271–280 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why on Earth would Russia invade Denmark?
Why on Earth would Russia invade Ukraine?
From Crimea being part of Russia for centuries, having 60% russian ethnicity population, Ukraine government being toppled by nationalists and neo-nazis with US support, etc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. It's amazing how this Cold War old-wives-tale is still what Americans believe... Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to…
>> Russia is not USSR But it wants the Soviet Union back. >> and is not a threat to anyone Ukraine would not agree with that. Russia took Crimea and is supporting a civil war in eastern Ukraine. This may not be much for you but >> except immediate neighbors Yeah except the immediate neighbours and then the neighbours of the neighbours. Think of the Soviet Union era... Speaking of neighbours Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania…
Crimea was part of Russia for centuries, it has 60%+ citizens of Russian ethnicity, and it had its government toppled and neo-nazis and nationalists come to power in a NATO proxy power play.
It would be like Mexico having an area (say Baja California) with 60% WASP Americans, that has been historically part of the US, and having Mexico's government toppled with the help of a foreign superpower and used against the US.
Would the US annex Baja California then?
Then again, the US have already annexed Texas, Florida, California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc, from Mexico, so there's that...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. It's amazing how this Cold War old-wives-tale is still what Americans believe... Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to…
"Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to anyone" Haven't we entered an age where 'non-eyeToEye-threats' can do enormous damage, even if by error (e.g. nuclear bombing the US)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. It's amazing how this Cold War old-wives-tale is still what Americans believe... Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to…
Well Russia already anexed Crimea and is fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. You may not find Ukraine enough European for you to count. Next: other Eastern European countries. Next: the baltic countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"The world will have a master. The question is, who do you want the master to be?" I prefer not to have a single master but a multi-polar world where countries learn to use a diplomacy and do things for a mutual benefit rather than submit to the biggest dick on a street. And I think this is where the world is going.
We had several hundred years of a multipolar world when Europe ran the show. It was know for diplomacy, yes, but not for peace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Russia is not USSR But it wants the Soviet Union back. >> and is not a threat to anyone Ukraine would not agree with that. Russia took Crimea and is supporting a civil war in eastern Ukraine. This may not be much for you but >> except immediate neighbors Yeah except the immediate neighbours and then the neighbours of the neighbours. Think of the Soviet Union era... Speaking of neighbours Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania…
> Ukraine would not agree with that. Russia took Crimea and is supporting a civil war in eastern Ukraine. This may not be much for you but Crimea was part of Russia for centuries, it has 60%+ citizens of Russian ethnicity, and it had its government toppled and neo-nazis and nationalists come to power in a NATO proxy power play. It would be like Mexico having an area (say Baja California) with 60% WASP Americans, that…
Of course, the US government supports affiliated NGOs as it does elsewhere in the world (and as everyone does), but "power play" means something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's on Russia's doorstep, was part of Russia for 400 years until 1991, has a large Russian minority, the Russian Black Sea fleet is based in Sevastopol, the Russia-friendly government had just been toppled in a coup backed by the US and Western European powers, and Russia didn't want another NATO member on its doorstep. I can't see what would possibly lead to a Russian invasion of Denmark.
> in a coup backed by the US and Western European powers Seriously? I'm sure the fact that Ukrainians could see contrast with next-door Poland had nothing to do with Maidan... no, it was CIA, definitely.
The overthrow of the government was effected by armed militias, with a heavy far-right presence (e.g., pictures of Stepan Bandera, the Nazi collaborator who ethnically cleansed Poles from Western Ukraine during WWII). The US government had a hand in picking the successor government - there's even audio of the behind-the-scenes discussions. There was obviously popular support in Western Ukraine for Maidan, but there was also a lot of foreign involvement and the seizure of power itself was violent and unconstitutional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ukraine would not agree with that. Russia took Crimea and is supporting a civil war in eastern Ukraine. This may not be much for you but Crimea was part of Russia for centuries, it has 60%+ citizens of Russian ethnicity, and it had its government toppled and neo-nazis and nationalists come to power in a NATO proxy power play. It would be like Mexico having an area (say Baja California) with 60% WASP Americans, that…
Outside of sources paid by Kremlin there is no serious confirmation that NATO was somehow involved in toppling Ukraine's govt. There is plainly no united fruit scenario, only a general distaste of russian government, same as elsewhere in eastern europe. Of course, the US government supports affiliated NGOs as it does elsewhere in the world (and as everyone does), but "power play" means something else.
*supported as in created, instructed and financed.
Would we expect them not to? "An important developed nation is picking a new fighter. Let's know nothing until it's over with." is hardly good stewardship of your own nation's trust and resources. It's the NSA's job to monitor who is friends with whom so policy makers can make policy. That's not to say the NSA should do anything they can. But it is their proper job to spy on non-Americans for America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia's old whinning: U.S is doing bad things (i.e in middle east) so we want to do bad things without sanctions as well...why the world gives us this "unfair" treatment?
You didn't actually contradict anything I said though. You just let your personal feelings decide which identical half of the coin looks better. Don't fall prey to emotion just because the facts make you angry or don't fit the narrative you learned to love. All superpowers act from the same playbook. The more "super" the power, the worse they're willing to do to hang on to it. Look at history for a confirmation. Not…
There is a reason why countries like the US and Russia go at great length in arguing that what they do is not violating international law in cases when they are actually breaking it.
Moreover, even those states who occasionally break it most of the time conform with international law and resort to treaties and conflict resolution mechanisms associated with them. It's not as if Russia (or the US, for what it matters) ratify no international agreements at all or always break them or completely ignore international agreements.
Overall, your position is unrealistic and does not reflect the reality of international relations. Countries do not just do whatever they want out of a position of power, and for most part even those that break treaties, agreements, and habitual rules of conduct only do so as an exception to the rule. I can assure you that Russia cares a great deal about being recognized as a rational and reliable actor rather than as a mad rogue state.
What you say about the morality of states (whatever that means, to me the concept is meaningless) is clearly just your personal opinion, so let's ignore that.