Invasion of Ukraine • Page 168

Xi has the chance to do the funniest thing regarding the Treaty of Aigun

 

Russia says Ukraine attacked it using U.S. long-range missiles, signals it's ready for nuclear response

10 hours later….no nuclear launch

Who could have guessed

Same was with f-16

Same was with tanks

Same was with himars

And dozens of other red lines

 

Putin Ally Resigns Amid Mass Protests in Russia’s Backyard

 

He should say “appeasement is over”

simple. easy to read.

 

Biden working overtime to cement his legacy as one of the biggest pieces of shit ever

 

Yeah, that is quite an unnecessary, meaningless (in terms of shifting the war), and ruthless decision. The Ottawa Treaty is something that should be respected.

Edit: apparently these are the AP scatmines the US will send.

Area denial artillery munition - Wikipedia

“Once the mine lands, it launches seven tripwires before arming itself. Any disturbance of the tripwires will trigger the mine. The mine is detonated only via electric current; if its battery charge drops below a pre-set level, the mine self-destructs. Even if it fails to self-destruct, the battery will fully discharge after 14 days, rendering the mine inactive.”

They won’t be a danger months or decades later.

What’s more of concern will be the cluster mines that were sent to Ukraine last year and the anti personnel mines Russia has used.

 

Why would he say that though? He’s not a warmongering scumbag last time I checked.

 

Yes, he is, if he opposes stopping Russia while they are actively invading and conquering a country.

 

Corbyn has opposed all aspects of the aggressive US/UK foreign policy that contributed to the outbreak of the Ukraine war (for example, NATO expansion), and has always campaigned for a more peaceful world. He has also consistently been a staunch critic of Putin, as documented here: Russia-Ukraine war: Jeremy Corbyn was right all along about Putin and his oligarchs. I use this phrase a lot when talking to you but it just always seems so appropriate: you’d have to be profoundly stupid to describe Corbyn as a warmonger. Painfully so, in fact.

 

The only reason the war happened is because one nation decided to invade another nation. Stop making excuses for invasions. Warmonger. Invader.

 

Such a silly, simple mind. No understanding of history at all. Lmao

 

1) No NATO member state has invaded Russia or threatened to do so. Former Soviet states voluntarily sought NATO membership to ensure their sovereignty and security after decades of Russian domination. Conversely, Russia has intervened militarily in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, and now Ukraine. Russia’s actions violate international law, particularly the UN Charter, which guarantees state sovereignty.

2) Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia and 2014 annexation of Crimea occurred despite no immediate NATO provocation. Ukraine was not a NATO member when Russia invaded in 2014 or 2022, which undermines your argument that NATO provoked Russia.

3) Russia’s claims to “denazify” Ukraine are inconsistent with its allegations about NATO. Russia’s actions align with its desire to maintain regional dominance over former Soviet states and control energy routes, not NATO fears.

If you are sympathetic or apologetic towards Russia’s actions, you have the spirit of a warmonger and invader.

 

Since 1999, NATO has added 16 new member states, all in Central and Eastern Europe. How you cannot see that the expansion of a US-led military alliance up to Russia’s borders is an act of aggression is maddening. Putin started explicitly flagging Russia’s anxieties about NATO’s eastward march in 2007 (see his address in Feb of that year at the Munich Security Conference). The US responded by promoting the idea of further expansion of NATO the following year, this time to two further ex-Soviet republics, Georgia and Ukraine. The US would not tolerate a hostile Mexico, or Mexico forming a military pact with China. And lol at you suggesting that anything about the destruction of the Soviet Union was democratic

From the beginning of the Post-Soviet era onwards, there have been fundamental mismatches in power and strategic interests between Russia and the West. These generated tensions that steadily got worse and worse, erupting in Ukraine in 2003-04, Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine again in 2013-2014, and other places.

To summarise, Russia’s decisions have been shaped most decisively by the geopolitical environment in which the country has to operate, and this environment is dominated by other powers - the US above all. Saying this is not the same as absolving Putin/Russia of all responsibility.

 

“Since 1999, NATO has added 16 new member states, all in Central and Eastern Europe.“

And every state had the right to do so with their sovereignty and it doesn’t matter who isn’t cool with it.

Anyone having a problem with that is the exact reason the states wanted to join NATO.

 

We’re never going to agree on this. This is a pointless conversation. You’re a Western chauvinist who gleefully supports the US empire and its many crimes. It is really fascinating to observe how you’ve uncritically absorbed every bit of US propaganda you’ve ever come into contact with, to the point where you now outright erase the huge culpability the US has for this war and the world we live in in general. It’s not even a factor you’re willing to consider. Putler Orcs blah blah blah

 

Don’t forget your “I love special military operations” shirt at home tomorrow

 

Another way to think of this is cause and effect. What came first, an outwardly aggressive Russia or eastward NATO expansion? Which was in response to the other?

 

And how did we end up with Yeltsin, and then Putin in power? The West pushed for the elimination of the USSR and here we are.

 

Yeah then you get into a case of, how far back do you go? Who had the ability to make a better choice, and didn't, and who was set on the correct path, or made the correct choice at the time? Who takes responsibilities for choices a country makes? These questions I think underpin most of these topics

 

You have the First Chechen War in December 1994, which was an act of aggression by Russia because it involved a large-scale military campaign to forcibly prevent Chechnya from achieving independence.

In 1996, Poland’s president said “Joining NATO is the best guarantee that history will not repeat itself. We will no longer have to fear being left alone in the face of potential aggression.”

In 1997, Hungary’s president said “Our accession to NATO is motivated by a desire never again to fall under foreign domination.”

In 1997, Czech’s president said “Joining NATO is not about being against someone, but about being part of a system that guarantees security, stability, and peace. We have learned the lessons of our history.”

In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic were the first former Warsaw Pact nations to join NATO. Their concerns largely seemed to be Russia and its aggression.

 

If the USSR ended and can only come back by invading countries, then it should stay dead.

 

Is the dissolution of the USSR mostly a result of poor planning and decisions made by Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev in the 80's, including glasnost and perestroika, or more down to the West forcing the USSR to take the decisions it made?