Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Update on Ukraine" video.

What you don't understand is that Crimea and Donbass ARE essentially Russian and have never been truly Ukrainian. Donbass was appended on to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine when it was first created in the early 1920s for a variety of administrative reasons, Crimea was added in 1953. Both were mistakenly included in the new country of Ukraine when it was itself created in the early 1990s. Both have large Russian populations and much the highly profitable industry there is owned by Russian companies. The Westernisation of Ukraine as a whole would mean losing the benefits the ownership of these facilities has brought to Russia for literally centuries.
6
@ If you look carefully at history you will realise that treaties cause more trouble than they prevent, as a general rule. They become outdated and do not truly reflect new circumstances. In this instance the arrangements made in the past - and signed by Putin's predecessors in the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation - are at the root of the present tragedy. It is necessary to define what actually Ukraine consists of for another thing. The disputed territories in the East were never part of a country called Ukraine, apart possibly during the brief existence of the Republic which was introduced after the collapse of Tsarist rule. The Russians took them from the Turks and the "Ukrainians" who moved there did so largely as a result of agricultural improvements introduced by Russia. The true wealth of the area, however, lies in its mineral resources which are largely owned and operated by Russians, and have been for decades if not centuries.
4
@ I dislike analogies, but there are some parallels. In this situation I would suggest that Donbass and Crimea resemble Northern Ireland in that both have substantial populations loyal to an occupying power. A major difference is that in NI the British took over from the Irish, whereas in Donbass and Crimea the Russians took over from the Turks and Ukrainians played no part in proceedings.
3
@BaneTrogdor I don't think this is true. Russian rule is well established in the component territories of the Russian Federation and has been for generations in most cases. These territories may find themselves being persuaded to exchange Russian rule for a Western one because the West has its eyes on their resources but it is a temptation they should generally resist.
2
This is nonsense. Of course Russians are allowed to return to Russia, but also given the opportunity to resettle in Donbass which had, anyway, a very extensive Russian population before the war.
1
@darthkek1953 Russia has always had conscription. All Russians are expected to do two or three years military service unless they can get out of it - which quite a few do.
1
It is already recovering. Donbass is sitting on trillions of dollarsworth of mineral resources and areas now occupied by Russia are being rapidly rebuilt.
1
@ Really.
1
@PlanetaryCitizen It simply isn't. Russian soldiers are rewarded with large salaries to volunteer.
1
@PlanetaryCitizen It's enough of an incentive. They are told too that their dependents will be provided for should they fall. This might even be true.
1
@ Because they are cheaper?
1
@joshuapaul2022 Seems that way/
1
@ Russia is only technically annexing a territory. What is actually doing is preventing that territory being annexed by a foreign power. And we do have constant war, more or less; and outdated treaties are more often or not at the root of them. There would be no war in Ukraine were it not for the Budapest Accords in much the same way as there would have been no World War II without the Treaty of Versailles which ended World War I, and no World War I without the treaties put into place to end the Franco-Prussian War, which itself would not have occurred without the series of treaties which ended the Napoleonic Wars... and so on.
1
Perhaps they don't take much notice of the Western media?
1