were established on the legal deadline of 10 November. One of the two
CEC deputy chairpersons attached her dissenting opinion to the final CEC results protocol for the
proportional component of the elections. CEC members also expressed dissenting opinions
regarding certain single-mandate district results protocols.96 In total, 157 of the 396 DEC results
protocols for the proportional and the majoritarian component (39.6 per cent) had to be corrected.97
OSCE/ODIHR EOM observers assessed the tabulation process negatively in 60 (116 reports) of the
171 observed DECs. The negative assessment was largely due to a combination of various factors.
For instance, OSCE/ODIHR EOM observers noted that in 56 DECs (84 reports), packed election
materials submitted by PECs had apparently been tampered with. Poor and inefficient organization

Page 27.

In some cases, DECs were forced to stop tabulation due to
bomb threats99 or attack with Molotov cocktails, e.g. in DEC 66 (Zhytomyr oblast). Serious
tensions were also observed at DEC 217 (Kyiv city), where large numbers of armed members of a
volunteer battalion, whose commander was a candidate in the district, were present around and
inside the DEC.

Page 28

In this context, serious problems occurred in DEC 59 in Donetsk oblast, where the
tabulation process was blocked by armed members of the “Dnipro 1” volunteer battalion, the deputy
commander of which was a majoritarian candidate in that district.100

Page 28

I intuitively knew all this already because Ukraine isn't sovereign.

[Gnomad]

I did not claim they were perfect, I compared them to Russias elections. Read the parts concerning Russia as well, please. That was my point.
Russias elections are basically decided beforehand, and the same institutions observers are not even let in anymore - and have not for some time. Opposition is destroyed - either murdered or locked away in solitary confinement like Navalnyi - though they did try to murder him as well.

You missed that entirely. Please take off the black-and-white glasses now.

Working to reduce corruption and improve integrity is what matters - both countries share the history of Soviet Union which was utterly corrupt. The exact reason for international observers is to point out failings and corruption, so they can be potentially remedied.

Ukraine is trying, but hopefully US and Blackrock won't get to stop what they started.

Also - please define sovereign, as you like to throw that word around.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countr ... arch-shows

With less than one month until the 2020 presidential election in the United States, research shows that the integrity of the country's elections has compared poorly to other democracies in recent years – and questions remain over how the Nov. 3 contest will turn out in the era of the coronavirus pandemic.

A 2019 report published by the Electoral Integrity Project ( https://www.electoralintegrityproject.c ... tions-2017 ), an independent project based out of Harvard University, found that U.S. elections from July 2012 through December 2018 rated "lower than any other long-established democracies and affluent societies." Each country in the index was given a score out of 100 based on assessments of the quality of each of its elections – including categories such as electoral laws, voter registration and voting process – one month after polls closed.

The U.S. score of 61 – the same score as Mexico and Panama – is the second-lowest among liberal democracies and much lower than other countries in the Americas region, including Costa Rica, Uruguay and Chile. Denmark, Finland and Norway are among the top-ranked countries in the index, all with scores in the 80s.

So once again, pot - meet kettle.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/06/electio ... polls.html
Election officials combat voter intimidation across U.S. as extremist groups post armed militia at some polls

So yeah, compared to what?

https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/russia/494488
No OSCE observers for Russian parliamentary elections following major limitations
WARSAW/COPENHAGEN 4 August 2021

WARSAW/COPENHAGEN, 4 August 2021 — The OSCE will not be able to send observers for the upcoming elections to the Duma due to limitations imposed by Russian Federation authorities on the election observation, leaders of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODHIR) and its Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) announced today.

“We very much regret that our observation of the forthcoming elections in Russia will not be possible,” said ODIHR Director Matteo Mecacci. “But the ability to independently determine the number of observers necessary for us to observe effectively and credibly is essential to all international observation. The insistence of the Russian authorities on limiting the number of observers we could send without any clear pandemic-related restrictions has unfortunately made today’s step unavoidable.”

Mecacci informed Russia’s Central Election Commission and the permanent delegation of the Russian Federation to the OSCE, while OSCE PA President Margareta Cederfelt notified the Head of the Russian Delegation to the Assembly. Both institutions had been invited to observe the vote scheduled for 17-19 September, but were subsequently restricted to sending 50 and 10 observers, respectively. The Russian authorities cited the sanitary-epidemiological situation in the Russian Federation as the reason for the limitations. At present, no pandemic-related entry restrictions or rules about operating and moving within the country would seem to prevent the deployment of a full election observation mission in line with ODIHR’s initial assessment.

They even use your favorite reason for restricting freedom, Covid!

[Gnomad]

https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/415742

Ukraine election competitive, but legal issues remain, international observers say (2019)

Fundamental freedoms were generally respected, and candidates could campaign freely, but numerous indications of vote-buying and the misuse of state resources undermined the credibility of the process. The media landscape is diverse, but campaign coverage lacked in-depth analysis and was often biased, the observers said.

“This competitive election has laid the groundwork for a vibrant second round,” said Ilkka Kanerva, Special Co-ordinator and leader of the short-term OSCE observer mission. “I hope that this will encourage Ukraine to continue on its path of democratic development, at peace and secure within its internationally recognized borders in our community of European values.”
.....
The election is taking place in the context of ongoing armed conflict and other hostilities in the east of the country and the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation. As a consequence, the election could not be organized in Crimea and certain parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are controlled by illegal armed groups.
....
Rights and freedoms that underpin democratic elections are guaranteed in the constitution. The legal framework remains largely unchanged since the 2014 presidential election. Efforts at electoral reform were inconclusive, and most previous recommendations by ODIHR and the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, including the crucial need to codify electoral legislation, remain unaddressed. Positively, the right of individuals to lodge constitutional complaints, introduced in 2016, allowed citizens and political parties for the first time to challenge election-related legislation.

“We have been here for eight weeks now, looking at all aspects of the election. There are loopholes in the laws, and these should not be abused,” said Ambassador Peter Tejler, Head of the election observation mission from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. “It is important that stakeholders now implement the law in good faith. This will help build trust in the election administration and help to ensure a fair campaign.”
.....
The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and prohibits censorship. Nevertheless, the government has introduced a number of restrictive measures affecting the activities of the media and journalists, citing threats to national security. The media landscape is diverse but largely divided along political lines. The business and political interests of the owners affect the autonomy of private media outlets and the general trust in them. The public broadcaster is severely underfunded, which affects its ability to fully perform its public-service role.
....
The State Voter Register contains the records of some 35.6 million voters. Despite some concerns about difficulties to adequately capture data on internally displaced persons (IDPs), internal labour migrants and citizens living abroad, there was general confidence in the accuracy of the voter lists.

The law provides for election observation by international and citizen observers: candidate and party observers were seen in almost all polling stations, and citizen observers in around one half. However, in light of the designation by parliament of the Russian Federation as an aggressor state, a recent amendment to the election laws effectively prohibited citizens of the Russian Federation and or people whose nomination was initiated or submitted by the Russian Federation from observing elections in Ukraine. This is at odds with OSCE commitments.

https://eurasianet.org/a-brief-history- ... kovych-era

On June 9, 2005, Paul Manafort wrote a memo to an important client, Ukraine’s reportedly richest man Rinat Akhmetov.

Manafort, the American political consultant who would one day manage Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, had conducted extensive polling in Ukraine after the 2004 Orange Revolution, a popular uprising that had prevented Viktor Yanukovych – a politician closely linked by Ukrainian media to Akhmetov – from becoming the country’s president. The catalyst for the upheaval was presidential balloting that had been rigged in Yanukovych’s favor.

Manafort’s memo assessed the post-revolutionary options for Yanukovych and his backers.

“The ability of Yanukovych to help lead a campaign against the current administration will not only fail, it will never gain any traction. Additionally, it carries the potential to destroy the Party of Regions,” Manafort concluded in documents that were later made public by a federal court in the United States.

The documents go on to show that Manafort recommended Yanukovych be replaced as the party leader immediately. Like many at the time, Manafort considered Yanukovych done as a politician.

But Yanukovych, it turned out, was far from done. He made an astounding comeback with the help of Manafort and lots of money, winning the presidency in a fair election in 2010.

And as soon as he got his hands on the reins of power, he spurred official corruption to new levels while maintaining a magisterial lifestyle, according to official documents.

Allegations of galloping graft that characterized Yanukovych’s administration ultimately contributed to its demise. People rose up again in 2014, an event now known as the Euromaidan Revolution, prompting Yanukovych to flee the country. These days, while he maintains an isolated existence in Russia, Ukraine continues to struggle to overcome the legacy of his rule.
..........
After assuming the presidency, Yanukovych seemed to embrace a time-tested approach of using Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt judicial system to consolidate his political authority. He quickly moved to prosecute his main political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, his most serious challenger in the 2010 election. Yanukovych used the corruption issue as a political cudgel: Tymoshenko ended up being convicted of abuse of power and embezzlement in connection with a gas supply agreement with Russia in 2009, receiving a seven-year prison term and a $188-million fine. The case was widely viewed by international watchdogs as politically motivated. In 2013, the European Court for Human Rights ruled that her arrest and conviction were “arbitrary and unlawful.”

Svyatoslav Piskun, a former member of the Party of Regions who served as Ukraine’s general prosecutor, remembers that Yanukovych was obsessed with putting Tymoshenko away: “He had one problem: how to jail Tymoshenko.” She ended up not being released from prison until after the Euromaidan Revolution ousted Yanukovych in early 2014.

Much more at link.
Yanukovych was very, very far from a legitimate, uncorrupt leader. But I can see why Putin loved him...