I’ve read the contents of your link and I can see how one would fall for these arguments. But I can already point to a couple flaws:
It doesn’t matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade. Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn’t matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.
Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.
Third, this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn’t just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.
Seems like there are a couple of flaws in your own narrative there.
It doesn’t matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade.
Russia did exercise this choice for whole eight years. That’s what Minsk agreements were about, and now prominent western officials have come out and admitted on record that the goal of the agreements was in fact to give more time for Ukraine to arm itself.
Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn’t matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.
Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.
Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.
Third, this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn’t just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.
Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution. I love how you just ignore that little detail there.
I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It’s absolutely incredible if that’s the case.
Stoltenberg openly admits that it was in fact NATO that chose violence and refused to negotiate https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
I’m not going to read the whole minutes. Can you quote please what you are referring to?
Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.
This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol’ Viktor was peddling.
Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution.
Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there’s a string of attacks on territories that weren’t actually Russia’s in recent history.
I love how you just ignore that little detail there.
I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It’s absolutely incredible if that’s the case.
Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.
He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Here you go ^
This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol’ Viktor was peddling.
If you think that US overthrowing a neutral government in Ukraine to put in a far right regime that allowed NATO to start building out offensive capabilities on Russia’s border is not relevant to Russia pushing back NATO, really don’t know what else to tell you.
Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there’s a string of attacks on territories that weren’t actually Russia’s in recent history.
Ukraine descended into a civil war after a US backed coup. The fighting between the right wing western backed government and Donbas started right after it. You seem to be utterly ignorant on the history of the conflict.
Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.
Except I addressed your “point” which is sheer nonsense.
dude, Russia complained to the UN and obviously NATO and the US many many many many many many times. You’re being brainwashed by US media, which is 100% ALL controlled by the CIA. For basics, you should simply look at what Russia’s foreign diplomats are saying. They speak clearly and don’t bullshit. Weigh what the two sides say. Simply put, the US just makes up childish stories with no factual basis behind them and Russia gives long factual history lessons.
I agree with you on previous points, but you must know for a fact that Russia has a whole department for rewriting history in their favour that didn’t fall with the Soviet Union.
That makes your long factual history lessons claim ridiculous, besides relying on historical Russia to justify current carnage is ridiculous.
NATO driven by the US definitively pokes at several beehives, and once those beehives lose diplomatically (because given the pressure we do it definitely is a loss on the world stage not an agreement) they start stinging.
Russia has an history of brutal governments when it comes to warfare, and in Ukraine they show they still don’t refrain from uncontrolled barbarism. It’s a bed the West helped do, but comes from an expansionist desire of both Russia and the US.
PS: I’m focusing on the US which has more impact world wide, but we just need to see France in West Africa to see the former empires are still doing their old thing under the table.
Bunch of power hungry minorities making live miserable for a larger humanity is something we have everywhere.
It very clearly does. NATO kept pushing towards Russia for decades after USSR dissolved. Russia tried to find a peaceful compromise with NATO this whole time. Yet, here you are pretending that it’s actually Russia that won’t compromise.
I already did in this very thread. If you think the bit I referenced doesn’t support what I said it’s clear that no productive conversation is possible here.
LOL, the only people who would say this to Yogthos are those speaking from ignorance. The dude is like a machine when it comes to reading and sharing articles from all over the place. I’ve never seen anyone else read the news so widely.
Dude we couped Ukraine in 2014 and got them to kill tens of thousands of civilians in the 2 independent republics. We were supporting Ukranian nationalism, which is aligned with naziism for quite a while. Decades. Euromaiden happened because of us. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
I think it’s more fruitful to look at who benefits from the Ukrainian war.
Life for the average Ukrainian will not be radically different under Russian rule. Most of them will get up, go to work the same job they always have and funnel as much money as possible to those who already have it.
It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers. The people actually fighting the wars never benefit and the ones who benefit never fight.
It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers.
I think we’re missing a couple of nuances here, no? Although it’s a stretch to call them nuance. The way Ukrainian rulers have been making money has been through privatization. And because there’s so much privatization we need to look at who owns Ukraine’s economy. It’s only escalated since Russia invaded, with national assets being sold off to foreign private sectors so cheaply that one has to wonder why they did it when the gains are a drop in the bucket compared to the direct aid they’ve been getting from Western public sectors.
If Ukraine emerges from this conflict with its own sovereignty, it’ll be sovereignty over a flag, a presidential palace and a state framework that protects foreign companies’ investments from hungry Ukrainians.
The country is dead. They sold their infrastructure to blackrock and other investment firms. They are now taking out loans to buy weapons which won’t do shit against Russia. The country is gutted by capital. Zelensky himself has at least two mansions in other countries including one in Miami. He will either get killed Diem-style (backstabbed by the US/CIA) or flee. It’s also possible Azov nazis kill him.
The reason the US has a special hate-on for Putin is precisely because he kicked the Western shock therapists out of the country. He stanched the tide of privatization.
It’s pretty obvious that the only country that benefits from the war is the US. Don’t take my word for it though, RAND wrote a whole study explaining how in detail https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
It’s also absolutely phenomenal that people think Russia needs Ukraine to make profit when it’s already the largest country in the world with plenty of undeveloped resources. If you think countries benefit from having to fight a war, then you might wan to learn a bit of history.
If you bother reading the paper I linked, it explains it in great detail. But if you don’t believe RAND, then here’s the head of NATO explaining it in black and white
The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.
The sheer intellectual dishonesty of pretending that this was about anything other than NATO expanding to Russia’s border even when top NATO officials openly admit this to be the case is truly astonishing.
You seem to misunderstand your own sources. What you cited only proves how utterly insane Russia’s conditions were / are. Of course NATO won’t let Pootin blackmail them into giving up their stations etc.
Russia and brainwashed tankies like yourself always seem to reject the notion that former Soviet nations are actually sovereign and might have an interest in increasing their defensive strength in light of, wait for it, HISTORY.
Nah I understand my own sources just fine. Meanwhile, anybody with a functioning brain can understand that countries overrun but US propaganda and reliant on US military protection are in no way sovereign. Figures that radlib like you wouldn’t even understand what sovereignty means.
Its irrelevant whether or not life would be different under Russian rule. Russia choose to invade a sovereign nation. The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.
I don’t think you know what the term radlib means. It’s kind of sad. But I do know that when one country advances into another country, and expands territory, that’s an aggressive fact. You can try to justify it however you want, I know you’re trying hard, but it’s just not convincing. Seizing the Crimea and then expanding more recently, those are the actions of a country that wants more power and more territory and more control. That’s not the kind of country that I respect.
And if you want to point out that the US does shady stuff too, you’re absolutely right. But that doesn’t make Russia’s actions reasonable.
perhaps should start by taking your own advice, stepping out of your echo chamber, and educating yourself on what’s going on https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war
edit: Worth noting how despite all the screeching and downvoting, radlibs can’t actually make any counterpoints to what Mearsheimer says.
I’ve read the contents of your link and I can see how one would fall for these arguments. But I can already point to a couple flaws:
It doesn’t matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade. Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn’t matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.
Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.
Third, this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn’t just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.
Seems like there are a couple of flaws in your own narrative there.
Russia did exercise this choice for whole eight years. That’s what Minsk agreements were about, and now prominent western officials have come out and admitted on record that the goal of the agreements was in fact to give more time for Ukraine to arm itself.
Stoltenberg openly admits that it was in fact NATO that chose violence and refused to negotiate https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.
Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution. I love how you just ignore that little detail there.
I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It’s absolutely incredible if that’s the case.
I’m not going to read the whole minutes. Can you quote please what you are referring to?
This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol’ Viktor was peddling.
Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there’s a string of attacks on territories that weren’t actually Russia’s in recent history.
Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.
summed up: well i dont read shit so you’re gonna have to spoonfeed it to me so i can spit it out in your face without even tasting it
Here you go ^
here’s a detailed explanation with lots of mainstream sources for you https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Ukraines-2014-revolution-was-due-to-a-CIA-coup
If you think that US overthrowing a neutral government in Ukraine to put in a far right regime that allowed NATO to start building out offensive capabilities on Russia’s border is not relevant to Russia pushing back NATO, really don’t know what else to tell you.
Ukraine descended into a civil war after a US backed coup. The fighting between the right wing western backed government and Donbas started right after it. You seem to be utterly ignorant on the history of the conflict.
Except I addressed your “point” which is sheer nonsense.
dude, Russia complained to the UN and obviously NATO and the US many many many many many many times. You’re being brainwashed by US media, which is 100% ALL controlled by the CIA. For basics, you should simply look at what Russia’s foreign diplomats are saying. They speak clearly and don’t bullshit. Weigh what the two sides say. Simply put, the US just makes up childish stories with no factual basis behind them and Russia gives long factual history lessons.
I agree with you on previous points, but you must know for a fact that Russia has a whole department for rewriting history in their favour that didn’t fall with the Soviet Union.
That makes your long factual history lessons claim ridiculous, besides relying on historical Russia to justify current carnage is ridiculous.
NATO driven by the US definitively pokes at several beehives, and once those beehives lose diplomatically (because given the pressure we do it definitely is a loss on the world stage not an agreement) they start stinging.
Russia has an history of brutal governments when it comes to warfare, and in Ukraine they show they still don’t refrain from uncontrolled barbarism. It’s a bed the West helped do, but comes from an expansionist desire of both Russia and the US.
PS: I’m focusing on the US which has more impact world wide, but we just need to see France in West Africa to see the former empires are still doing their old thing under the table. Bunch of power hungry minorities making live miserable for a larger humanity is something we have everywhere.
What you linked does not support the statement that NATO choose violence by not negotiating.
It very clearly does. NATO kept pushing towards Russia for decades after USSR dissolved. Russia tried to find a peaceful compromise with NATO this whole time. Yet, here you are pretending that it’s actually Russia that won’t compromise.
Can you quote the part that you believe supports your statements? The bit I think you are referencing doesn’t support your statement at all.
I already did in this very thread. If you think the bit I referenced doesn’t support what I said it’s clear that no productive conversation is possible here.
History starts and stops exactly when it best suits my argument
Russia invaded Ukraine. All anyone besides tankies and trolls need to know.
That’s right history started in 2022, nothing happened before that. You are very intelligent.
Thank you for the compliment, if you keep reading outside your safe space and opinion articles, you’ll get there too!
LOL, the only people who would say this to Yogthos are those speaking from ignorance. The dude is like a machine when it comes to reading and sharing articles from all over the place. I’ve never seen anyone else read the news so widely.
if only you would take your own advice there buddy, but we both know you won’t
Take the L bro, you earned it
says the bro who has no concept of history without a hint of irony
Still going? Lol, pathetic
takes two to tango little buddy
Dude we couped Ukraine in 2014 and got them to kill tens of thousands of civilians in the 2 independent republics. We were supporting Ukranian nationalism, which is aligned with naziism for quite a while. Decades. Euromaiden happened because of us. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
I think it’s more fruitful to look at who benefits from the Ukrainian war.
Life for the average Ukrainian will not be radically different under Russian rule. Most of them will get up, go to work the same job they always have and funnel as much money as possible to those who already have it.
It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers. The people actually fighting the wars never benefit and the ones who benefit never fight.
I think we’re missing a couple of nuances here, no? Although it’s a stretch to call them nuance. The way Ukrainian rulers have been making money has been through privatization. And because there’s so much privatization we need to look at who owns Ukraine’s economy. It’s only escalated since Russia invaded, with national assets being sold off to foreign private sectors so cheaply that one has to wonder why they did it when the gains are a drop in the bucket compared to the direct aid they’ve been getting from Western public sectors.
If Ukraine emerges from this conflict with its own sovereignty, it’ll be sovereignty over a flag, a presidential palace and a state framework that protects foreign companies’ investments from hungry Ukrainians.
The country is dead. They sold their infrastructure to blackrock and other investment firms. They are now taking out loans to buy weapons which won’t do shit against Russia. The country is gutted by capital. Zelensky himself has at least two mansions in other countries including one in Miami. He will either get killed Diem-style (backstabbed by the US/CIA) or flee. It’s also possible Azov nazis kill him.
That’s only because Russia has already privatized and sold off all of its national assets to oligarchs after the fall of the USSR.
that doesn’t make sense in the context of the post you replied to
The reason the US has a special hate-on for Putin is precisely because he kicked the Western shock therapists out of the country. He stanched the tide of privatization.
It’s pretty obvious that the only country that benefits from the war is the US. Don’t take my word for it though, RAND wrote a whole study explaining how in detail https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
It’s also absolutely phenomenal that people think Russia needs Ukraine to make profit when it’s already the largest country in the world with plenty of undeveloped resources. If you think countries benefit from having to fight a war, then you might wan to learn a bit of history.
I actually showed that article about a year ago to a co-worker of mine. LMAO
Then why would Russia attack Ukraine? Especially since they had already agreed to let go of their nukes and not join NATO. Just let them be then.
If you bother reading the paper I linked, it explains it in great detail. But if you don’t believe RAND, then here’s the head of NATO explaining it in black and white
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
The sheer intellectual dishonesty of pretending that this was about anything other than NATO expanding to Russia’s border even when top NATO officials openly admit this to be the case is truly astonishing.
Haha sorry I’ll save your link to read later
You seem to misunderstand your own sources. What you cited only proves how utterly insane Russia’s conditions were / are. Of course NATO won’t let Pootin blackmail them into giving up their stations etc.
Russia and brainwashed tankies like yourself always seem to reject the notion that former Soviet nations are actually sovereign and might have an interest in increasing their defensive strength in light of, wait for it, HISTORY.
Nah I understand my own sources just fine. Meanwhile, anybody with a functioning brain can understand that countries overrun but US propaganda and reliant on US military protection are in no way sovereign. Figures that radlib like you wouldn’t even understand what sovereignty means.
Its irrelevant whether or not life would be different under Russian rule. Russia choose to invade a sovereign nation. The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.
This is a post about conscription, where people who do not want to fight are forced to
I don’t think you know what the term radlib means. It’s kind of sad. But I do know that when one country advances into another country, and expands territory, that’s an aggressive fact. You can try to justify it however you want, I know you’re trying hard, but it’s just not convincing. Seizing the Crimea and then expanding more recently, those are the actions of a country that wants more power and more territory and more control. That’s not the kind of country that I respect.
And if you want to point out that the US does shady stuff too, you’re absolutely right. But that doesn’t make Russia’s actions reasonable.
This is the sort of understanding of the world young children have before their brains fully develop.
Said a clown spouting text book Russian propaganda
I hope you get paid for this lol
Is Russian propaganda in the room with your right now?