131–140 of 241 posts
Posted elsewhere, but there seems to be good discussion going on here: I hate to say it, but the US is clearly the provocateur here. There is no real reason that the US needs Ukraine, a state that has historically been part of Russia, in NATO. Having Ukraine in NATO does approximately jack shit to benefit a person like me, a regular peasant in the US. Imagine if the US lost the cold war and the USSR decided to invite…
why is NATO a threat? Has NATO ever started a conflict, seized territory, or imposed sanctions? Genuinely asking, I pretty ignorant here.
Russia has always in been conflict with Western powers, and has been invaded on several occasions.
I feel that these articles rarely give any perspective on Russia's issue which is that Ukraine joining NATO would be a violation of prior agreements and would result in armaments being placed at their boarder which they view as a risk and security breach. The US is basically saying we don't care and we are going to do it despite your objections and then pretending Russia threatening military action is unilateral host…
By framing this whole thing as a hostility by the US towards Russia, you're saying that Ukraine isn't a sovereign nation, which can choose to ally with whomever and join whichever organization they want. So yeah that's Putin's narrative: Ukraine is a part of Russia and doesn't get to make those choices. That's the Russian perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. I mean, isn't this also the tactic used in the late 1800s in the western U.S. to give a reason to pacify Native Americans? Promote U.S. citizens into frontier homesteads and then use the military to protect them/annex land?
Yes, and we did the same thing to mexico in order to grab texas. How the heck does this change how bad it is? What's the point of saying "America bad too"? So? America HAS done awful things in the past, that's not valid justification for a hostile annexation of another country's land. Topics on Russia ALWAYS have whataboutism nonsense. It seems supporters of Russian actions so badly want the rest of the world to be s…
I made no claims that it changes whether the practice is morally or ethically correct. I also didn't claim "America bad too."
I merely pointed out another data point relevant to the GP comment about it being an old tactic to annex land.
*btw, it's Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of California. The book Blood and Thunder is a great read about the history of expansion of the West
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because then nothing protects members from Russia. If two NATO members go to war, there is no clear side to take. Also, Russia does not want to join. They want the USSR back
>They want the USSR back No, they don't, and I don't understand why people (Americans in particular?) seem to think this. Is it just nostalgia for the first Cold War?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "What's the goal?" Reinstate a pliant dictator, like the one who was removed in 2014 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych
This wouldn't work without military occupation, since such dictator wouldn't have support of Ukrainian military/population.
Not necessarily a permanent presence. Belarus and Kazakhstan's rulers aren't popular and don't require permanent support. Parachuting in soldiers lets Moscow amplify its strength. (America does this too.)
It's funny when the aggressor is "negotiating" to attack or not. The biggest bully in the region feeling "threatened" by its neighbours seeking any possible way to protect themselves from it. Like a government-level "Why are you hitting yourself?"
Posted elsewhere, but there seems to be good discussion going on here: I hate to say it, but the US is clearly the provocateur here. There is no real reason that the US needs Ukraine, a state that has historically been part of Russia, in NATO. Having Ukraine in NATO does approximately jack shit to benefit a person like me, a regular peasant in the US. Imagine if the US lost the cold war and the USSR decided to invite…
Also the US has done literally nothing to "provocate" anything. Euromaidan happened in 2014, Crimea was annexed, and Donbass separatists supported by Russia. Status quo is changing in favor of Ukraine being able to secure it's separatist territory again, so now it's time for Russia to further invade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_and_Comprehensive_Free_Tr... This is what this is all about. It's not so much the money but also militaristic strategic assets. Moldova and Georgia doesnt have Russian war to deal with. Which really comes down to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base Russia has lots of land all over the black sea. They could build a gigantic base near rostov-on-don. So why dont they?…
Putin doesn't want to lose power. All these propaganda, military moves are to give poor people something to take their eyes and minds off the reality - him robbing the country for 30 years. If you have absolute power for long time you know what happens.
I dont see this as the answer. If it's really power, march to Kyiv and take it all. They could do it. Crimea is more or less the only annexation because that's all they want.
Even the syrian conflict and russia is the same story. They are really just preserving their military base.
So just on the other side of Turkey they have military base as well they are preserving. You also have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...
Then also look at Turkey's financial woes and it sure does look like Russia doing it.
Turkey seems to understand this and has been making diplomatic efforts to repair relations. The irony is that it seems they are coming back together more recently because they hate the USA.