Update 29/08/2022

-Ukraine announces Kherson offensive
-Unclear how big it is or whether it's a serious bid to retake City
-alleged breakthroughs, cannot be officially verified

Slava Ukraini and may Kherson be free from the fascist boot once more

Update 10/08/2022

-Progress on Kherson front, high tech western weapons have helped remove occupiers and secure critical infrastructure

-Battle for the Donbass ongoing, Russian advance slowed down

-reports of mass deportation, rape, extermination of Ukrainians by Russia

-Russia occupying Zaporizhia nuclear plant and using it as base, dangerous, draws UN criticism

-Ukrainians in with good chance of retaking Kherson

-Dispute over destruction of prison where Azov prisoners were, both sides claim it was hit by the other

May fascism be defeated on the European continent yet again

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

According to the memorandum,15 Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they would:

Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.16
Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.12

Announcing dates for an attack is a dumb move in general

Wait are you implying Russia is considering nuking Ukraine lol?

No

This is a legal commitment made by Russia, the US and UK regarding the sovereignty of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus

The memorandum commits all parties to respect their sovereignty and borders at the time of signing. It was sohned following ukraine agreeing to give up it's nuclear stockpile in exchange for protection

Russia failed to live up to its side, the US and UK did not live up to their side by allowing transgression

Defense from nuclear aggression is only one clause of the memorandum

What about the legal commitment Ukraine made with the Minsk 2 accords to an immediate ceasefire with the DPR and LPR

Meanwhile they are still shelling civilian targets with illegal munitions

Good point

Oh alright I understand

Well Russia obviously violated the treaty lol, but the US violated it first when they supported the overthrow of their government in 2014 tho lol

Russia previously backed Yanukovych in the late 2000s.

We can play this game all day but even so, violation of sovereignty is a far greater deal

Well did Russia fund him? Because the US did directly fund the opposition, (among some militant neo-Nazis ).

Actual military action is for sure an escalation, but who violated the treaty first is not some irrelevant fact or anything.

Yes via the deployment of Russian military technologists and funding of groups, Russia had an active role. In the current conflict Russia itself has also funded and aided far right groups.

It's in the interest of all powers in the international system to maintain a sphere of influence. What America does in latam is another example. They will act to prevent encroachment in their backyards

Just as the US does coups and funds interest groups, Russia will act to preserve its eminence in the post soviet space

Neither I nor my Russian equivalents want to go to war over whether or not Ukrainian Nazis should be in our sphere of influence

What a joke of a world

I personally think it's doubtful that the US or anyone in wider NATO in general really wants to go to "real" war, and the knowledge of this is widespread enough that its allowed local regionalistic conflicts to increase because everyone knows that these NATO-style treaties are increasingly about domestic influence rather than actual confident military action.
One of the lowkey reasons the US loved s***ting on the middle east and south asia so much was the fact the forces they fought against were significantly more abstract or detached from global exchanges, and even if there were allyships, they were so detached from the first world so to speak that at best they'd receive defense by proxy or from similar states, and there would be no direct inter-country conflict. Proxy conflicts between more economically detached states is kinda the only thing major countries are willing to engage in.
No one on an elite level really wants a war with Russia or China for example, and even if there are some obviously sects of Neocons or media brainwashed liberals foaming at the mouth for it, the realistic situation is the interconnected web of economics and geopolitical relations kinda prevents that from ever manifesting practically. It's likely imo that countries will continue to exploit this fact for years because of how placating the global illusion of peace fostered by economics is vs causing such a global disruption by having actual powers wage real war on each other

it's unlikely nato powers will want to go to war for ukraine full stop, it's just not worth it to them

Yeah that's what I was saying. No one would ever go to war unless it is literally the US or EU being invaded (or vice-versa Russia & China), and that clearly would never happen because both sides are so interconnected economically and politically. So that allows increasing amounts of detached regional conflicts to take place because no one cares.
It's like how Turkey has been pursuing its over military goals independent of NATO despite being in NATO for years now. Obviously no one cares because what are they gonna do, isolate Turkey or make them into an enemy? No one wants that either. It's basically free reign for most countries to do whatever they want as long as they don't touch first world mainlands all around. Like it works inversely too, no one is going to war with the US for us meddling in Latam or Iran or our spheres of influence in south asia or india even if they're allied with them.

What's all that mean?

How many troops on Ukraine border? How many American warships in Russian waters? They do exercises with Ukraine all year. Fly through Russian airspace even.

He tryna say its ok Russia has troops at the Ukranian border cause the USA has them everywhere

I guess...

Cope mechanism of a lot of people in politics sxn: "but but USA is bad too, so we can be bad"

Are there any books on this situation?

I have no idea whats going on

Ukraine/Crimea is way different than Taiwan or Kashmir.
Kashmir is more like nagorno-karabakh where outside of the major players involved in it and their allies/arm suppliers, there's very little care from the rest of the world as a geopolitical priority.
The US never officially recognized Taiwan as a state (officially the One China policy is on the books) and despite popular belief (and presidents being braindead), the US does not actually have a real station there (officially) beyond training local troops, which is estimated at 30-60 personnel. While people point to Taiwan as being a "necessity" for US military vs china, it's not really inherently true because of SK + Japan. The main reason the US cares about Taiwan is similar to HK; it's incredibly important economically for trade because it circumvents tariffs and anti-Chinese taxes and allows access to important technology exports (i.e semiconductors). While there will always be significant support for war there because of general anti-Chinese sentiment, it's honestly (imo) highly unlikely the US legitimately goes to war over it because the US didn't do s*** about HK either beyond virtue signaling and jerking itself off. The US does not really want a war with China because of the importance of economic relations - at least at an "elite" level.
The different is with Ukraine/Crimea is its a complication because of years of back and forth ignored or disregarded protection pact policies combined with NATO complications. There were specific policies in place that were supposed to have lead to war but they were basically disregarded immediatedly every time - that's the main difference here vs the above.
The geopolitical implications are complicated. Most of Europe does not have as "hostile" of relations with Russia as the US (as evidenced by the Nordstream Pipeline for example), and the US doesn't gain much materially from crimea (or Ukraine honestly) itself. Ukraine kinda realizes this which is why it keeps trying to put itself in a scenario guaranteeting war (i.e. pushing itself into NATO literally). Earlier today the quote from the US was the below:

“The United States is not seeking to end up in a circumstance in which the focus on our countermeasures is the direct use of American military force, as opposed to a combination of support for the Ukrainian military, strong economic countermeasures, and a substantial increase in support and capability to our Nato allies to ensure that they remain safe,”
(link: theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/06/us-says-it-will-send-troops-to-eastern-europe-if-russia-invades-ukraine - misleading headline so ignore that)

Also unlike most geopolitical conflicts of the past like few decades, this is a rare example where the country literally is begging the US to go to war for them. Inversely, that is probably why the US will not actually go to war lol

What kind of logic is this?

So America is allowed to play world police and send soldiers where it wants while Russia can't even send troops to its own borders?

American politicians want to send YOU to die in a ditch outside Dontesk airport to prevent Ukraine (a country where 80 percent of the population speaks Russian) from falling under the "Russian sphere of influence"