Russia Declares War on Ukraine<<MOD WARNING>>

This is from an American news article from that time. Your history books use propaganda and hide the fact that Ukraine tried to split away in 1917-1921 and was even recognized as an independent nation by quite a few countries (including Lenin’s Russia!!!).

Added:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

Lenin signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in which Russia officially recognized independent Ukraine. Did Russian history books miss that little detail?

 

Goebbels was a figure from the past, where totalitarianism and autocracy were commonplace. The Putinism is also a relic of that time.

Ukrainians are forced to fight against the spirit of the past. If they lose that struggle, the whole world will go dark for a very long time.

 

The Dwarfstanian has the same attitude towards Moldova Poles,Baltics, Finns, Belarus.....any former territories that were under Russian influence are/were Russian and nothing else.

 

Definitely not. The Poutine is the Hitler of the 21st century. And he must be stopped as Hitler was stopped then.

Our freedom will once again be bought with a lot of blood. May God have mercy on us and destroy Satan Putin.

 

Аmerican books are also full of propaganda. And they often distort the history. Ukraine was a part of Russian empire. When it collapsed, two independent republics formed within the territory of Ukraine, one in Kharkov: Ukranian People Soviet Republic and another Ukraine People Republic. Then what has happened was the civil war and not the invasion of one country in another.

 

No bigger propaganda than the Mafiosi....

Let's not forget vis.....USSR is a vanquished empire...and continues so....basically an ideology built on lies and deception....USA stands tall...never to crash and burn like Rasfascista Mafiosi.....big difference .

 

No.
Bolshevik Russia officially recognized independent Ukraine. Read about Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Russia signed the treaty and violated it within years. Ukraine ended up in the USSR due to invasion and occupation. It was a “founding member” only on paper, for propaganda purposes.
Russia was known as a country that does not keep its word for a long time.

 

Zoom, you are writing terrible nonsense.

 

No...you just dont like the narrative...vis....and you're just an apologist for the Mafiosi chimp.

 

Russia did not invade Ukraine. As I told, there were two republics in Ukraine, one of each was Soviet from the very begining. It was a civil war there. And every hustorian recognize it as a civil war and not as an invasion of Russia in Ukraine. Founding Republic only on paper? Common, if it was so, it did not exist for so long time in the USSR.

 

Yes, I do not like BS that you write here as it has nothing to do with reality.

 

The hell it didn't.

The beginning was a long, long time ago.

A month after Putin stole Crimea, he had organised and funded fighting in the Donbas. That's not a civil war.

I haven't read a single historian that said that.

That paper tiger cleaned Putin's clock...

 

The reality is ...is that you don't like anything that's contrary to your narrative vis....simply put.

 

The Ukrainian SSR was Russian creation, like Donetsk Peoples Republic today. Both were created to create an illusion of civil war.
I suspect, and it’s just my personal opinion, that Lenin created USSR (a country that consisted of other countries), to accommodate the obligation to recognize Ukraine and Belarus. Instead of calling Ukraine a Russian region, they could call it a founding member of the union, and the union itself did not have “Russia” in its name for similar purposes. This is also probably the reason why in USSR all republics had the legal right to leave the union, well, on paper. Brest-Litovsk resulted in a very long chain of lies, based on which USSR was built, but because the foundation of the union was a lie, it fell apart as soon as the first leader that was raised on these lies came to power. I think similar fate awaits the rest of Russia as soon as someone who was raised on lies of Pootins propaganda comes to power again.

 

Actually the annexion of Crimea was not an invasion, but a liberation from those who came to power in Kiev. In view of the political landscape I am inclined to consider invasion of Russian Republic by Ukrainian Republic when Crimea with the majority of Russians was given to Ukranian Republic in the middle of 20th century . When Russia took it back, Russians were still the majority there. So, yes I support the annexion of Crimea, because historical justice was restored.

 

You want to say that you like when somebody objects you?

 

It was an invasion ...vis....done so illegally...it's referendum was a sham...obviously you don't realize....you're just blinded by your own delusions.

You're hardly any patriot vis.......when you're telling me in PM that you can't wait to leave the Federashka Mafiosi.

 

I get that all the time when someone disagrees....I'm always confident in my narrative.

 

Hey mates @zoom, you write so much. Do you work or not? Here in Russia is evening, so I can write long messages, but not you.
To your comment I'd say that Ukranian SSR was a creation of Bolsheviks, but not Russia. You know very well, that Bolshevism has no nationality.

 

I do not like this word, patriot. It is too much used now in Russia, so it is meaning is devaluated.

 

Russia recognized Ukrainian Crimea after USSR collapsed. This should have been settled back in 1991 when everyone was friendly to each other and before new generations were raised on the idea of immovable national borders. Now all residents in Ukraine who are younger than 40 were raised on the idea of Ukrainian Crimea, and every reasonable person will treat loss of territory as an insult against their nation and their national identity, which results in strong resistance to this change. No democratically elected leader in Ukraine will ever agree to giving up the claim to Crimea after what happened, unless they are willing to be condemned by absolute majority of Ukrainians, which would doom their political career.
I think that, if Russians only wanted Crimea back and wanted to be fair, they would offer territory as a compensation for Crimea. As far as I remember, Khrushchev moved some Ukrainian territories under Russian control for compensation of assigning Crimea to Ukraine, so if Russia wanted to undo the deal, shouldn’t it offer to hand back those territories? Wouldn’t that be fair? Ukraine and Russia could easily come up with some land swap deal with the total areas similar in size where both sides benefit from the transfer. Throw in special legal regime where Ukrainians can easily cross into crimea, add bilingual signs everywhere to welcome people from both nations, and everyone would walk away happy, with no hurt feelings.
Instead Pootin took crimea by force, did not compensate the loss, and then started separatism in Donbas, which led to our current situation and talks within Ukrainian circles of retaking crimea by military means.

 

Ok, so you like me. I knew this. I also like you.

 

It was, but never will be again. Future ruzzians shouldn't have any kind of empire for the sake of the free world.

 

Today is the Memorial Day in the U.S. - most people have a day off.

 

Yes, that would be fair. I think you talk quite reasonable thing concerning the swaping of lands.