>>211909318
No, it's a "stop assuming vast masses of humans are of one mind" sort of argument.
>All I know is
You make some lacking assumptions as to rationales behind most invasions, least of all in this modern age. Military ops are a serious business, and while personal dislike can be a valid reason, current era political structures don't lend themselves to indulging such dislikes without rhetorics obfuscating them for public, nor would such things typically happen because leadership in all these countries, or at least some elites, care only about personal profit.
Also Poles fucked Slavics over on occasion. They traded them too.
>There were never
This line of reasoning is flawed, you ascribe personalities to nations like they're anything more than gestalt machines of political interests first, and assume that there is any room for normal "like" as in between 2 friends. Nations don't have friends, only interests. Could, were they to be run by appropriate people, but not otherwise.
>but Ukraine used to be one of them.
50/50.
Ukraine is constantly contested borderlands territory, as such historically it's a mess. Before some historical mark the peoples there engaged in raids, sold Slavics to foreigners, etc, the usual. After some other point things changed and some there have aligned themselves with the Empire. Dissent and ideological "homegrowing" attempts at sovereignty were already a thing in Empire last moments.
Ukraine as a nation is a concession made by commies to keep it in line. "Love" wasn't really a thing. Some cared, some not.
Ukraine since the fall of USSR and as it is now is a mish mush of thugs constantly decreasing in quality of their skill and curated by US spooks. Its population ideological integrity was dwindling bit by bit since early 2000s and reached comical extents in 2014, until you see all this nonsense now.
Nah. They never really loved Russia. Serbs do, but Russia did not help Serbs when it should have had.
