Invasion of Ukraine • Page 50

The "partial mobilization" language from Putin's speech doesn't seem to apply to what was actually passed, and it looks like there is a much more shall we say robust mobilization taking place in many parts of Russia that aren't called Moscow or St. Petersburg.

 

All these deaths in Ukraine are Putin’s fault, 100%

1. Ukraine didn’t invade Russia
2. Ukraine doesn’t have nukes
3. Ukraine isn’t in NATO
4. Ukraine didn’t strike Russia

This invasion is 100% completely unjustified

 

Putin is up there with other murderous dictators in history, from Milošević, Ceaușescu, Amin, etc. Only difference between Putin and Hitler is that Hitler simply killed more people. Although the timeline will be very long, I very much hope Putin is put on trial at The Hague for war crimes and genocide

 

I dunno I kind of side eye the "we should just negotiate a peace" thoughts when they imply that it means Ukraine should surrender its land to Russia, when I know for a fact we would never talk about it like that if the US were invading a territory or country. Hell we still call for the US to give up Puerto Rico, Samoas, Hawaii, etc.

 

You can't equate Russia and the US though. The US is the world's largest imperialist power, controlling around 750 military bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. As the world's largest power, and with its incredibly aggressive policy of NATO expansion eastwards over the last few decades, it is largely responsible for the current crisis. I get that liberals like to imagine this war is just Goodies Vs Baddies, but it's not that simple I'm afraid. The claim that the US has no responsibility for the war is absolutely laughable.

 

People really need to look at what Victoria Nuland did in Ukraine in 2014.

 

Despite how afraid of NATO Putin may have been, this war is 100% clear cut Putin’s fault. He pulled the trigger to enter Ukraine, not NATO/the West.

 

I agree that Putin should stand trial in The Hague, he's a butcher. But I won't ignore the role of the US/NATO in this conflict.

 

Not only do they not have nukes, but they gave up the nukes they did have after receiving guarantees from Russia that Russia would respect their independence and sovereignty in their existing borders and refrain from the threat or the use of force against them.

 

Yeah, but none of that makes what Russia is doing to Ukraine okay, or something we should just accept and too bad so sad for Ukraine lol. Like, the fact that the US is the worlds foremost imperialist nation doesn't mean it's also cool for non-US countries to invade others and take their land. Same can be said for what's been happening to Armenia.

 

I don't think what Russia is doing to Ukraine is "okay". I'm not sure why when someone criticises the role of the US/NATO in creating this conflict, it means they must support Putin. It's a very dangerous development if no criticism of our governments in the West is permitted!

US foreign policy has massively contributed to this crisis, and taken us to our current reality: the likelihood of a nuclear confrontation between NATO and Russia has massively increased. We're at a point of no return and earlier opportunities to de-escalate the tensions now no longer exist. That means concessions will need to be made on both sides if there is going to be a peaceful settlement to this war. This is in my view preferable to nuclear annihilation, but I know many disagree with me and would prefer to get nuked.

 

No one here is saying the first bolded, that you "must support Putin" if you're pointing out that America/NATO/etc have been aggressive over 30 years, but if your solution to the war is Ukraine "must make concessions" considering they are the ones being attacked here, then others will point out that what you're proposing is that the aggressor nation gets at least some of what it wants. That is not a line of argument we would ever accept for American aggression, and Russia's lack of history of being as imperialist as America is/has beem (and that is, IMO, a questionable suggestion) doesn't make it okay to accept that line of argument for Russia.

 

Wait, are there fucking Russia sympathisers here?

 

Yours is a false premise because there isn't only one aggressor nation at play here. The US/NATO is making the most of this opportunity and is using Ukraine to smash Russia. This is a NATO-Russia proxy war. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again: The American government does not care about the people of Ukraine. All they care about is advancing their foreign policy objectives and they are using the Ukrainians as cannon fodder in order to do that. I don't think it's that radical to suggest that maybe America shouldn't have hundreds of military bases all over the planet, or on Russia's border. Ukraine shouldn't be the plaything of the US or Russia, as neither cares about the well-being of your average working-class Ukrainian.

The US is the most powerful imperialist force to ever exist, without question. That doesn't mean Russia isn't imperialist or has no history of being imperialist, it means that it has never exercised the immense power and hegemony that the US does over the world today. Russia and China are a challenge to that hegemony, hence the aggressive stance of the US towards these countries. Me typing this out does not mean that I think the governments of Russia or China are good (it feels like I need to make that clear in this thread).

 

In the war in Ukraine, there is only one aggressor nation. If China was making friends with Mexico and trying to convince Mexico to increase their economic relations with China over us....would you really accept that as a valid reason for the United States to invade Mexico? Would you support that invasion? f the answer is no, it seems a bit weird to counter claims about the horrible shit Russia is doing in Ukraine today with "but NATO". Like yeah NATO isn't innocent in the overall picture, but in the specific invasion of Ukraine, Russia is to blame for what is happening there. They thought they had an opening after 4 years of Trump doing his best to soften up NATO and the ties the countries felt to each other, and Biden proving to be more Dove-ish on foreign policy of any President over the last 40 years (not saying much of course), so Vlad decided now was the time to invade. And, if I'm not mistaken, they've pretty much accidentally let it slip more than a few times on what some of their true motivations for the war are beyond NATO existing too close for their comfort.

I also think it's worth pointing out that if their true motivation and plan was to slap NATO down and send them a message, then they've failed in spectacular fashion as their actions have only driven a few other non-NATO nations, including a historic enemy right on their border, to ask for acceptance into NATO. You would think, if NATO expansion were truly the #1 motivating factor here, that the minute those countries did that, Russia would have come to the table seeking an agreement on withdrawal for no NATO expansion to those countries. But AFAIK that hasn't happened yet.

 

I suppose my most pressing question in response to this would be, do you think that Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO if that is what they want to do?

I can't tell if this is a joke or not...

 

NATO should have been disbanded in the 90s. To continue it is/was a colossal mistake.

 

I would posit that Russia invading another country's sovereign territory in Europe in 2022 and then threatening the entire world with nuclear annihilation when the aforementioned invaded country pushes back disputes this idea.

 

You need to look back further than just this past year. For example, nearly a dozen countries have joined NATO since 1999, many close to or along Russia's borders. This angered Russia as you might imagine, but was quite good for the MIC as we sold the new entrants billions in arms. This current conflict has also been a boon for the MIC.

These conflicts don't happen in a vacuum and it's good to understand why they happen so we can hope to avoid them in the future.

 

I've posted this before, but it really helps to flesh out how we got here beyond the naked Russian aggression angle:

Who is Victoria Nuland? A really bad idea as a key player in Biden's foreign policy team

 

Why do countries close to / along Russia's border want to join NATO in the first place...???

For the record, I despise Victoria Nuland and think her being made part of his government is one of Joe Biden's biggest mistakes, which is really saying something given that we're talking about Joe Biden.

 

If so, why did Sweden and Finland decide they should join? What could possibly make them think NATO is good for them…if it’s not?

And, as of today, even China would disagree with you.

China ready to promote sound, steady relationship with NATO: Chinese FM

 

Did not see this coming. Then again, China will only side with Putin until he is of no value and it looks like that’s the case.