Not a single paragraph about the actual demands of Russia. Which they have stated often enough. Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep. This is what this whole war was about. But somehow this is never seriously discussed in western media.
If this war was about having NATO on their doorstep, why is it an invasion of a non-NATO country twenty years after the first neighbours of Russia joined NATO? It’s never seriously discussed because it’s either a lie or unfathomably stupid, and whichever of those two it is doesn’t much matter.
Just for a second, imagine you’re a neutral country in eastern Europe. Russia has been fucking with Georgia and Moldova since the fall of the Soviet Union, and now it invades Ukraine for the second time within a decade. Russia has never touched a NATO country despite bordering several of them for literally decades. And then Russia acts all shocked when you say you want into NATO
Yeah and Russia protested strongly every time. But Ukraine was their red line. Just because you didn’t read it in western media doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I don’t condone the invasion but it was predictable and a colossal “failure” of diplomacy if you look at it charitably. At worst it was a long term plan to force Russia into a conflict with the aid of western media to obscure the reason why this war was happening. Russia is acting just like the US would.
plan to force Russia into a conflict
Please explain how exactly do you force someone (who suggests to be reasonable) into conflict, basically force them to invade anyone.
Did the Poland “forced” Hitler to start the WW2 the same way?
It’s hardly unprecedented. The USA felt forced into an aggressive response to the Soviets putting missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So it was Soviet plan to start the aggression? Is it the same with Finland? When can we expect Putin to invade it?
I don’t get it, what do you mean?
Read the message you were replying to. I asked specifically how do you force a country to invade a other country (that is not yours). You told about Cuba, so naturally I wanted to confirm if you mean the situation was caused by desire of Soviets to start the aggression.
Please explain how exactly do you force someone (who suggests to be reasonable) into conflict, basically force them to invade anyone.
Well imagine if China were to make a military pact with Mexico and started delivering “defensive” weapon systems to them. There would be protests, sanctions, meddling and attempts for regime change, and if those didn’t work there would be invasion.
For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.
Imagine justifying real war by imagining things.
For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.
These sentences don’t make sense as the response for the quotation.
Do you live in some alternative reality where the US didn’t invade Irak and Afghanistan? And is bombing countries all over the world for whatever reason? Oh let me guess that is TOTALLY different!
We all live in a reality where the US did invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And here is the thought process of me trying to understand your reasoning behind mentioning these events in current context:
-
The US asked many times for Iraq and Afghanistan to not try to oppose them. According to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan bombed its own citizens (who call themselves the people of the US) for several (at least 8) years and finally the US decided to intervene.
-
But in fact it must have been caused by someone else, like China or Russia. They provided Iraq and Afghanistan with weapons and/or proposed them the place in alliance against the US, which is why the US didn’t have a choice.
-
From the very start of those invasions, the whole world decided to stand against the US and provided Iraq and Afghanistan with all the weapons and resources they could need in order to protect themselves. Massive sanctions were applied against the US to stop its war machine.
-
The US massively increased pressure on free speech and started to jail its own citizens who speak against the war. This also caused at least 1 percent of the US population to migrate elsewhere.
-
Because this all (or at least some of it) happened with the US, there is no problem in assuming that it would be fine to happen with other country (like Russia) and nobody should say a word against that country’s right for protecting its interests.
If this is what really happened then you are correct and this not “totally different” but exactly the same.
But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of “injustice” towards Russia.
-
I think you’re missing a paragraph that tells how the border between Russia and NATO increased twofold since (and as the result of) the invasion.
“Hey it’s all about NATO. We always wanted less NATO at our doorsteps, and you can see we tried our best to achieve this. That backfired, yes, but we ask you once again to… Ask all those countries nicely to withdraw from NATO. Having NATO at our borders is not healthy for our people, you see… With all those bio laboratories… And parent№1+parent№2 policy that you force on everyone…”
America will never allow this war to end.
You know who has total power to end this war? Putin. Just get the fuck out of Ukraine and it’s over.
There’s really nothing to negotiate.
They literally were negotiating at the start of the war for this exact outcome: Russia pulls out and Ukraine maintains neutrality.
Johnson threw a wrench in those plans.
Ukraine was never going to abort neutrality lol. Being a NATO member does not affect neutrality.
Also remember the Budapest Memorandum? Ukraine literally gave up nuclear weapons as instructed by Russia, for the promise that was broken.
I’d say the wrench was thrown by someone else. Or, rather, someone hit their own head by a wrench good enough to lose all mind.
I mean, Putin won’t either, the negotiations are just for gaslighting and propaganda. Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on and even without Ukraine intends to increase military spending. They don’t need it, but it’s not up to them if it ends.
Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on
This level of double think is really amazing. Within one sentence, “US has plenty of wars” -> good guys, Putin has one war -> terrorist, literally Hitler.
I’m not condoning Putin btw. It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression. Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants. In the end it’s Ukraine, Russia and the tax payer that looses.
If America was actively attempting to annex Sonora I’d be happy to make the same arguments defending China if it armed Mexico
It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong. No matter the reason or circumstance, the US would never allow it. Any president not being aggressive about “Chinese weapons on our doorstep” would be ousted. My point is that a decision was made which was a red line for Russia. But we only ever talk about Russia not the deliberate crossing of the red line.
It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong.
Or
It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression
It can’t be both. Which is it? Because the point here is that America giving Ukraine weapons is more justified specifically because of Russia’s aggression.
Neither. Both can be wrong. Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades. So what do you do?
What pretty clearly happened is that certain elements pushed for NATO inclusion and (mostly exclusive!) EU trade well before 2008. Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime. Both sides interfered until the result became a devastating war.
So every sensible person should protest in favor of peace negotiations. But that doesn’t happen. The western media portrays any peace negotiations as useless or as a ploy. I mean read the article.
Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades.
As if NATO is an entity that expands by itself huh.
Countries. Decide. To join NATO. Recent inclusions only prove that Putin’s struggle is not about NATO at all but about Ukraine. Or, more specifically, about repeating a big win in a small war that would get him whatever his ill brain imagined.
Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants.
You’re clueless. Ukraine was precisely correct in its desire for additional protection from aggression.
U.S. and Ukrainian officials say that the best Ukraine’s military can hope for in the coming year, especially without more American aid, is to defend its current positions. Even so, Biden officials say they are not entertaining the idea of pressing Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to negotiate with Mr. Putin.
This is the most eloquent. If you can’t fight a war for win, then it’s reasonable to try to gain some better results through negotiations. But the white masters don’t care about the losses of aboriginals.
Are you implying that white masters exist and implying that a European country can’t decide what’s better for it without consulting with white masters at the same time? Can I say that you are brainwashed by black masters?
