• cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The difference is that in the case of the US that was a lie. And Ukraine being a US proxy is not actually the weaker party in this, Russia is because they don’t have the full backing of an alliance like NATO behind them. So Russia was entirely justified in feeling threatened by a militarized russophobic Nazi regime, not on the other side of an ocean but right on their border, wanting to join a hostile military alliance who openly declare that their principal enemy is Russia.

    People who try to draw superficial comparisons between Ukraine and Iraq are lying by omission because literally everything about this is different.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      So if Ukraine couldn’t defend itself due to US support, then the comparison would have been accurate?

      • CascadeOfLight [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        If Ukraine couldn’t defend itself due to US support, there would have been no war in the first place.

        The threat of NATO having bases ON the Russian border is why this war is happening.

        But don't take it from me, take it from this guy

        Or better yet, how about the CIA?

        They knew in 2008 that this was THE red line for Russia, then laughed and crossed it anyway, and it played out EXACTLY as their analysts said it would

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          And there are no NATO bases currently in Ukraine nor was there support for Ukraine in 2008 to repel Russian aggression. So it might have been a strategic worry for Russia, but nothing ever came of it.

          And it comes back to my original point that the war was pre-emptive attack on a weaker sovereign nation for the stated purpose of defending the stronger nation from possible attack. This war has Bush doctrine all over it.

          • zkrzsz [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            And it comes back to my original point that the war was pre-emptive attack on a weaker sovereign nation for the stated purpose of defending the stronger nation from possible attack. This war has Bush doctrine all over it.

            It’s more complicated than that. There is still context from 2014 up till now, Minsk 1 and 2. Russia tried diplomacy talks then the SMO happened.

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are you talking about 2014, when the U.S. orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, and Crimean residents were overwhelmingly in favor of joining Russia, foreshadowing the following decade of low-intensity civil war leading up to the current war?

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Then would that justify France invading Niger after the Niger coup due to geopolitical reasons?

              And these votes only seem to happen immediately after an invasion without any international observation. Or are you going to freak out when I point out this is how the Sudetenland got annexed.

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Is Niger right next door to France? Did the most powerful country on the planet, that has been trying to destroy France for a century, instigate that coup, start arming up the Nigerien military, and then intimate that Niger would be allowed to join its aggressive military alliance? Do Nigeriens want to join France?

                these votes only seem to happen immediately after an invasion without any international observation

                You’re right to be skeptical. However, look at things like the shared political history of Russia and Crimea (both in the USSR longer than modern Ukraine has existed), the disagreeements between Crimea and Ukraine dating back to the 90s, the presence of ethnic Russians in the region, the absence of violence before or after the annexation, and the separatist movements in parts of Ukraine that also have large ethnic Russian populations. Nothing about the situation – other than western propaganda – suggests Russia is there against the will of the people.