What exactly is the major issue between Russia and Ukraine?

Russians regard Ukrainian as their brothers because they are neighbours, and they speak common languages, they also look a like. In this article, I will be narrating the background of the genesis of the war between Russia and Ukraine, and to also let you know if Russia was justified for the aggression or not.

• When the Cold War ended a generation ago, the West expected Russia to permanently accept matters as they were settled then. Russia became a laughingstock, seen as a backwater only respectable for its possession of nuclear weapons. It was called “Nigeria with Snow” or “Burkina Faso with nuclear weapons.” What security interests and concerns it might have were deemed to be utterly irrelevant. Nations that had been part of the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union’s more coercive answer to NATO, rushed to join the EU and/or NATO. It was a moment of weakness for Russia, and there was nothing they could do but protest. Here, it is important to add something. No one forced these nations to join the Western orbit. They did so both because they believed it to be in their economic interest and because they understandably wanted protection from the country that had coerced them into an economic system and military alliance with scant popular support for decades.
• That said, to someone who subscribed to a diplomatic worldview based on the balance of power
 rather than national self-determination, the end result was that the West, with its economic system, political values, and military alliance, was expanding at Russia’s expense. It is not necessary to agree with this worldview in order to understand why someone who holds it might feel aggrieved at various changes in the status quo, especially if those changes are perceived to have arisen from underhanded tactics.
• The current line in both the EU and the US is that NATO is a defensive alliance and that Russia needs only be concerned about it if it intends to attack one of its neighbors without provocation. From the Russian perspective, NATO appears rather like an instrument of American aggrandizement whose main goal is to provide a patina of multilateralism to American imperialism. Russia would point out the Libyan and Kosovo interventions as acts of American imperialism camouflaged by the idea that it was NATO rather than the US that was intervening, even though NATO would never have become involved if the US hadn’t desired it.
• Another thing that needs to be understood is that many people in Russia view Ukraine’s current borders as having been unfairly obtained at their country’s expense, a case of an unwise generosity that was later repaid with only ungratefulness. It is not in dispute that there have been people for centuries living around the Dnieper River speaking a Slavic language distinct from both Polish and Russian. But before the Russian Revolution, there had never been an independent Ukrainian nation. The roots of modern Ukrainian nationalism go back only to the 19th century. This doesn’t mean that we need to accept the notion that Ukrainian identity is artificial and therefore not real. After all, an analogous process gave us modern Italian and German identities. You could even make the case that French identity such as it exists now didn’t exit 250 years ago. Human beings have been around a lot longer than nation states. That said, because the nation of Ukraine as it exists is such a recent phenomenon, there is room for reasonable people, including within Ukraine, to disagree about what its borders should encompass. For a primer on the different regions of Ukraine, along with their cultural and political outlooks, see here:
• What you will note in looking at the above is that most of the territories outside of Central Ukraine—roughly the area encompassing the historically seemingly ill-named Left-Bank Ukraine
and Right-Bank Ukraine
—were added while Ukraine was under the control/domination of Russia. Much as I oppose wars to redraw national boundaries, it is not hard to understand why a Russian nationalist might feel that these territories rightfully belonged to Russia. As long as Ukraine remained firmly within the Russian orbit, this issue of which territories belonged in which nation-state was largely academic for Russian nationalists. But with the arrival at the helm of Ukrainian leaders choosing the EU and NATO over Russia, the issue of territory again became salient.

Events that occured between Russia and Ukraine in 2013

In 2013, Ukraine has at its helm Viktor Yanukovych, who has at this point been in power for 3 years and pursued a Pro-Russia policy. The country finds itself wooed by both Russia and the EU:

• Russia is proposing a customs union to draw the country into closer economic cooperation with itself, Belarus and Kazahkstan. To agree to this would be to move firmer into the Russian camp and away from the EU.
• The EU is proposing a free-trade and political association agreement. This would commit the country to reforms that would gradually orient its laws and economy towards the EU in exchange for economic assistance.

Yanukovych rejected the EU proposal. The country was divided, but in and around Kyiv, but the Pro-EU position was more popular. This led to a wave of protests and civil unrest in the early December 2013. Two months later, the protests became more and more violent. In Kyiv, there were clashes with the police in which almost 100 people were killed over the course of February 2014. It was eventually relised that some of the protestors were inspired by or affiliated with Pravy Sektor, a far-right Ukrainian nationalist party with a paramilitary wing. Pravy Sektor was not very popular—they had no seats in the Ukrainian parliament—but they had been involved in fighting pro-Russian groups in the Donbas. This was the source of Putin’s claim that he was fighting to denazify Ukraine.

Before the end of February 2014, in a procedure that violated the provisions of the Ukrainian Constitution, the Ukrainian parliament removed Yanukovych from power. Ukraine reverted back to 1996 constitution in 2010, Yanukovych having not yet signed a measure that would have returned Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution. The constitution gave the parliament the right to initiate impeachment proceedings if the president “commits treason or other crime.”

The process was supposed to be reviewed by the Ukrainian Constitutional Court and three quarters of the members of the parliament. The majority that voted to depose Yanukovych was 10 votes shy of this threshold.

In spite of the irregularities in these proceedings, the EU was quick to bless the change in government, which quickly ratified its economic cooperation agreement. Meanwhile, Putin saw the whole thing as a Western-backed coup. He warned that all options, including the military, were on the table.

It is one month after these events that Putin made his move on Crimea, organizing a referendum that was seen as illegal and illegitimate by the West. But although the procedure couldn’t be called free or fair, there is little doubt that the residents of the area preferred to be attached to Russia rather than to a pro-Western Ukraine.

In April 2014, separatists backed and armed by Russia started a war in the Donbas, a region in Eastern Ukraine home to coal reserves and heavy industry, and the source of steel and raw materials for the Russian military. This war has been going on since then, punctuated by peace agreements that have been violated almost as soon as they were signed.

In November 2014, the separatist eastern regions held elections and elected their own presidents. One month later the Ukrainian Parliament voted to start the process to apply for NATO membership. It is taken for granted by many in the West that this would never happen. Such an assumption was not made in Moscow.

In June 2020, NATO recognizes Ukraine as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner. This step, without admitting Ukraine as a member, nevertheless deepens military cooperation. Supposedly, “Ukraine’s status as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner does not prejudge any decisions on NATO membership,” but Zelensky, who is president by this time, desires just that. And from the Russian perspective, it appears that this is where things have been inexorably going since 2014.

In April 2021, Russia starts massing troops on its border with Ukraine. Zelensky publicly comes out in favor of joining NATO, which he sees as “the only way to end the war in Donbas.”

In September 2021, Ukraine holds joint military exercises with NATO. In December 2021, Russia holds more military exercises along the Ukrainian border. Putin proposes an agreement with NATO that would guarantee among other things:

• That Ukraine would never be granted NATO membership.
• That NATO not deploy troops in countries who joined the alliance after May 1997.
• The establishment of a hotline between NATO and Russia to defuse tension.
• The creation of a NATO-Russia Council, similarly to what NATO itself had proposed before.
• The banning of the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in locations where they could reach each adversary’s territory.

There were some genuine basis for negotiation and agreement in the above, but some things on which NATO would not budge, which Russia knew. The manner in which they were presented, and the subsequent tenor of the negotiations made Western leaders wonder whether Putin was really serious about negotiating, or whether he was seeking to use the rejections of some of his proposals—some would say demands—as a pretext for a war that might enable him to forcibly keep Ukraine in the Russian orbit.

We will probably not truly know for a few decaces when exactly Putin decided to launch his invasion.

This narrative has shown us a bit on why Putin invaded Ukraine, not that he just wake up one day and decide that he was going to do so because he was mentally ill or bored or trying to become a cartoon villain.

It is possible to believe that:

1. Ukrainians have the right to chart their own destinies and join economic and military alliances of their choosing,
2. Western governments are selective and often hypocritical in their adherence to the principles of self-determination,
3. The West ought to render a more realistic accounting of its military capabilities and willingness to fight, and not mindlessly expand an alliance system to include countries that citizens of the US, Germany, France, and the UK are not truly willing to shed their blood for, while at the same time recognizing that there is some logic guiding the actions of one’s adversaries.

I believe that whatever legitimate grievances Russia may have had over the events that have transpired since 2014, it lost any moral high-ground it had—assuming it had any—the minute it launched an attack on a country that had not attacked it and was not on the verge of attacking it.

Nevertheless, It also appeared that Putin badly miscalculated. Even if he emergesd victorious from this conflict with Ukraine, his country will have been exposed as much more economically and militarily vulnerable than previously believed. The war might leave him more territory, but he will paradoxically be in a weaker situation than if he had never started it, but I maintain that what animates him is not madness but a different historical and ideological perspective.

Has Hacker’s List been biased in our approach to Russia and Ukraine war?

This is a big question. Hacker’s List is known as the biggest hackers in the world, but Ukrainians and Russians are integral part of us. We cannot to choose sides or so ever. Clearly from the background above, the Russians have their reasons of aggression when a direct neighbour wants to partner with your enemy, it is normal to get angry. Nevertheless, Ukraine has always wanted to stand alone and partner with european union for western world benefits.

Russian rumour concerning the cyberactivities of the war

Back in 2016, we ran a strain of ransomware to exploits known vulnerability of Microsoft Windows and recklessness of some people who open files sent to them without checking. The sole purpose of this hack was to unleash some group of citizens of Ukraine who hate the new government and its allies.

Some events that have caused some chaos after that exercise by our Russian hackers are:

Update July 10 2017:

1. On June 5 Ukrainian police searched software company producing accounting and tax reporting software MEDOC. A report placed on official police site said that software updates contained malicious code. Aide of Ukrainian minister said that malware was launched by the company producing MEDoc with links to Russia. What great way to destroy own business: infect users with malware.
2. By incredible coincidence other company, which was for long time working with law bases and, if rumors are true, had friends in high positions, is coming out with a new product for accounting and tax reporting: REPORT.Сервіс подання електронної звітності. And you know what, the trial period for the new software was planned to start on June 23 2017.

Could one be more happy when in the time one rolls out a new product a competitor destroys their business?

Ukrainian Rumour concerning the cyberactivities of the war

It was reported that on Feb. 26, Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister Fedorov took a step no other government official in the world likely ever has: He called on volunteer hackers to take down another country’s websites. And he had a list of 31 Russian government, bank, and corporation websites ready to go and within days, Ukraine had an “IT Army” of more than 400,000 volunteers.

The IT army’s opening salvo was temporarily taking down the websites of the Russian foreign ministry, stock exchange, and a state-owned bank—all within days of Fedorov’s call to arms. The army also claimed to target at least 10 other Russian websites, including those of Russia’s principal security agency and the Kremlin.

Since the initial attacks, the Ukrainian IT army has been posting lists almost daily of additional Russian civilian and government websites in its Telegram channel and directing its participants to collectively target these sites. Some participants in the hacktivist campaign also worked under the banner of Anonymous, the loosely organized international hacker activist collective. Popular Anonymous-affiliated social media accounts declared “cyberwar” on Russia shortly after the invasion and subsequently claimed cyberattacks against Russian state TV and other high-profile targets. These claims have not all been independently verified, but in some cases, the targeted websites were inaccessible for hours at a time. These are all shams, and just misleading articles. We have been able to surpress and make peace with all cyberactivities point to the Ukraine and Russain war.

Role of our hackers (Hacker’s List) in alleviating the war between Russian and Ukraine

Hacker’s List hackers initially clashed over country war and the impact it would lead on the populace and the world at large. We have had a lot of sanctions from our Oligarchs. But I have always told my team, we should let this country war get into our way, we can always make peace right from our very home.

Hackers’ List has helped in alleviating the extent of the war by liasing with the so-called anonymous group, we should stir up the water in these dangerous times, we should look for ways to settle the war in as much as we can.