Why Russia took Crimea first
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 фев 2023
- The war in Ukraine began nine years before Putin's invasion in 2022. In late February 2014, armed soldiers in uniforms without insignia began to occupy Crimea. Despite their Russian weapons and equipment, Russia denied involvement. Just two months after their appearance, Putin declared Crimea was now part of Russia. It marked the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War. So what led to the annexation of Crimea in 2014? And why does the Crimean Peninsula continue to be a crucial sticking point in negotiations in 2023?
One year on from the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, we talk to Research Fellow Emily Ferris from RUSI about the origins of the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it’s developed over the past nine years, as well as to photojournalist Anastasia Taylor-Lind who was working in Ukraine between 2014 and 2022.
Anastasia Taylor-Lind's photography display 'Ukraine: Photographs from the Front Line' is now open at IWM London. Plan your free visit: www.iwm.org.uk/events/iwm-lon...
Follow IWM on social media:
Twitter: / i_w_m
Instagram: / imperialwarmuseums
Facebook: / iwm.london
CREDITS
Photos of the ‘Little Green Men’ in Crimea in 2014 © Ilya Varlamov
Crimean Tatars: www.memory.gov.ua
Photos of Ukraine’s Independence 1991 © www.ukrinform.net/
Photo of the H. Pshenychnoy Center for the Development of Social Sciences and Humanities.
Photo of Yanukovych © ВАДИМ ЧУПРИНА
Photo of G7 meeting 2014: Crown copyright. Photographer: Arron Hoare
Video footage of the March 2014 Crimean referendum voting polls via YT Юрий Дейнека / Yuri Deineka
Minsk Agreement meeting AFP PHOTO / PRESIDENTIAL PRESS SERVICE / POOL / MYKOLA LAZARENKO
Merkel and Putin at the 70th anniversary of D-Day via Kremlin.ru
Asia-Europe (ASEM) Summit meeting of the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France, October 2014 via Kremlin.ru
Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, François Hollande at the Kremlin via Kremlin.ru
War tanks of pro-Russian separatists on February 23, 2022 heading for the Donbass-Ukraine border via Gennadiy Dubovoy
President Zelenskiy at the ballot box 2019 via Фото Миколи Лазаренка / The Presidential Office of Ukraine.
Volodymyr Zelensky 2019 presidential inauguration via Mykhaylo Markiv / The Presidential Administration of Ukraine
A Russia-backed rebel armored fighting vehicles convoy near Donetsk via Mstyslav Chernov
Battalion "Donbas" in Donetsk region via Ліонкінг
Protests in Donetsk © Andrew Butko. (commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us...)
Zelensky, Merkel, Macron, Putin in talks 2019 via www.kremlin.ru
Participants of the First Summit of the Crimean Platform via ОПУ
Crimean Platform photos via the website of the President of Ukraine
Location map of Ukraine by NordNordWest. CC BY-SA 3.0. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Maps by freevectormaps.com
Russia was able to take Crimea first because the Russian military (army, Air Force and navy) already had bases on the peninsula under a 99 year lease with Ukraine agreed to between 1991 and 1994. They were able to deploy the so-called "little green men" from those bases and seize most of the peninsula in a matter of hours.
Added to which the Yanks were pissed because they had been watering at the mouth to have a US naval base on the Black sea to continue to intimidate Russia
@@robertaurens5665Crimea or Bosphorus which important
@@ceydatuzun6162 There both really important but probably the Bosphorus.
@@WarriorRunner777 Turkey is jealous of Russia Crimea is more important than the Bosphorus.Russian politic said this
@@ceydatuzun6162 Maybe, they are both really important but the Bosphorus, allows the Russian fleets to leave the Black Sea.
2:50 This wasnt anything that Yanukovych did. It was his predecessors who initiated it. He was the one who made Ukraine actually even MORE dependend on Russia for Energy resources.
this is true. Yanukovich was backed by putin since early 2000s. It was literally the kremlin's puppet. He was not trying to gain any independence for Ukraine. Actually the opposite.
Bankrupt Ukraine could not even afford other energy resources, except for Russian ones, because Ukrainian tycoons and oligarchs robbed the country to the point of absurdity! Ukrainians didn't even pay for cheap Russian energy!
This is true to a point. But we also have to understand that when the Soviet Union fell a sort of “post-cold war fallout” ensued that affected former Soviet States. What is meant by this is that western countries remained reluctant to support and even economically assist newly formed independent former-Soviet States due to two reasons. 1) The Soviet successor state of Russia may attempt to reclaim these states and therefore assert its influence, and 2) The poor economic conditions left behind by the fall of the Soviet Union made it less appealing for capitalist-centric countries to invest and aid. So with this, the Ukraine Government until the administration of Petro Poroshenko had no choice but to rely on Russia to repair its damaged economy. So I dont think the past administrations of Ukraine are entirely to blame for what was actually imposed to them.
What happened was that during those years Russian gas prices were unbearably high, leaving Ukraine without any choices. The video makes it sound like it was some kind of policy, but it was just pure economics.
If Russia wants to keep its sphere of influence, they only need to make it an equally or better position to be in than joining the European side. As long as aligning with Russia means giving up sovereignty and signing on to a highly corrupt rather weak economy, people will want the better option.
Absolutely TRue Russia only has itself to blame for becoming corrupt and none 5:17 entrepreneurial and lazy.
So you think Ukraine is a better choice for Crimeans? By 2019 the economic output of Ukraine was half of what it was when the USSR collapsed. In the same period Russia had increased its output to ten times its 1990 level and restored its Great Power status after being on its knees and gasping for air. By any measure Ukraine is a failed state.
And Ukraine gave up its sovereignty in 2014.
@@newcoatresurfacing5477 Sure buddy.
This. Russia under Putin is corrupt and authoritarian. It has no "soft power". IF the Russian Federation survives this war; Russia will need to improve itself first (reduce corruption, become a Meritocracy) and maybe then it has a chance
A bit skimpy in parts. For example, what choices were on the vote in Crimea? One: Independent Crimea, Two: Become part of Russian Federation. No other option given, like continue to be part of Ukraine. I guess it does not matter, since Russian would have made option two the winning option anyway.
Because Crimea was already independent... They declared independence like the donbass did in 2014
@@Mmjk_12 - which is debatable.
Post-referendum polls
The results of a survey by the U.S. government Broadcasting Board of Governors agency, conducted April 21-29, 2014, showed that 83% of Crimeans felt that the results of the March 16 referendum on Crimea's status likely reflected the views of most people there, whereas this view is shared only by 30% in the rest of Ukraine.[153]
According to the Gallup's survey performed on April 21-27, 82.8% of Crimean people consider the referendum results reflecting most Crimeans' views,[154] and 73.9% of Crimeans say Crimea's becoming part of Russia will make life better for themselves and their families, while 5.5% disagree.[154]
According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, the majority of Crimean residents say they believed the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).[155]
According to a poll of the Crimeans by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on January 16-22, 2015: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."[156] Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation."
Cry
@@Mmjk_12 you lot believe maiden was a western colour revolution but Donbass and crimes was entirely organic
@@Mmjk_12 Neither declared independence. That's a Russian propaganda line, not reality. Both these declarations of independence and the votes were orchestrated by Russian secret services.
I went to the photo exhibition couple of weeks back.. well done IWM
A nice presentation, but it sounds like it supports russian claims that Krym had always been russian before Khrushchev gave it to Ukraina in 1954. In reality many cultures have lived on Crimea and dominated it, from the greeks, romans, kyivian rus, kossacks, mongols and tartars. Russia didn't arrive there before they annexed it in 1783, in violation with the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca. This brought on a war with the Ottomans that Russia won, and the Ottomans ceded all claims to Krym in the Treaty of Jassy in 1792. Then Russia lost possession of Krym during the Crimean War, lost it again during the Revolution, when Ukraina first established itself as a republic and Krym was for a brief time part of the republic, and yet again lost it during WWII. So russian possession of Krym has neither been that long and has been interrupted several times. There is a majority of russian speaking peoples and ethinc russians there, but this is a result of the russification of the region, mass deportings of the Tatar population and moving ethinc russians in to fill all public roles. The same has happened in almost every other country Russia has invaded and conquered, thus there are russian minorities in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova etc. today. Even the Holodomor, Stalin's planned hunger in Ukraina, served this purpose. As millions of ukrainians died of starvation, ethinc russians from other parts of Russia was moved into the depopulated lands to farm the land. Thus the strong ethnic russian prescence in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Precisely!
The statistical truth of it is, in the late 1700s and part of the 1800s, Russians made up a very small % (4.6) of the total population in Crimea. Tartars by far were the dominant ethnic group, consisting of over 80%. Then Stalin came along, and in a very bloody and brutal way, shifted that balance entirely in the other direction.
Hopefully it will be Ukrainian in 2023...the year when the war ends...
It doesn't support that at all. What it does is omit the earlier, non-Russian-influenced history of the region. It then says (0:46) "Incorporated into the Russian Empire in the late 18th Century, Ukraine briefly gained its independence in 1918, but three years later became part of the Soviet Republic."
thank you good overview that.
What is the purpose of the noise in the background? Makes it easier to comprehend what is being said, or just useless noise-polution?
Love your work 👍
Important note. In Ukraine, Maidan 2014 is most often called not "Euromaidan", but "Revolution of Dignity".
Yes, Euromaidan was the beginning of the protests. However, the number of protesters was decreasing and, most likely, they would have stopped taking to the streets. But the government made a mistake. They decided to intimidate the people by brutally beating the protesters. It was this incident that gave Maidan a new, more powerful turn.
On the day after the students were beaten, the largest number of people took to the streets of Kyiv. They demanded to punish the officials responsible for the beating. This gave rise to a tough confrontation between the street and Yanukovych, who did not want to punish his entourage.
Further, the brutality of the police only increased, reaching the kidnappings and murders. Along with this, the demands of the protesters became more stringent,
turned into a demand for the impeachment of Yanukovych. Rejection of police brutality and its impunity gave the name to the protests - "Revolution of Dignity".
there was a hell of a lot of brutality on the barricades led by ultra-right hoods who were not going to let this best chance of power slip and most likely killed a lot of kids and ordinary citizens to escalate and blame the regime. the investigation into the killings was dropped like a hot potato by the interim government when it took over
This so called revolution was used as a smoke cover to instigate a coup and put friendly politicians in charge
ask CIA
I'll bet Yanukovich isn't too thrilled that his mansion got turned into a museum
I would be kinda proud, myself. Easy for me to say, though, I don't have a mansion.
For anyone who wants the answer to the question posed in the title and for those who suffer from "attention span"
I can give here the answer in summary form and the synopsis:
Because Crimea has 90% of Russians and have military air and sea bases, fundamental to giving hegemony to the Russians in the Black Sea and consequently in the Mediterranean. basically this is it!
EDIT: Don't forget that the special military operation started in 2022 (February) But the war started in 2013/2014 for several reasons, the Ukrainian government's coup d'etat, the Maidan, the ban on newspapers, radios and televisions that spoke in Russian , the destruction of the Orthodox Church, and the apartheid on the part of Ukrainians who began a campaign of hatred and violence against the population that expressed itself in the Russian language Mainly in; the Oblast of Lugansk, Odessa, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhia and Crimea.
In addition to starting to attack the Donbass area in 2014 and with the culmination of terror with the fire at the Chamber of Commerce in Odessa where, after setting fire to the building, they closed the doors from the outside, ending up burning 50 people to death... Fantastic huh? !?
They haven’t mentioned that those 14000 dead people were Russians, many kids… they left that out conveniently…
This is something the the western media fails to understand, that or deliberately hiding the truth to the wider audience i believe it to be the latter.
Great effort!
Thank you IWM for this analysis; the truth is a gift to the world.
"truth"
Why are you sure this is the truth?
@@denisdemin81 Because we don't believe any poisoner who even forbids using the word war. The people who are so manipulable that they have remained loyal for over 20 years despite every outrage. They believe all the stupid lies that this man spreads in the Kremlin. Anyone who eats everything they vomit can confidently also be called such. Dumb.
What a great series from the IWM this is! It is very similar to the style of Prof Mike Clarke, the resident Sky News military analyst: an ability to make politico/military terms easy to understand and an informative style that reinforces that understanding! Thank you and keep up the good work!
I very much agree with you!
Interesting that you mentioned this with Clarke. Clarke is a known clown who spouts similar false and disinformation realities about Russia and Ukraine.
1:45 including in Crimea and Sevastopol.
Great video, but the invasion started 24 Feb, not 22 Feb as stated at 11:24.
You're incorrect. The invasion started in 22 Feb when Putin declared the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk. Just hours after that there were a lot of russian troops, tanks and everything crossing ukranian borders. Before 24 Feb 50% of Kherson region was already taken. 24 Feb was just Putin's speech confirming that he was ordered what we all already were seeing was happening
Not entirely correct. You see in 24 Feb was Putins speech confirming special military operations but actions started in Feb 22.
@@juancho1663 the special military operation was announced at roughly 3:30am on 24th February 2022 and shortly after that troops began to cross the border. I watched this unfold live.
Shows how unprofessional they are , this source can't be trusted
@@juancho1663 lie
Not much mention of the Budapest memorandum treaty?
Why?
She also failed to mention at 4:15 why Yanukovych didn't sign the agreement in his historic "pen breaking apology". These Western "development aid funds" had inhumane conditions attached to them which would result in the Ukrainian working population essentially becoming slaves to big cooperations for the forthcoming decades. Yanukovych 100% did the right decision for his country at the sacrifice at his own safety and future career.
Vladimir Putin visits a primary school one day
And he gives a lecture about how great the government is, and how Russia is the best country in the world.
At the end of the lecture he invites people to ask questions and one kid stands up and says
“Hello my name is Sasha and I have two questions”
Putin: “go ahead”
Sasha: “Why did Russia sent troops to Ukraine and why did Russia annex Crimea? ”
At that moment the bell rang and everyone went to lunch.
At the end of lunch the Q&A continued and another kid stood up
“My name is boris and I have four questions”
Putin: “Yes?”
Boris: “Why did Russia sent troops to Ukraine, why did Russia annex Crimea, why was the bell 20 minutes early and where is Sasha?”
Bad Analogy, 7 year olds don't even know what "annex" means, probably not even the time the bell rings, also "why did they go to ukraine" no elementary school kids in Russia could have possibly knoen about that since there is censorship. Bad analogy in general bruh
@@filce1232 You don’t know what an analogy is. Let’s start by learning about that. Once you get that down, let’s work on understanding humour.
@@angrydoggy9170 If this is what you call humor about kids asking putin why he had to annex foreign territory then your humor is not great
@@angrydoggy9170 Also english is not my first language and I did not know the difference between analogy and methaphor.
@@filce1232 There’s no obligation to consider it funny, just the ability to recognise it as an attempt at humour will do.
The video starts with the Russian involvement in Crimea without mentioning the 2014 coup with US involvement.
Nice try Iván, haven't you been drafted yet?
@@jonathandavx Ivan? I am Boris from England.
Ukraine on Fire gives the truth on what happened in Ukraine. The CIA coup from 2014 has been reported on also BBC Newsnight had a video on the rise of Neo Nazism in Ukraine. The people in Crimea voted to stay with Russia as they didn't support the coup. Can't blame them
You didn't mention who the snipers were!
Ukranian
@@YOURDADSDILDO ruSSian
Maybe at the time the snipers were pro Ukrainian but thought the protestors were illegally attacking Ukrainian federal buildings. Or, a pro Russian leader has his close guard be pro Russian snipers. What is your point?
@@BlutoandCo check your facts
There is ample evidence that almost all shots were made from positions held by Berkuk. Photographic evidence, cartridge casings, tracing of the bullet paths etc. There is some evidence for a few shots coming from areas protesters held at the time, but it is inconclusive.
Good summary of the events of the last decade, but does not answer the question in the title.
I'll answer it. it's because Putin is a completely and totally insane megalomaniac who thinks he's Peter the Great.
Russia annexed Crimea, that's the answer.
To have access to the oil and gas fields off the coast of Crimea which if Ukraine used would be able to supply the EU therefore Ukraine would not be dependent on Russia for their energy needs plus Ukraine could export the oil and gas to the EU.
Walk past the IWM in Manchester everyday and im absolutely gutted i didnt go in to these portraits.
The Russo Ukraine War began with the Maidan Protests
Which were directed and pushed by the west
@@Cottam89 delusional
@@Cottam89 Only when the government gave orders to start using live ammunition on protesters. Turns out killing dozens of people in your capital city is a great way to drive your population from protest to revolution. Particularly picking off civilians in the streets with snipers was a stupid thing to do
I appreciate the very balanced view presented in the video.
Do you know anything about the 2014 coup backed by US?
@@Neoptolemus I understand that the government of Yanukovitch broke a promised deal with the EU, but I also understand that US backed Svoboda in creating riots to overthrow the government. Am i correct?
@@LusoPatriot77 yes.. and that’s why this report is biased.
@@LusoPatriot77 I understand you're posting from a bunker underneath the Kremlin.
@@Poliss95just reality why is it oblivious to you that NATO is the side CONSTANTLY for decades purposefully creeping onto Russia’s border? Russia at peace just being Russia. NATO wanted a war for the money laundering it makes the ruling class.
Napoleonic wars. Switzerland. The "language affinity" card, and it's outcome...
Very interesting
Why are you showing war footage of the August war in Georgia from 2008?
Wikipedia: 2007 Munich speech of Vladimir Putin
That was the moment when he revealed his plans to the whole world, and nobody said enough!
It wasn't "current thing".
Perhaps you didn't pay attention to his Munich speech from 2007. Putin discussed NATO expansion and American imperialism which is happening today. You can spin it to suit your narrative. The truth is in Putin's speech in 2007 on how America wants to control Europe through NATO expansion. Too bad America didn't listen as they think they can do whatever they want and have military infrastructure and missiles in every country. The European countries which are in NATO lost their sovereignty which was also in Putin's speech yet you want to twist around to suit your pathetic narrative.😂😂😂 Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You probably never even listened to Putin's speech 😂
Pretty good video, fairly unbiased. A little more on the Minsk Agreements and Ukraine and Germany purposefully not allowing elections to move forward would be a nice add.
It would also be nice to note that it was because Russia had totally corrupted the election process. Oh wait, they did mention that.
The Minsk Agreements were never ratified by either party.
Elections didn’t work out because russia refused to give refugees a vote.
@@tomkent4656 Ukraine and Donbass were parties to the agreement. The rest were the guarantors of fulfillment. Considering that more than one politician from Ukraine and the West has already spoken out that all these negotiations were needed only to stall for time to create an army...
Ukraine and Donbass were parties to the agreement. The rest were the guarantors of fulfillment. Considering that more than one politician from Ukraine and the West has already spoken out that all these negotiations were needed only to stall for time to create an army...
I vote for Emily Ferris; a scholar and commentator who has successfully expunged all traces of “er, you know, like, sort of” and other rubbish from her discourse. Chapeau.
Who were the snipers?
A succinct summary that ended with how important Crimea is
it is an unsinkable aircraft carrier, that controls the Black Sea.
Why was Crimea taken so easily? Was the title question answered? This video is informative, don't get me wrong, but you didn't answer the title question, or was it simply, "Russia sent little green men into Crimea, held a referendum and then annexed the region"? Nothing on the Ukrainian Navy defecting or genuine popular support for Russia at that time?
They can't tell you that the vast majority of the people in Crimea see themselves as Russians and want nothing to do with the kleptocracy of Ukraine. That would ruin the narrative.
taking Crimea :2 died by accident 20.000 ukrainian on 22.000 went over to Russia
@@andyontheinternet5777 exactly was there under Ukrainian occupation
@@andyontheinternet5777 reported as false information.
@@torehaaland6921 Im not making this up. I know people from Ukraine. Crimea voted to leave Ukraine in a huge landslide. Crimea was part of Russia for a LONG time before it was assigned to the soviet state of Ukraine. The people there are not Ukrainians, they are mostly Russians.
Anyone looked into who those snipers were?
That got the same sort of investigation that Nord Stream got
Interesting video. Russia has access to the Black Sea in areas other than Crimea. Why don't the Russians develop these areas(Sochi, Novorossiysk)?
What do you mean "don`t develop"? Most of those areas are sand beaches and resorts. Very well developed and growing.
@@user-xe4yb5xc8t I meant develop those areas in order to locate a naval base, as an alternative to using Crimea as naval base. That's what I meant.
@@merc340sr Russia took Crimea and would still take Odessa because historically they are part of Russia ; the Russia empire developed those places not Ukraine and majority of the populations are Russian majority; Ukraine Is a red alert for Russia that’s why it won’t allow it to join nato that will automatically put USA and nato infrastructure in Crimea close to Russia ; so Russia had a lot of reason to take back those strategic port its was always been Russian cities and port not Ukraine
@@Bjonnet55 fair enough, but can you recapture a country after it acquired its independence (i.e.Ukraine)?Using military power and war to conquer territory is becoming less acceptable in this day and age.Would Russia not be better off if it became part of the West?
So dissapointing to see that once again only a partial thruth is mentioned and thought this was a great channel..
We take democracy here for granted ie the vote actually means something and cannot be overturned etc etc. Unfortunately places in the east have never experienced real democracy only dictatorship in one form or another.
Define Democracy?
@@DaveSCameron You can change your government
@@Stand663 Didn't we witness Ukraine *change its Government back in 2013/4...
Democracy has its own perils. Chief among them is this: There is no one in power who has not sought power. Most who seek power do so for selfish reasons. Power is the most addictive thing in the world: more addictive than every drug combined. We entrust people with power who are addicts to power. Democracies have a tendency to decay over time and become more and more corrupt for this reason. Soon enough these addicts to power start conspiring together, making deals with hand shakes privately. Some are little conspiracies, while others are more grand in scale. These things have always happened. Conspiracy has always been an integral part of politics. In no democracy has everything been decided publicly. Most things are decided privately before they ever even become a subject for public debate. Politicians make deals. They have always made deals. The older a democracy, the more corrupt these dealings become.
Are you implying that democracy is somehow better? Many countries and have been undemocratic for their entire existence and still turned out to be very great nations.
0:00 you mean early 2014
Super video.
The gas fields of off shore Crimea, the Donbas rift and eastern Carpathians would have made Ukraine potentially the second largest world supplier. Combined with extensive storage facilities this was of interest to the EU and a major threat to Putins plan to create an energy dependent Europe. But a resources war would have not gained much support from friends so this has been carefully wrapped up in historical justification. Oil supplies will be next.
Very true.. war usually follows black gold..
Let me remind you that Russia stood for a peaceful solution to the Donbass. And in the course of the agreements, Russia offered Donbass to remain part of Ukraine (on the rights of republics, with their own laws). So apparently it wasn't so critical.
And where there is oil, there is usa
The Donbas is part of Ukraine, how generous of Russia to offer it could remain
@@Alhambrasheff Meanwhile, the residents of Donbass, who held a referendum on joining Russia in 2014 and were refused, apparently did not think so and will not think so anymore.
They wanted to break away, and Russia persuaded them to stay and pushed through the Minsk Agreements to recognize them as republics with their own laws. So that they remain within the borders of Ukraine, but can live without those laws that they did not like.
Mid-Life crisis. He should have bought a Lamborghini
He probably have several already. The worlds richest man.
Losing Crimea to NATO would be end to Putin's Navy and security of Russia
He actually looks out for his country’s interests I wish we had a leader that did that
Does anyone else wonder if there is a Crimea river?
What I’d like to know is, I’ve heard the military force was firing into Donbass region. Some say it’s the Ukrainian military forces wiring into the Donbass region because they’re pro Russian. Others as this video describes the little green men were the ones to do the plague take over the Donbass region with what I just saw a Toronto they have little green men that swept to Toronto, without a shot of bullets in anyway and pushed all the truckers that were protesting the vaccination by mandate . It was believed the little green men were actually United Nations why the United Nations would help. Canada is clear what would be unclear is why would the UN, potentially little green men, will be firing into the Donbass region from the west. I know this is long but I appreciate any response. Thank you.
So succinct and clearly presented. The problem in a way (nodding to the raison d'etre of the channel of course) is by being factual and objective we are in a way tacitly acknowledging and legitimising Russian ambition. And the use of force and death as a valid means to that end.
Would really like 'war' to be a true museum artefact, a historical anecdote, rather than a perpetual disease or addiction that humanity seems incapable of breaking free of.
A prosperity Ukraine with strong democracy is a threat to any dictatorship regime in Russia. The same problem is happening to countries neighbouring China, be weak or be dependent to China or a Chinese invasion is imminent.
BOLD of you to assume usa is not a dictatorship with sham elections , where industry lobby to make laws they want and the common man voice is often silenced no matter the intensity of protest , usa seems more of an oligarchy with democracy as a shield to keep public from doing violent protest
Democracy, haha.
I wonder why are there american soldiers near the countries you named? Maybe it's about american interventions, but not democracy?
@@alphaclot302 The irony is that America is slightly more moral, technically, however the result is the same. The aggression of these superpowers prompts common yet not guaranteed pleas to the west for aid which leads to a dependency on the US. Better than being put under the CCP but it's still a thing. Russian doctrine nowadays is meant to mirror actual fascism in all but name btw, so I'd rather be an Imperialist than a Imperialist and a fascist dictatorship.
@@allseeingirene nice excuses for your personal invasions
@@arnoldshmitt4969 If the US was a dictatorship, how did Trump come to power? Everyone in the elite, both politically and economically, hated him, yet he still became President.
to open front from 3 sides
Precision GPS/Laser artillery directed by forward observers, satellites, and drones have made tanks and their crews (mechanized armor) targets of opportunity that can be destroyed with 100% accuracy from 50 miles away.
Those "new" old Russian T54/T55 tanks are gonna have a hard time. They're over 70 years old.
I wonder how the WWII T34's will do when they soon take them out of storage?
Will the 80+ years old T34's be a "game changer" for the Russians? Or yet another military *disaster?*
The most propoganda-like and distorted history representation I ever heard.
Russian armed forces easily took Crimea, and in 2022 they expected to easily run over Ukraine, as they expected it to be as easy as the initial 2014 invasion was.
Oh how wrong they were
And in 2024 Ukraine doesn`t exist any more. Comment from the future.
This is my favorite military news channel. I’m American.
ami go home ! out of rammsein ! NOW !
0:19 remember this on the news as a kid man this was big.
Losing Crimea puts at risk the whole of southern Russia to the caucasus mountains . It's similar to Hawaii for the Americans.
that makes no sense considering it was never russias in the first place , what risk ? ukraine getting its rightful border back ? what are you talking about a risk of what ? ukraine take back crimea blow the kerch bridge then set up a really good and solid air and land defense on the coast and stick their middle finger up at russia across the water .. what risk to who ? losing crimea ? you do know that happened 8 years ago lol ........ crimea will be won back not lost , do you know whats going on in the ukraine you do ?
No. It's not similar to the Hawaiian islands in any way.
Why is crimea so important for russia
Full scale invasion was 24th Feb, not 22nd.
She said: "In the early hours of the 22nd of February Russian tanks rolled across the Ukrainian border."
Not: "The full scale invasion began on 22nd of Feb".
You need to pay more attention to what you hear.
So nice to hear that gas and oil, as allways i key element.
pootin's Russia invaded Ukraine at 04.am on Thursday 24th Feb 2022 not the 22nd that you stated in fact we now know that pootin intended to invade on Sunday 20th Feb but Jianping of China advised pootin to wait a few days as it was too close to the finale of the Beijing Winter Olympic's and the CCP did not want their Olympic's tied too the UA Invasion,it is remiss that a respected organisation like the IWM could get the invasion date sooo wrong.
No mention of the US-funded coupe in 2014?
Source of that absurd clam?
@Jonathan alava it's widely publicized. The US funds a foreign coupe roughly every 10 years. Read a history book
@@MrMountain707 could you suggest me a source where I could read about that or are you another crazy Ivan spreading misinformation?
This video doesn't explain anything
Negosiations 10:28
How poor this report could be? stated that an unknown armed force occupied Crimea "Despite their Russian equipment". Did the reporters know that Ukraine also possesses a lot of Russian equipment as well?
Nice try. They mean very modern russian equipment such as body armour and rifles specific to Russian federation. Not soviet equipment
Crimea was Russian for only a relatively short time. If one nation were to lay claim to it, it would be the Crimean Tartars, who had their own state there until Russia conquered Crimea (late 1700s) and then carried out ethnic cleansing. So basically Russia's claim rests on genocide. After the Russian invasion, Crimea was annexed for about 130 years. It was then a separate republic after the revolution, then it was made Russian in 1944 again, and ten years later it was transferred to the Ukrainian republic. So all in all, Crimea belonged to Russia for about 140 years. The Tartars had their state there for something like 400 years.
The Russian Tmutarakan principality existed in the Crimea in the 10th-11th centuries. So the Crimea has long belonged to the Russians. Did you know about it? 😉
@@Imprudentman the Russian nation didn't exist in 11th century... Moscow didn't exist. Kyiv existed and the Ruthenian state was already there. Volodymyr/Suzdal only became a thing about 300 years later.
There were people from central asia in Crimea among other things. But if you're saying they were "Russian" (which is a complete anachronism) you're basically admitting that Russians aren't European, they're Asian+Mongol. It's that what you're saying?
So Americas claim to the west coast of America is based of genocide of the natives .. are u in favor of us giving it back or do u only care when it’s Russia ?
Blood tax
Ottoman slave owners
Tartar slave owners
@@Imprudentman Nobody knows that because it's rubbish.
Of course that does not excuse Putin's aggression against a country that posed no danger to his own. One has to remember that Putin, like the Americans, has his own imperial agenda which includes incorporating Ukraine into the Russian Federation, as well as annexing the Baltic states and other parts of the old Soviet Block. He has also stated in numerous writings that Ukraine doesn't exist outside of Russia. And I have no doubt that if he had been able to capture Kiev in the first days of his invasion, he would have instituted a wholesale radical purge of Ukrainian society, which could have led to the murder and disappearance of tens of thousands of people. So I don't blame the Ukrainians for wanting to fight the Russians tooth and nail to maintain their nation and national identity.
"Putin's aggression against a country that posed no danger to his own" If Ukraine joined NATO then US hypersonic nuclear missiles are on Russia's border 300 miles from Moscow and could strike in less then 3 minutes.
After US put nuclear missiles in Turkey Russia put nuclear missiles in Cuba causing Cuban Missile crises. For Cuba's part in doing that the US gov't 70 years later is still punishing that country and people with crushing economic sanctions most of the people not even alive back then.
That 's the reason Ukraine should stay Nutral, than no war
@@timmccarthy982 What stupid reasoning😂
1) There are only 5 NATO countries who have American nukes on their territory, and all of them have had American nukes there for decades. None of them have American ICBMs or “hypersonic nuclear missiles”, only small yield tactical gravity bombs
2) If the US wanted nukes close to Russia, Latvia is closer to Moscow than Ukraine and Estonia is only 300km from St. Petersburg. It would be easier, smarter and closer to put nukes in the Baltics rather than Ukraine. Logistically it makes a LOT more sense as well. Since the U.S. made no effort to move nukes into the Baltics or Poland prior to the invasion, why is Ukraine any different?
3) The US government isn’t stupid and knows Russia has second strike capability. Taking out the Russian capital and second largest city faster doesn’t help the US avoid a nuclear response from Russia. Russia couldn’t stop the barrage on Moscow anyway so why would it matter to the US if it’s a base in Ukraine/the Baltics or a nuclear sub in the Atlantic that launches the reentry vehicle? Answer is they don’t, this isn’t the 1960’s anymore. It’s why they didn’t worry about building missile silos in NATO nations
Ukraine joining NATO never represented a nuclear threat to Russia unless Russia was planning on nuking Ukraine to begin with, forcing an American or European response
The war in Ukraine didnt begin in late February 2014 by, armed soldiers in uniforms without insignia began to occupy Crimea. things were happening few moths before that.
11:24 you don't even know when Special Military Operation started)
a lot of misinformation, especially in the beginning. To make impression that Ukraine was always occupied by Russia during imperial or soviet periods.
Crimea belonged to Russia more than 300 years, and it was a part of Ukraine for 20 years. Now it is 10th year coming when Crimea is in Russia. Where is annexation?
It was not mentioned that Crimea was an autonomous republic in Ukraine with its own parliament and constitution. So they decided to quit from Ukraine during the absence of legal power in Ukraine in 2014, it is a fact.
And funny thing that the EU didn't recognize a referendum with voting. But it recognized the armed overthrow of power. Very democratic way.
ruzzky, follow your warship Maaskva 🤣🤣
Could you imagine before the annexation of Crimea, Ukraine approved the building of the bridge, not knowing Russia probably needed it to make the invasion easier.
Natural Gas discoveries offshore of Crimea?
Nice video, but the question wasn't answert.
1. *Every* part of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted in the majority for independence from the USSR.
2. The use of Russian as a language and the demographics of ethnic Russians in Ukraine are a direct result of deliberate and genocidal Russian/Soviet policies of artificial famine, language suppression, forced displacement.
Straight up dishonesty, 2014 elections were overwhelming for Russia! I you tell lies you'll lose any credibility...
Criemia was populated by criemian tatars. When russian empire captured it in 1783,it was populated by ethnic russian.
Just check the maps for the results of those votes. A minority in Crimea voted for anything separating it from Russia. The video fails to explain the long Hystoric connection of Crimea with Russia and no connection with today's Ukraine that it si only a product of USSR. Nothing else. There is no common Ukrainian History as each region had its own history and connection to Russia.
How have the people of Crimea voted in similar referendums?
@@ThePeterispas Lughansk and Donetsk tho? Don't forget that the EU Verified that election...
Crimea peninsula would provide the government control over the Sea of Azov and parts of the Black Sea coastline. Given modern cruise missiles and drones, doubt the port of Sevastopol is useful for home porting significant navel units.
PS - What an incredible waste of human life and material.
It's Russia's main warm water port. They were never going to give it up. NATO made a mistake by backing the 2014 coup. Russia was bound to react as it did, and has. Ukraine has always been part of the Russian sphere. Like it or not they view it as a core part of their national interest. No Russian government that has existed since Russia has been a Great Power would surrender control of Ukraine without a fight. The Baltics, Finland, and Warsaw pact countries were recent conquests. Ukraine has been part of Russia, ruled either directly and openly or through economic and political domination as it was in the post-Soviet era, for centuries. Russia is the stronger nation and will dominate the weaker Ukrainian one naturally if it chooses, and it has chosen to do so. Now it has come to war. Perhaps a million or more have been casualties now. Millions more live in misery because of it. NATO wishes to prolong it. The military-industrial complex would love to prolong it as much as possible. Only Ukraine and Russia have an interest in ending it. Ukraine is not allowed because it won't ever be given enough to win outright, just a trickle of what the west calculates will let them keep fighting, and they won't accept less than going back to borders which Russia will not accept. Russia has now spent enough that it must win the war, and win decisively in order for it to be politically tenable for Putin. There is no going back for them. This war was never to Ukraine's benefit. Their total independence from Russia was never a real prospect. They would have done better had the pre-2014 status quo continued with them being in the Russian sphere getting cheap gas for their industry while being free to leave to the rest of Europe if they sought something better. Picking a fight with Russia hasn't worked out for them. It won't. Their nation is in ruins and being destroyed more and more every day. It was a bad idea for NATO too. This is a pointless war, one which needn't have ever been fought. We in the west should not have backed the 2014 coup, nor prepared Ukraine for this proxy war which our leaders knew would come. We are starting a world war while still not seriously preparing for it, while still frivoling away resources in the green agenda even after we already bled ourselves dry with other recent crises. We're drowning in debt already. Starting a great war against great powers now is a terrible idea. None of this serves the people of any nation. There will be much suffering around the world before the end. And for what? What madness came upon western leaders to make us do this? Is their folly a judgement for our sins? Is that why we have been cursed with such magnificent fools to doom us? It is true that the blood of many unborn is upon us. Multitudes. Millions and millions every year. Billions since it began. Believe what you will. I believe the end is coming soon.
@@cattraknoff No. Russia was NOT bound to act as they did. They should NEVER have invaded Ukraine. RUSSIA is SOLELY responsible for the war. Russia could stop the war today if they withdrew their forces from Ukraine.
You are NOT in the west. You are in Moscow. Now got take your Putin propaganda and stick it up your Siberia.
@@cattraknoff Putin is evil..he invaded a independent nation. end of story
@@cattraknoff you may be right in some details but you are missing the key point. There's no such thing like "we westerns", or "we russians", or "we ukrainians". There are billionaires and prols in all the countries. And the former dont give a f**k how do the latter live, and how many of us will die for them to gain a few more billions. As long as the capitalism stands we will keep dieing for their yaughts and palaces.
@@cattraknoff delusional
Great Game stay the Great Game, yo.
At time stamp 8:36 the Russian speaking separatist tank has the words " God is with us " in the front with what appears to be an image of Jesus.
Russia tried to colonize Ukraine that is why there are so many Russian speaking people there. Also in the Baltic states
That, and it did genocide on the original population.
Exactly. Additionally, why should it matter? In the US we have a lot of Spanish speaking people but does that make that part of Mexico or Spain? No- of course not. This line of thought that Putin peddles distracts fuzzy thinking people from his atrocities and it's depressing.
No that is not correct. The original Ukraine state that went into the Russian empire in about 1654 or so, was much much smaller. (This was afternoon asking Russia to join it for protection after wars with Poland). The expansion of what is modern day Ukraine came about when the territory was added to the Russian empire. Odessa on the south coast was all Russian. The northern part of modern day Ukraine was conquered from the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth. The western most part was taken from Poland after WWII. The Donbas region, Odessa and coast all along to the Crimea went into Ukraine during Soviet times. It is wrong to describe the Russians living there in those areas as colonising Ukraine. During Soviet times, the leadership moved people around for political reasons. Many of the Crimean Tartars we sent to Siberia for example. Later on many had moved back. In fact it would be more accurate to state that Ukrainians were colonising areas that the Russian empire and later Soviet Union conquered. The western bit had the Poles moved to what is modern day Poland after the great border changes at the end of WWII.
@@TheEvertw if you are referring to the Holodomor, that was a Soviet Union thing not a Russian thing. The leader of the Soviet Union at the time was a Georgian who we know today as Stalin. In regards to the famine, it was not directed against the Ukrainian Kulaks, it was against the kulaks in general. Somewhere between 7-8 million farmers in the Soviet Union died. Ukraine lost around 3 and a half million people, but to describe it as an attack on Ukrainians belies it’s communist origins and the deaths of others at its hands.
Keith Woods: "russian" oligarchs.
Igor Kolomoisky.
Great russian famine, Holodomor, Famine in Khazakhstan, Lazar Kaganovich, Genrikh Yagoda, Aron Solts, Filipp Goloshchyokin, Yakov Yurovsky, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, Naftaly Frenkel, Salomon Morel, Helena Brus.
You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the "Russian Revolution." It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators."
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
A rather simplistic analysis.
What do you expect in 12 minutes. I came here because it was short.
Looking forward to the 1200 page book on the topic by "tom kent"
@@ameerhamid89 I got Tom's back.
@@timmccarthy982 that's nice, you gonna write the foreword to that book?
the facts were iold
"But the vote was condemned by the EU"
Victoria Nuland:"F... the EU"
12:21 in the transcript has a factual error
Ukrainian soldiers: _"Mr. president, we took _*_Cremlin_*_ just like you asked us to."_
President Zelenskyy: _"Crimea, Mykola, I said _*_Crimea."_*
How's that working out?
International Law MUST BE held! Anything short of that will be a reward to recklessness and the opening of a Pandora’s Box ( if not, already).
Slava Ukraini!
Give Lwów and Wołyń back to Poland, Donbass, Crimea and Odessa to RF, Western Ukraine to Romania Hungary and live happily ever after!
@@shesathome lol no it is our land and we will not give it to anyone
Unfortunately, westerners openned the Pandora's box long time ago when they ignored international law and started invading countries, organising coups and protest in third world countries.
@@neilnelson7603 Absolutely! We aren’t talking about “good” versus “bad” here. It worked well at the playground but the reality is completely different. What we are talking about is that “if” we start re drawing borders at this stage and age, things can get really ugly. I am not saying this in my own name ( I was born in the late sixties and I have had a good ride, so far). I am talking about our sons and grandsons and granddaughters’ future ( if any).
@@michaeldelisieux5252 But NATO could redraw to create Serbia. Russia warned of the consequences of that action and used same pretext used by NATO in there own with Crimea and Donbass.
1:01 🤬! No serious university course accepts the definition of holodomor. The British are experts in the field of revisionism. I read several correspondences between Soviet officials about ten years ago and I observed no intention to create a famine. It was a famine due to an unexpected drought accompanied by landlord behavior that convinced small farmers to ally themselves to their causes and the inability of Soviet leaders to manage the problem.
You missed important point. When Crimea was given to Ukrainian SSR, territory of same size (Taganrog and nearby territories) was given to Russian SSR.
1954-1991: Crimea was part of Ukraine, as decreed by Khrushchev. 1991, Ukraine along with 14 other ex-SSRs seceded from the Soviet Union/Russian Federation. Seems like a slam dunk to me.
Crimea only belonged to Russia for a total of ca. 140-150 years. Prior to that, it was a Tartar state for several hundred years. The only reason Russia has a "claim" to Crimea is that it carried out ethnic cleansing, murdering or resettling Tartars into the depths of Russia and settling Russian settlers there instead, giving them the key administrative positions. It's very interesting to see ethnic statistics of Crimea and how they changed after the Tartars were removed.
Basically, what Russia is doing is saying "if I come to your house, kick you out into the street and kill your family, I thereby gain the right to say that your house belongs to me".
@@johnnyenglish583 by that logic Ukraine doesn't have a claim on those lands either....most of European borders are made through conquest and ethnic cleansing what Russia did isn't earth shattering fact
@@leaveme3559 my point is, you can't prove your claim to a land by using the historical argument if the historical argument is against you :-)
Basically, there are three types of claims: historical, legal and the principle of self-determination.
As I've shown, the historical argument is against Russia. It only had Crimea for a relatively short time.
The legal argument is against Russia too: Russia officially recognised Ukraine's borders (which included Crimea); Russia guaranteed Ukraine's borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons; Russia; and finally, the United Nations, which is the final arbiter in these things, considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine, as per earlier treaties. So legally, Crimea is part of Ukraine.
Finally, there's the principle of self-determination. As an imperialist, colonial country, Russia doesn't recognise this principle, but most of the civilised world does (at least since 1918 and Wilson).
The Tartars are happy to be part of Ukraine (with a semi-autonomous status) but they're not happy to be part of Russia (No wonder: you wouldn't want to be part of a nation that has almost liquidated your nation, either). So according to this principle Crimea should be part of Ukraine too.
But basically it's enough to look at the legal status to see that what Russia is doing is illegal in the light of international law and international treaties that RUSSIA signed.
You ignore how Ukraine seceded from the uSSr, unlike others (including ruSSia) we held an independence referendum in which the majority of people in ALL regions (including Crimea and Sevastopol) voted for independence.
@@maryanchabursky9148 ruSSians and their trolls won't understand this, they don't know how democracy works, they've never had it.
What an unbelievable pile of half truths, skipped history, wrong maps and general shallowness
I missed Bayraktar song 😅😅😅
Sucks that Russia is stuck in a cycle. Hope they break it soon
The famine which went down in history as the Holodomor in Ukraine was a famine which didn't affect Ukraine only but other soviet republics too and actually the republic which more affected by it was not Ukraine - which tops the list for the number of dead - but Kazakhstan where the famine whip out 1/3 of the whole population. The famine affected the Caucasus republics too.
But nowadays the narrative is so centered on Ukraine only that soon we are going to wonder if the solar system revolves around that country too.
Do you think this has something to do with the fact that Kazakhstan is not being invaded and Ukraine is? Do you think that if Russia had attacked Kazakhstan, the world would be talking about Kazakhstan, not Ukraine?
There is ample proof that this famine was deliberate. There were ample harvests, but the government seized all the produce and exported it. This export was crucial for the Soviet economy at the time. In China the same happened during their 5 year plan, but unlike in the Soviet Union, the leaders did not want to starve people. They were just fed reports that all was going well by subordinates that didn't dare bring bad news. Stalin does seem to have been delibarate about the Holodomor, though. And it further added to the russification of Ukraina, since ethnic russian farmers were brought in from different parts or the russian USSR to repopulate the land and grow more crops.
Keith Woods: "russian" oligarchs.
Igor Kolomoisky.
Great russian famine, Holodomor, Famine in Khazakhstan, Lazar Kaganovich, Genrikh Yagoda, Aron Solts, Filipp Goloshchyokin, Yakov Yurovsky, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, Naftaly Frenkel, Salomon Morel, Helena Brus.
0:45 Muscovy is not Russia, historically. Ukraine, more known as Rus since 839 AD, had no complex and antagonistic relation with Muscovy until 1502 because such country simply did not exist. Crimea belonged to Rus since 968 AD, until it was invaded by Mongols on 1239. Whereas the Muscovite army has reached Crimea only on 1736 just to die in there. And managed to occupy it on 1776, or 808 years after Ukraine.
Q: Kievan Rus / Kyivan Rus'...
A: Is a false name fabricated by Muscovite propaganda in order to introduce derivative frauds such as «North-Eastern Rus», «Vladimir-Suzdalian Rus» or «Muscovite Rus» that never existed in reality and were intended to support groundless Muscovite claims for the legacy of Rus (849-1434).
Q: the Soviet era...
A: Was a period of Muscovite occupation (1921-1991) during which about twelve million of Muscovite migrants have been shipped to Ukraine and settled into the homes of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars murdered in the genocides of 1921, 1932, 1944 and 1946.
Q: The steppes of Ukraine were home to many different people...
A: Starting from the Sarmatians, Alanians, Huns or Goths who became Ukrainians and ending up with the Cumans who became the Crimean Tatars. None of them were related to the Muscovites in any way.
Q: Russian, rather than an Ukrainian...
A: Ukrainians are the only historical Rus, Russians or Ruthenians on this planet. Whatever identity the Muscovite migrants have received as a result of brainwashing, it was forcibly imposed on them. They are sentient beings capable to decide themselves by using the historical knowledge.
Q: You forgot the Poles...
A: In 1918 Ukraine was invaded from all direction by the RSFSR, VSUR, Poland and Romania, resulting in the Polish occupation of western Ukraine. Where the Poles perpetrated multiple war crimes, including ethnic persecutions, pogroms, deportations and the genocide of Ukrainians in 1942-1947.
Became a soviet republic or became a part of the Soviet Union, but not "became the soviet republic".
Crimea should be an independent state of Tatars
Could it be oil!
No.
Crimea is dreamy!
Americans are not taught geography. Honestly they had no idea how important Crimes and its assets were
Weird how you left out the United States involvement in the coup. If you are going to put information out include all of it.
Can you link the source to that information please ?
@@SAINT656 he made it up
@@arsenalofdemocracy9985 thought so im interested in all information but like you say most people make stuff up without any facts to back up their comments
Weird how you Russians make things up.
+ Biden goes to Ukraine while Putin is afraid to fly! 😎
Glory to the Heroes!
#PutinWarCriminal
Biden went to ukraine by taking permission from Russia.
Russia guaranteed that there will be no threat to his safety.
Three guesses who provided the snipers.
Tartars never liked the russian pressence for centuries, they were struggling since the post-mongol Golden Khanate... So they rooted for the USSR's enemy instead in WWII, deportation in the delusional mind of Stalin (who was GEORGIAN, not russian) was a solution... BTW guess who else didn't like the current status quo in the region in those years and thought Germany would free them 😅
No one mentions US involvement in the uprisings and civil war, yet it’s a crucial piece.
What exactly?
@@asinine9ben He's invoking the myth that the US CIA staged everything in 2014 etc.
No one mentions it because it didn't happen. Easy as that. Proof of such involvement hasn't surfaced anywhere.
@@havareriksen1004 You can find the phone calls between Victoria Nuland and other US officials working in Ukraine talking about the elections in Ukraine and the results thereafter and what outcome they will and won’t allow in terms of US interests. Public knowledge easily discovered with a modicum of interest. The war is wrong, but not surprising in the slightest.
Where is the evidence of this US involvement?
I'm not a Putin acolyte or supporter but this is an uncharacteristically biassed account by the IWM. Of course militias were armed with Russian weapons. Ukraine's enitre military inventory was Russian. In the build up to the annexation of Crimea nothing was said of the role of Angela Merkel who told Yanukovich that the neutral independence he wanted for Ukraine was not an option and, with complete disregard for Ukraine's treaties with Russia, told him he must choose either the EU or Russia exclusively. Nor is there any mention of EU finance for the Maidan rioters and the support and presence of meddling US Democrat politicians.
Public understanding depends on hearing a balanced account from bodies such as the IWM. The IWM has fallen short and the public have every right to expect better.
NATO expansion is highly relevant but is not mentioned. Russia was badly and deceitfully treated in the negotiations in the 1990s as recounted fairly and comprehensively by ME Sarotte in "Not One Inch" and NATO's recent overtures to Ukraine were, let's be honest, an attempt to do a reverse Cuba, to park nuclear weapons right up close to Russia's borders. Russia has much right to resist as the US did in 1962.
Going back further you might like to talk about the brutal occupations of Ukraine by Germany in both WW1 and WW2. The latter involved the enslavement of Ukrainians to work in German factories and the fact is that Ukraine had its own National Socialist movement - still active in 2014 - that gladly helped the German National Socialists by murdering Ukrainian jews. Kasputin Yar is a dark stain on a Europe that now pretends to be entirely virtuous. Putin's propaganda contains some uncomfortable truths that the West refuses to acknowledge. that does not justify Russia's invasion but the West blunders on because it refuses to acknowledge the causes and fails to understand them.
And what are Germany's and the EU's aims today? Not in the slightest altruistic as those of the UK are. They want control of Ukraine's vast deposits of rare earths and lithium valued at up to US$12 trillion plus a bonus in the form of gas, agriculture and, whisper it, oil. That is why Germany reversed its previous policy not to supply weapons, as a condition of Zelensky signing over the future governance of Ukraine to the EU in a Faustian deal on 27 February 2022, just three days after the Russian invasion. Germany has learned very well from its dependence on Russian gas. Control of Ukraine's resources by the German dominated EU will greatly enhance its Green Energy supply independently of China. It also makes respectable Scholz's drive to massively re-arm Germany to make it the most powerful miltary power in Europe, to lead European 'defence', and to make Germany the undisputed top power in Europe militarily, economically and politically. Third time lucky.
Russia may be today's problem. A militarised EU totally dominated by Germany is tomorrow's.
Germany's political position became significantly weaker now. Poland's got bigger (and better) army than Germany at the moment. Even France is paying more attention to the Eastern Flank. And Germany won't become militarised because the Germans got used to easy living and won't give it up to spend money on the army.
Also, you mention the extreme right movement in Ukraine in 2014 but you conveniently choose not to say what happened to it later. In the previous term, the extreme right had four seats (of a total of 450 seats) in the Ukrainian parliament. In the current term, they have ONE seat. That's a quarter of a percent. I wish all countries only had such small support for the extreme right.
Yes you are a Putin acolyte and supporter. NATO expansion is irrelevant. If independent countries want to join a defensive alliance they are perfectly entitled to do it. There was never any agreement not to expand NATO. That's something else you've got wrong.
Putin's propaganda contains NO truth.
I notice you haven't said one word about the genocide Stalin perpetrated on all the subject states of the USSR. Why is that I wonder?
Green energy doesn't rely on imports either. You're wrong on all counts.
@@Poliss95 that is the kind of blinkered wilfully ignorant attitude that causes misunderstandings, confrontation and war. Don't they say war is a failure of diplomacy. Certainly in your case it is.
This would explain Germany's sheepish complicity in the Nordstream pipelines destruction, even though it helped to make life even harder for German workers by removing cheap energy and replacing it with expensive LNG. And coal. !!
@@thorkushari4027 I don't know the truth about Nordstream 2's sabotage. But since this thread started what I said earlier has become even clearer in the case of Germany. Von der Leyen has already boasted about Europe, meaning the EU, having its own lithium and rare earths, ie. Ukraine's, and Sholz has already claimed the mantle of leading Eiuropean defence. Diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific is heating up with Britosh, Fr and Ge naval deployments and the EU designating it an area of interest - along with the Gulf of Guinea. It is all so obvious I sometimes think the UK's political elite, despite being hyperactive in wolery and other inward looking issues is utterly blind to what is going on in the wider world. By 2030 Germany will dominate the EU economically, militarily and politically and it will have Ukraine under its control again. Third time lucky for Germany's place in the sun.
Even the Tartars became the natives because their ottoman empire conquered the peninsula before then it belonged to Mongols
8:52 this part of the clip has nothing to do with Ukraine, because it's in film location Abkhazia of the Georgian conflict....they show tanks in mountainous terrain, which eastern Ukraine has non of..and as for Holodomor wasn't a genocide of Ukrainians, Rusdians, Kazakh s also died, because Stalin was selling the wheat grain under market value to US in order to pay off the dept US of help in industrializing Soviet Union. He took everything from the the farmer's all of it..
Stalin did multiple genocides. And they were all calculated. Before Stalin, Lenin did the same. It kills of rebellious populations who think they're nations and not soviet, who are relugious and not soviet, it effectively strips the population of any valuables as gold becomes cheaper than bread, and later you can bring in deep soviet vatniks to repopulate the now desolate regions and make sure they stay in the Empire.
There was no political entity known as Ukraine before its formation under the Soviets. Ukraine in Russian means the borderlands which is where it gets it's name from.
Learn history from reliable sources, not russia today