You mentioned Russian aggression 3x. And undermining Ukrainian sovereignity.
I don't see you mentioning Ukraine undermining it's own sovereignity, or the US via NATO, doing the same. Or the bullying of the Eastern territories (by Kiev). Or the actual, literal Nazification of Ukrainian forces. Or the detaining of political rivals. Or the events in Odessa. I could go on.
Basically: Russia Russia Russia - all bad. Western interests, all good. Or good enough to gloss over rather important points for their own transgressions.
None of what you wrote has anything to do with how expanding NATO countries to include border states is breaking vow after vow, or how if the shoe was on the other foot it would in no way be tolerated. You actually suggest even more of the same. That's really working out great.
How would Ukraine undermine its own sovereignity? Did Ukraine snatch parts form other countries? When was that?
How would a Ukrainian insurgency in parts of it undermine its own sovereignity? By that logic, any state with insurgencies is free to be attacked and have its land stolen.
Before Russia attacked it recently, the parts under government control in ukraine had no insurgencies or hostile act against civilians on a large scale.
Which western transgression was there against russia? Letting countries that are threatened by russia join nato can only be seen as aggression if russia wants to attack them. Or were nato or EU states every aggressive against russia in the last ten years?
Is Finland going to invade soon? Or poland?
The people doing the invading are russians.
How would Ukraine undermine its own sovereignity? Did Ukraine snatch parts form other countries? When was that?
How would a Ukrainian insurgency in parts of it undermine its own sovereignity?
Before Russia attacked it recently, the parts under government control in ukraine had no insurgencies or hostile act against civilians on a large scale.
Which western transgression was there against russia? Letting countries that are threatened by russia join nato can only be seen as aggression if russia wants to attack them. Or were nato or EU states every aggressive against russia in the last ten years?
Is Finland going to invade soon? Or poland?
The people doing the invading are russians.
Are you unaware of the conditions in the two regions in conflict? It's inaccurate to say life as normal has been the status quo for Eastern Ukrainians. They literally asked Putin for help in an overwhelming majority via a recent letter. In this way Putin is in fact upholding their territorial integrity. What do we call it when we do it, peacekeeping?
Not everything that's a transgression is visible. Do you know who Nuland is? What our CIA assets have been up to? Are sanctions visible? Or are they also acts of war? Etc. Don't mistake boots on the ground, in an extremely limited and surgical sense, as the only transgressions outside forces have foisted upon Ukrainians.
I'll eat my words if he pushes for Kiev. But I'm almost certain he's doing exactly what he said he'd do. Which doesn't include the entirety of the country/buffer zone.
Oh, and did you know the Crimeans are happy post 'invasion'? Where is the reporting on that?
Are you unaware of the conditions in the two regions in conflict? It's inaccurate to say life as normal has been the status quo for Eastern Ukrainians. They literally asked Putin for help in an overwhelming majority via a recent letter. In this way Putin is in fact upholding their territorial integrity. What do we call it when we do it, peacekeeping?
Not everything that's a transgression is visible. Do you know who Nuland is? What our CIA assets have been up to? Are sanctions visible? Or are they also acts of war? Etc. Don't mistake boots on the ground, in an extremely limited and surgical sense, as the only transgressions outside forces have foisted upon Ukrainians.
I'll eat my words if he pushes for Kiev. But I'm almost certain he's doing exactly what he said he'd do. Which doesn't include the entirety of the country/buffer zone.
Oh, and did you know the Crimeans are happy post 'invasion'? Where is the reporting on that?
That is true. I don't know why you are repeating russian propaganda, but it is. The vast majority of ukrainians did not live in the 3 regions russia controlled and the public opinion in the free parts of it is strongly against the russian aggression.
If live in the oppressed parts is not normal, it is because russia does not let it be normal. The other parts of eastern ukraine led a normal life aside from russian aggression.
And don't even start with that CIA nuland shit. We are talking about current, modern day ukraine and Nato. And I ask you which aggression it showed against russia, which aggression nato states or EU states are showing against russia in a PROVABLE kind of way.
And you should start eating your words right now because he IS pushing for Kyiv. Kyiv is being attacked as we are speaking. Do you not know the situation right now?
What do you think, would these people write a letter to Nato to help them? I think they would. By your logic, nato troops should be stationed there right now.
That is true. I don't know why you are repeating russian propaganda, but it is. The vast majority of ukrainians did not live in the 3 regions russia controlled and the public opinion in the free parts of it is strongly against the russian aggression.
If live in the oppressed parts is not normal, it is because russia does not let it be normal. The other parts of eastern ukraine led a normal life aside from russian aggression.
And don't even start with that CIA nuland shit. We are talking about current, modern day ukraine and Nato. And I ask you which aggression it showed against russia, which aggression nato states or EU states are showing against russia in a PROVABLE kind of way.
And you should start eating your words right now because he IS pushing for Kyiv. Kyiv is being attacked as we are speaking. Do you not know the situation right now?
What do you think, would these people write a letter to Nato to help them? I think they would. By your logic, nato troops should be stationed there right now.
Umm, I've literally posted videos of the fireworks. Apparently you aren't aware of a difference between surgical strikes of select military targets and capturing the city outright.
You agree then say I'm repeating Russian propaganda. LOL. That old tactic. Everything that isn't kissing NATO ass, even if factual, is RT propaganda, right? You must be a MSM news anchor, because that line is entirely played out.
I like how you conveniently gloss over our involvement in Ukraine as old news lololol. Are you unaware of 5th generation warfare? 'That happened in 2014, it doesn't matter' is your position I take it?
NATO/US can do no wrong I see.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
I see your source for Russian aggression is a crystal ball.
Umm, I've literally posted videos of the fireworks. Apparently you aren't aware of a difference between surgical strikes of select military targets and capturing the city outright.
You agree then say I'm repeating Russian propaganda. LOL. That old tactic. Everything that isn't kissing NATO ass, even if factual, is RT propaganda, right? You must be a MSM news anchor, because that line is entirely played out.
I like how you conveniently gloss over our involvement in Ukraine as old news lololol. Are you unaware of 5th generation warfare? 'That happened in 2014, it doesn't matter' is your position I take it?
NATO/US can do no wrong I see.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
I see your source for Russian aggression is a crystal ball.
So "surgical strikes" on the capital of another country are okay after you already snatched territories form it and intend to snatch some more? What kind of imperialist logic is that?
You think nato is threatening russia because of "blablabla cia" but russia annexing parts of another country and killing people int he capital is just fine?
And yes, it is russian propaganda to believe that the oppressed regions were threatened by ukraine. Fact is that eastern ukraine, the free part, had no genocide, no insurgency or anything of that kind.
It is typical for propaganda to use and distort facts, often just tidbits from years ago, to justify aggression. You just using stuff from 2014 as if it applies and matters shows that you have no actual case to make. Fact is that ukraine had no insurgency right now and russia still attacks. Why not? Why not 2014?
And for the record, I am not saying that what you think happened back in the crimea annex is accurate. I am saying that it is not worth debating that because it has nothing to do what is going down now and it is just a sorry excuse for a reason to attack another country and steal more land.
Yes. Surgical strikes. I love the game of quoting things in a passive-aggressive sense as if that's not exactly what it is. As if to say you disagree with the verbiage. Tell me how it's not exactly that in a mil sense if you want to take issue with the words I use.
I can see you only allow a perspective of Russians are unilaterally the aggressors. Again, when we do it we are liberators. Rah Rah Rah! (saying nothing of the switcheroo of calling the internal oppressed freedom fighters as 'terrorists' when it's expedient to paint them as such, and just poor downtrodden when convenient as well - see Syria for example)
Curious, but why is Russia only interested in the regions that are Russian by any other measure - by vote, by language, by culture, by currency, by choice if they'd have it - and no other parts? Why not the whole enchilada as its called?
I said it was? In any event, the targets were exclusively military. Nothing shows otherwise. I have respect for keeping the civilians out of this as much as possible, though I fear a humanitarian crisis - again. Just this time it's not something WE have to own.
And yes, it is russian propaganda to believe that the oppressed regions were threatened by ukraine. Fact is that eastern ukraine, the free part, had no genocide, no insurgency or anything of that kind.
This is a bold-faced lie. No insurgency?? Please provide a source on this (total lack of insurgency!) and also how Russia was being oppressive to the native population as you claim.
It is typical for propaganda to use and distort facts. You just using stuff from 2014 as if it applies and matters shows that you have no actual case to make. Fact is that ukraine had no insurgency right now and russia still attacks. Why not? Why not 2014?
If you can't connect the pieces of how our involvement has had repercussions for the country that has been having internal strife for 8 years now (post our meddling curiously enough) and has come to a head, I can't help you. Maybe he's emboldened by seeing our senile president. Maybe Odessa fire and other bullying have had enough. Maybe the recent push for NATO. Who gives a shit why now? How does that somehow absolve us of stoking the fires and sticking our nose in another country's affairs in the way that we keep doing around the globe? Do you think actions don't have consequences?
And in what universe has NATO not gone back on its word (repeatedly)? In what universe would armed expansion of border states by hostile countries be tolerated if it were the US? Do you not remember what happened in Cuba?
Let me guess, stating the obvious about NATO expansion and the desire to respect boundaries is somehow Russian propaganda as well, no? I'm sure we'd just sit on our hands as this played out in our backyard.
Yes. Surgical strikes. I love the game of quoting things in a passive-aggressive sense as if that's not exactly what it is. As if to say you disagree with the verbiage. Tell me how it's not exactly that in a mil sense if you want to take issue with the words I use.
I can see you only allow a perspective of Russians are unilaterally the aggressors. Again, when we do it we are liberators. Rah Rah Rah! (saying nothing of the switcheroo of calling the internal oppressed freedom fighters as 'terrorists' when it's expedient to paint them as such, and just poor downtrodden when convenient as well - see Syria for example)
Nothing is glossed over. Tell me how exactly it is a reason for war and stealing land if there was an insurgency in a country several years ago that since has calmed down.
Let me guess, stating the obvious about NATO expansion and the desire to respect boundaries is somehow Russian propaganda as well, no? I'm sure we'd just sit on our hands as this played out in our backyard.
Yes. It is russian propaganda that Russia's bullying of other sovereign states to not be allowed into nato is just "respecting boundaries".
Because it is not.
Russia bullies states around it since years and is aggressive with its military.
Just tell me how it is coincidence that russia created 3 (!) proxy rebel states in georgia, transnistria and ukraine by now (more than 3, but in 3 countries) for bullshit 'we had to protect russians' reasons while no other european country ever had to do that.
Isn't it a little strange that seemingly only russians do that and move borders in europe with military force, but they are also the only ones crying about being threatened?
That's literally what we do (and what we call it when we do it). So, um, take it up with the administration I guess (and all the past ones for about 100 years). In any event, tell me more about how you're anti-imperialist again. Let's just compare the numbers of times we have done "peacekeeping" missions each. Or body count. Or any other metric. Then we can figure out who to villainize (not that the events are even remotely comparable as this is Russian borders and we are involved anywhere and everywhere).
It's understandable that NATO moving into the next door would want to be stopped by the Russians if at all possible. How is that not understandable to you?
That would be like Russia sending arms and money to the cartels in Sonora to destabilize Mexico and then installing S400 systems there. You're being dense on purpose about this, aren't you?
So if the US were to move militarily in the above scenario (Russia wanting to put S400 missile systems in Sonora) to protect US interests and border integrity, that would be an "imperialist" action? Tell me more about how many forward bases Russia maintains around the world (and ACC groups to project power while you're at it). About how they've contracted with member-states to encircle the US (while promising they won't) to enter into military (as well as trade) agreements that puts the US at risk in the event of a conflict. How they've undermined countries around the globe that they share nothing with culturally as opposed to only those with a shared border in the immediate vicinity where culturally-US citizens are getting bullied.
Oh, wait. It's the exact fucking opposite. WE do that, and they don't. Who exactly are the imperialists?
Nothing is glossed over. Tell me how exactly it is a reason for war and stealing land if there was an insurgency in a country several years ago that since has calmed down.
We were directly involved in helping to set it off in 2014, and it's been ONGOING since then. This is basically one, long, 8-year event. And we've had our hands in it as well. But, by all means, make another reference to how it was all in the past!
Yes. It is russian propaganda that Russia's bullying of other sovereign states to not be allowed into nato is just "respecting boundaries".
Because it is not.
Russia bullies states around it since years and is aggressive with its military.
You have it exactly backwards. Read above of how things really are in the real world - the US swinging our dick around the globe and Russia staying close to home, and in very select/limited fashion (where requested and no further). Not that it matters to you that NATO made promises they apparently had no intention to keep.
Just tell me how it is coincidence that russia created 3 (!) proxy rebel states in georgia, transnistria and ukraine by now (more than 3, but in 3 countries) for bullshit 'we had to protect russians' reasons while no other european country ever had to do that.
Isn't it a little strange that seemingly only russians do that and move borders in europe with military force, but they are also the only ones crying about being threatened?
Wake me when the Russians are undermining Somalia. Or invading Bolivia. Or installing their own hand-selected leader in Indonesia. Or putting air bases in Canada. Shit like we'd do if we were Russia.
Until then this is at most a regional border dispute. Hardly an imperialist move. Putin at this rate will be 300 years old before the glorious USSR rises from the ashes like you brainwashed believe is his plan. He's really taking over vast swaths of land, oh boy, and in NO WAY do any of these disputes with the separatists have ANY MERIT at all. /s
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
For reference, Donbas is about 9% of Ukraine. It's about the size of 2 Hawaii's by landmass. Picture that next to the continental US as they would share a border as Donbas does with Russia. The oblasts consider themselves as republics, and separate from Ukraine.
That's the appropriate scale and context of this 'imperialist' 'aggression'. Protecting 2 little Hawaii's that share a border and insist they are free, and that formally asked for 'help' from Russia against Kiev's forces as they claim. Believe it or not, that's at least the story.
Now, if that's pretense for more than 'freeing' the DPR/LPR and he actually goes to occupy Ukraine (somehow different than when we occupy a country, but I digress) that's another thing entirely.
Very little reward (land mass, resources, population) and a lot of risk for just a good, old-fashion land-grab.
@xi0
My question to you would be why it should be criticized. The point is not that the US or EU do not have interests in Ukraine. They do and that is not anything inherently bad, every country acts out of self interest.
But eastern europe wants to be in EU and Nato (at least most of it). And the reason for that is that there is russian aggression, no matter whether the country wants to be in these entities or not.
There was talk of Ukraine joining nato 2005, but it was denied. Back then, Russia had no problem with it.
The russian aggression against ukraine predated the ukraine crisis, even before it, when janukovich was rather putin friendly, russia would always threaten it via energy and economy when it didnt obey.
That was one reason why Ukraine even drifted towards the EU.
The russian military aggression, annexing parts of it, started when it was clear that ukraine decided for EU instead of eurasion union. That had nothing to do with nato, at that point in time, most ukrainians were against joining nato and had positive images of russia. That did not help Ukraine at all.
Joining the EU is hardly a hostile act against russia. Finland is in it, so are many states bordering to russia, and these states never acted aggressively against russia.
Only after Russia kept undermining ukrainian sovereignity, Ukraine started to seriously want to join Nato. And why would they not be allowed to do that? Do you honestly think Russia would not snatch them if they wouldn't want to join Nato? I find that naive.
Ukraine wants to join Nato for its own safety, and we should accept that. Granting it that safety is not something that should be criticized but applauded.
The west now has to impose serious sanctions even at its own expense to protect Ukraine and keep russia from trying the same thing with other states or using it as a threat against even eastern nato/EU states. And it should push for nato and eu membership of georgia and moldova.
I don't want Ukraine in either EU nor Nato. It does not have the western standard of democracy, which is mandatory to join EU and should also be mandatory to be a member of NATO (but is actually irrelevant, see Turkey).
And trust me, you don't want that either.
For example, there are no left parties in Ukraine. If they join EU, the right wing parties in parliament will rejoice as they now have a 50 million people country pool to draw from.
However what the EU has to do is they seriusly have to make a plan for their future, because out of the remaining Non-EU European Countries, only few are proper democracies and Norway and Switzerland don't want to join, Britain just left... That leaves us with Iceland, I guess? I am not informed about North Macedonia or Bosnia or Albania, but the rest, Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Serbia,... These aren't democracies.
So how to unite Europe? What is clear is that the EU has to unite Europe and not NATO. Nato has nothing to do with uniting the people.
JFK was perplexed as to why Soviet Premier Khrushchev would risk war by installing nuclear-capable missiles in Cuba, remarking to his National Security Advisor, “It’s not as if we suddenly put ballistic missiles in Turkey; now that would be goddamned dangerous!” — to which the aide could only sheepishly reply, “Actually, we did, Mr. President.”
I think that's one way of describing it perhaps, but this aggression isn't in a vacuum. It's in response to leaving open invitations to join NATO to countries like Ukraine. We're seeing right this minute why that was never a possibility, as we'd be at the doorstep of WW3, because that is what NATO demands.
But... who the hell believes there's a 0.1% chance that ukraine is a military threat to russia? or that EU/NATO is a military threat to russia? I don't doubt both the EU and US have screwed over russia before via nato expansion but it's very clear that russia here is the aggressor, ukraine can't exactly defend itself and by all appearances neither NATO, US or EU have the will to militarily defend ukraine. If ukraine can't defend itself and the EU/US/NATO clearly won't AND russia is banking on that... then what legitimate security concerns is russia crying for?
Welp, there's plenty of interviews with putin basically talking about this. Reunification of soviet territory, how great the soviet union was, russia being back as one of the world's big players. My takeway from those is that putin is also that the economy is suspiciously absent from his talking points. And in practice i suppose it means putin can walk into ukraine and take it apart bit by bit and no one will do anything about it.
It doesn't need to be the Warsaw Pact specifically, only that it's analogous to NATO. The US would not tolerate the notion of Russian military installations being installed on their southern border. that's just a fact.
Of course not, but it's easier to overlook that when the US does it because at least optically, they're not as villainous as Putin and Russia seems to most of the west. My only point is the "What about what Russia wants" dog don't hunt because you can't really empathize with his reasoning.
And I get it isn't as simple as "Ukraine good, Russia bad." It's just it looks super fucking bad for Putin. It looks like he's the bad guy here. And that matters when it comes to garnering support.
It's understandable that NATO moving into the next door would want to be stopped by the Russians if at all possible. How is that not understandable to you?
That would be like Russia sending arms and money to the cartels in Sonora to destabilize Mexico and then installing S400 systems there. You're being dense on purpose about this, aren't you?
Let's start with this. How would it be like that?
Why is russia allowed to enlarge the CSTO to Belarus, right beside Poland and the baltics and nobody is allowed to feel threatened, but Ukraine joining Nato is a threat?
On which ground? Are you aware that Russia is heavily armed at the european borders of even states that are not inside nato, like sweden or finland? Why are they not allowed to feel threatened but also not allowed to join nato?
That is your crazy anti imperialist logic. Imperialism is fine, as long as russians do it.
I don't want Ukraine in either EU nor Nato. It does not have the western standard of democracy, which is mandatory to join EU and should also be mandatory to be a member of NATO (but is actually irrelevant, see Turkey).
And trust me, you don't want that either.
For example, there are no left parties in Ukraine. If they join EU, the right wing parties in parliament will rejoice as they now have a 50 million people country pool to draw from.
However what the EU has to do is they seriusly have to make a plan for their future, because out of the remaining Non-EU European Countries, only few are proper democracies and Norway and Switzerland don't want to join, Britain just left... That leaves us with Iceland, I guess? I am not informed about North Macedonia or Bosnia or Albania, but the rest, Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Serbia,... These aren't democracies.
So how to unite Europe? What is clear is that the EU has to unite Europe and not NATO. Nato has nothing to do with uniting the people.
Yes I do. I want it in Nato and EU. That does not mean right now, but on the longer term. And the same goes for georgia, norther macedonia, albania and moldova.
In order for them to join the EU, for many it is necessary to start with democratic reforms first,. But that is why the EU as ascension treaties that prepare states to join. The same should be done with Ukraine.
Right now, shutting the door to georgia or moldova to join nato seems absurd. The russian aggression happens to states whether even if they dont push for nato, so why should we not extend nato to protect other states? That would be just doing what Putin wants without deterring him from attacking.
I agree in that there's a huge risk in actually engaging russia. Though there's also a risk in simply letting it reclaim former soviet territories. As far as the metaphorical credit cards, that's not how money works. The reality is that US, nato and EU have the resources to engage here. And win handily, barring the nukes flying. They simply don't have the will for it. It is looking increasingly like russia will simply easily take whichever chunks of ukraine it sets to get and the west will simply keep throwing sanctions at putin which he will ignore. Just remove them from swift already.
Welp, there's plenty of interviews with putin basically talking about this. Reunification of soviet territory, how great the soviet union was, russia being back as one of the world's big players. My takeway from those is that putin is also that the economy is suspiciously absent from his talking points. And in practice i suppose it means putin can walk into ukraine and take it apart bit by bit and no one will do anything about it.
There is no universe in which Russia 'reuinifies' with a whole host of well-established countries.
In, what, 20 years he'd be about 2-3% there going by land mass. Maybe less.
And for some reason I can't find any speech where he name-checks any complete country of many that have separated from the former soviet block. As opposed to dealing with ethnic pockets around the periphery of the country. Does he speak of a strong, united Russia as a nationalist? Yes. Does he speak of annexing a dozen entire countries? No.
Then there are curiosities like why he'd befriend the Russian Orthodox Church. Or repatriate the remains of anti-soviet philosopher Ivan Ilyin. Not exactly 'soviet' things in spirit or practice.
Which is why if reunification is his goal he'd need at least another 10 lifetimes (or more), and could be said to be failing miserably at it in the meantime.
Let's start with this. How would it be like that?
Why is russia allowed to enlarge the CSTO to Belarus, right beside Poland and the baltics and nobody is allowed to feel threatened, but Ukraine joining Nato is a threat?
On which ground? Are you aware that Russia is heavily armed at the european borders of even states that are not inside nato, like sweden or finland? Why are they not allowed to feel threatened but also not allowed to join nato?
That is your crazy anti imperialist logic. Imperialism is fine, as long as russians do it.
So, just to be clear. Arming your own border (no one in the world believes Russia is posed to invade Nordic states for fucks sake) is "imperialistic" but projecting power thousands of miles away at the doorstep of your cold-war enemy isn't?
Tell me, which came first, and which is a reaction the the former?
There is no universe in which Russia 'reuinifies' with a whole host of well-established countries.
In, what, 20 years he'd be about 2-3% there going by land mass. Maybe less.
And for some reason I can't find any speech where he name-checks any complete country of many that have separated from the former soviet block. As opposed to dealing with ethnic pockets around the periphery of the country. Does he speak of a strong, united Russia as a nationalist? Yes. Does he speak of annexing a dozen entire countries? No.
Then there are curiosities like why he'd befriend the Russian Orthodox Church. Or repatriate the remains of anti-soviet philosopher Ivan Ilyin. Not exactly 'soviet' things in spirit or practice.
Which is why if reunification is his goal he'd need at least another 10 lifetimes (or more), and could be said to be failing miserably at it in the meantime.
You do not need to annex dozens of countries if they do you bidding. It is very clear that Putin wants the UDSSR back with a modern coloring.
You could see in Belarus and Kasachstan that you don't need to formally be part of russia to very obviously be part of the russian order.
And nobody should think that Russia does not want Europe to look like that. Ukraine is the first victim of his fascist (and that is what it should be called) movement to shuffle the global order in his favor.
So, just to be clear. Arming your own border (no one in the world believes Russia is posed to invade Nordic states for fucks sake) is "imperialistic" but projecting power thousands of miles away at the doorstep of your cold-war enemy isn't?
Tell me, which came first, and which is a reaction the the former?
It is imperialist to invade several other states in europe in recent history, whether they wanted to be in nato or not and build up an armada of forces at several borders, even to states that are not in nato. YES!
It is not imperialist if ukraine wants to be in Nato without any Nato troop buildup at any russian border. HOw is russia threatened if it has far, far, far more soldiers at any of its borders than vice versa? tell me.
Somethousand Nato troops in the baltics are a threat russia cries about, obviously, a bazillion troops INSIDE of another country and invading its capital are not.
Obviously, it is mean if ukraine decides to join nato, while belarus joining the csto is fine and dandy, even tho belarus openly tried to destabilize poland by moving refugees there.
YOU said that the west would never accept someone stationing troops near its borders. That is bullshit, Russia does it all the time and Europe rarely complained or did any act of hostility.
