Nato members have pledged their support for an “irreversible path” to future membership for Ukraine, as well as more aid.
While a formal timeline for it to join the military alliance was not agreed at a summit in Washington DC, the military alliance’s 32 members said they had “unwavering” support for Ukraine’s war effort.
Nato has also announced further integration with Ukraine’s military and members have committed €40bn ($43.3bn, £33.7bn) in aid in the next year, including F-16 fighter jets and air defence support.
The bloc’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: “Support to Ukraine is not charity - it is in our own security interest.”
You must log in or register to comment.
I wonder why most neighbours of Russia want to join NATO. Being an aggressive neighbour is the only reason. Russia wants to control their neighbours.
Starting to notice a lot of Tankies jumping to .world because they let .ml slide enough that enough of us ban .ml users on sight
edit: Site to Sight.
This sentiment makes me sad.
I chose .ml because it was smaller than .world (and that seemed to be the point of federation) but was also generic (my interests are very varied) and had great uptime, and didn’t de-federate or had been de-federated by many instances. Now people say stuff like this and I feel the need to change instances because I don’t want people to tar me with that brush (and I have been accused directly multiple times just because of my instances) but I feel conflicted because the whole point of this while thing was that we could be on any instance we liked and it shouldn’t impact our “social standing”. I’m disappointed in people that they can’t judge a person by the content of their character rather than the instance they are on. And alas - I feel it’s only a matter of time before I’m forced to change instance because of other people’s prejudice.
Removed by mod
Technically the .ml stands for Mali lol
Sure, but that’s not why they picked it
Not OP. I didn’t realize what the .ml stood for, so thanks for the info!
Yeah, most of these responses from me now aren’t fully for the people I’m talking to, Tankies here argue in INCREDIBLY bad faith, they lie about their intentions and purposely leave out parts of their beliefs they know are unpalatable, so I block the people I’m responding to fairly quickly. But I put rebuttles up when I have spare emotional/mental energy so that those who read can start seeing these guys for what they are (obsessed with violent revolution)
I’m not gas lighting you and I didn’t know that was the intended acronym of .ml
If that’s true then I will be moving instance.
BTW I’ve not been blocked (to my knowledge) by anyone- I’ve just had a couple of instances where I’ve been in discussion with someone and when they turn to ad hominem attacks they’ve called me a tankie or some such. Regardless of what was being discussed or my views.
Wait, people actually think Russia or China would be any different of they had the US’ influence? That’s crazy. It’s like folks never heard that quote that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Any country that ends up with that amount of influence will inevitably resort to bs to maintain that power, even if it was a harmless, pacifistic country like Switzerland.
Wait, people actually think Russia or China would be any different of they had the US’ influence?
They’ve got different leaders, different economies, and different cultures. Brazil, India, and Indonesia would also be different were they to enjoy US influence.
Any country that ends up with that amount of influence will inevitably resort to bs to maintain that power
There’s a big difference between soft influence and hard military power. In the wake of WW2, the US enjoyed both by being the last major industrial power still standing. This offered their financial sector an enormous amount of sway in how developing/recovering countries reentered the industrial world. Similarly, they only had one remaining international military peer by the end of the war (in part because they helped the USSR rearm in the wake of German continental invasion). So they were free to throw out both banks and military bases on a global scale.
But all of this was a consequence of a unique historical moment, created at the end of the 19th century colonial era and perpetuated by the US/Soviet schism during the Cold War.
We’re no longer in a Cold War, we don’t have a single globe-spanning economic superpower, the US has repeated demonstrated an inability to project its military across hemispheres, and the soft financial power of the western states has eroded significantly since the 2008 financial crisis.
The BS we’re seeing today is not a failure of large influential blocks to maintain influence. Its a failure of a large mercantile system to reconcile with the contradictions of an economy that demands infinite continuous upward growth.
If the US focused on internal development, rather than profit-seeking outsourcing, China and India would be integrated partners rather than rivalrous superpowers. If the US had struck a detante with the USSR and integrated their economies, rather than playing wack-a-mole with anti-colonialist uprisings across Latin America, Asia, and Africa for sixty years, we’d have a more stable industrial base and fewer poverty-driven insurrections. If the US had stopped sucking at the teet of Middle Eastern fossil fuels and pivoted to green/nuclear energy back in the 60s/70s when the time was ripe, we wouldn’t be staring down the barrel of a climate apocalypse that threatens all the capital accumulation we’ve achieved to date. And we wouldn’t have the Radical Islamic Extremism boogeyman to whip everyone into a terrified lather.
There are so many moments when things could have gone differently (for better or worse - I guess we could be living in Nuclear Winter right now). This history is not a given and the future is not set in stone.
They would also be abusive, but currently the country projecting the most power in the world is undoubtedly the US. It’s not good to have a single world power that is so dominant. Us peasants are given little goodies if the ruling class feels the need to compete instead of simply occupying the number one spot in the world uncontested.
I have a VERY hard time believing you’re in .ml and haven’t seen users acting like Russia and China can do no wrong
I usually browse by all, but you’re right, I’ve seen people defending them. Though thinking they would be saints if they had the power is insane to me.
Hexbear and Lemmygrad though, have incredibly weird takes to me, especially on Ukraine.
Fair enough, it doesnt sound like I’d have any problems with you in particular, not that you need to justify yourself to me
To be fair, I only joined .ml because .world wasn’t a thing when I joined and srlpnk and a few others had closed registrations at that time
What’s hexbear? Another instance?
It was the most Tankie toxic instance that was around during the reddit migration, once the Gaza shitshow started full scale, they were celebrating the slaughter of Isreali citizens that Isreal used as an excuse to up their warcrimes on Gaza. Most of the new lemmy migrants realised real quick we had no tolerance for these bloodthirsty fucks and started blocking them en mass, at that point .ml was relatively low radar despite what ml stands for, but as more of us started blocking anything and everything hexbear, ml started recieving more users who werent satisfied being disgusting in silence
Oh I see. I’m not a tankie but Israeli civilians are really just settlers working to uphold apartheid and genocide. Most Israeli civilians have been killed by their own IDF. I can’t feel sorry for them since they made a deal with the devil.
Lmao ok then buddy enjoy your block.
Enjoy being on the wrong side of history.
judge a person by the content of their character
forced to change instance because of other people’s prejudice.
Sorry if I’m getting the wrong impression here, but the moderators with whom you choose to associate is pretty easy to change and not a part of who you are.
deleted by creator
This sentiment is exactly what I’m talking about.
I’m not associated with the moderators anymore than your average user of .world is associated with their’s.
My point is, yes I can choose to change instance but why should I? Lemmy is meant to embody the best of us - and yet some of us are creating “us and them” situations.
I mean, we are.
Why would you join an instance where the mods don’t align with your own preferences in terms of moderation?
If there were an instance where the mods were open nazis and banned any pro-LGBT posts, me being on that instance at the very least means I have no problem having to maintain that standard of conduct, if I don’t actively co-sign it.
Having one or two mods who are cunts is one thing, having a whole mod/admin team with an explicit political agenda and line to toe is not the same.
Removed by mod
Generally mods are retards, so…
And you thought that comment wouldn’t be moderated?
Just tired of their horseshit.
It happens everywhere.
And you’re associated with the mods in the same way that you’re associated with the government representatives of your nation. And I can tell you from experience that even though I don’t know the president or any of the representatives, I still get shit from people in other countries for the shit they do.
Yeah, it sucks that you’re getting guilty by association, but that’s just a base human trait and naivety about how humans behave won’t change the fact that this shit is going to be part of any human-based micro-culture. The nice part about online communities, though, is it doesn’t cost you your life savings to up and move to a more palatable location.
I’m not naive to that fact, I just don’t like it.
That’s the whole difference, though. I wouldn’t make the same claim about moving to another country, for which switching costs are astronomical.
Communities on .ml are moderated in a way that pisses people off, especially in regard to politics.
People that judge someone with an .ml name on an different instance and a different community are acting like clowns. They’re just being lazy and/or prejudicial.
I feel conflicted because the whole point of this while thing was that we could be on any instance we liked and it shouldn’t impact our “social standing”.
I don’t think that was ever the point of federation, especially with defederation as an option, specifically to deal with instances that don’t follow generally accepted morays.
It sucks that you’re going to have to abandon the instance you initially picked, but it happens to the best of us. I picked kbin initially, and abandoned that after a while due to the increasing toxicity, and the increasingly large lack of features or development by the one person doing it.
Eh, they use .ml to mean marxist-leninist. I have an inkling feeling you too would be wary if you saw a comment by “[email protected]”.
I was unaware of that when I posted this.
I might judge someone based off the usage of “tar me with that brush”
Don’t worry too much about it; downvote and move on.
My advice would be to just ignore people like that who rush to name calling without contributing anything to the discussion.
Just another asshole on the internet…Oh look, another .marxist-lennonist who served themselves up to my blocklist =D
Never knew this was a thing. I just choose a random instance when I joined Lemmy.
Got banned recently for being critical about “Apple & China relationship” and sourced a few articles in privacy channel or whatever its called.
I didn’t know why I was banned because according to their rules and didn’t break any rules, so I messaged a few mods for a response.
Please don’t ban me… I joined .ml because it was privacy, security and FOSS focused! I had no idea about the ancillary political focus now associated with it.
1: I’m just a user, if its just me blocking you, it’s likely not going to impact your lemmy experience much
2: While the .ml tag means I instantly am wary/distrust you, the autoblock happens when you try and justify anything Russia and China has done.
Maybe Ukraine deserved to be invaded? Block
Countries surrounding Russia lining up to join Nato is a sign of expanding US Hegemony? Block
Isreali citizens deserved to be gunned down and r***** because they are settlers and not human? You better believe thats an autoblock
(China’s not currently on this example list because they havent done anything in the last few months. I guess you could replace Ukraine for Taiwan in the first example)
(But really, if you are still in .ml and not a Tankie, you should move instances, that instance is too far gone for it to recover)
edit: And before one of you fucknuts “WHATABOUT GAZA” 's me, yeah FUCK the GOVERNMENT of Isreal for what they are doing to Gaza currently, two warcrimes dont make a right
The mind of the tankie cannot comprehend such logical consistency
Mention Gaza? Block. Straight to block.
Take too long to denounce Russia? Block.
Denounce Russia too fast? Believe it or not, block. Straight to block.
We have the best echo chamber in the world, because of block.
I’m joking, obviously. Putin can die in a fire, and I want him to live long enough to suffer from it first. I just ALSO have no faith in the West to be much better. Seems like around here if you’re not firmly in one camp, you must be in the other.
Look man, North America sucks, but I’d rather have the States as a Superpower than Russia or China. So if you’re gonna suck those two off by defending the invasion of Ukraine or suggesting Taiwan should merge back with China, I dont have time for that. And for the Gaza thing? I dont particularly value the opinions of those who relish the thought of dehumanizing a population, The Isreal/Gaza situation is a horrific generational clusterfuck and both Hamas and the Israeli Government can go fuck theirselves, a terrorist attack, while “understandable” is never something to celebrate, and what the Isreali Government is using that as an excuse to do is abhorrent.
Edit: (Trump getting in again would definitely fuck with whether or not I’d prefer the States being the Superpower tho, although I’m not sure yet how that’d change the rankings)
Countries surrounding Russia lining up to join Nato is a sign of expanding US Hegemony? Block
But… it is, isn’t it?
Go ahead and block if you want. The important thing is that you don’t encounter any ideas that make you uncomfortable.
I wonder why its specifically the Countries surrounding Russia. You arent adding anything to my worldview with braindead takes like yours
I wonder why its specifically the Countries surrounding Russia.
Any countries joining Nato would be a sign of growing US hegemony, not just the countries around Russia.
Yeah, its a large instance, and you need some inside knowledge to know about the political leanings.
Fun fact, they chose .ml to abbreviate marxist-leninist
I joined .ml because it was privacy, security and FOSS focused!
Sort of the joke in all this. The .ml users are “raiding” the sub because they like the advanced feature set.
I chose whatever I am because it was the first one I saw when I made the jump
I’m not saying all world members are Tankies, I’m just saying that I’m seeing a whole lot more Russian apologia coming from .world users (China hasnt done something fucked in the news recently aside from that fuel/food thing that hit front page today) than I used to. Which is a similar pattern that I saw with .ml once most of us wised up to banning the fuck out of hexbear
The difference is that .world admins will ban those people if they break the rules, while .ml ones will ban those who report them.
Yeah, I’m not raising pitchforks yet, just noting an observation. If this becomes a treadmill it’d just make curating lemmy more tiring than it already is
edit: Fine, I’ll rephrase. Unless mod infiltration happens, I likely wont ever raise pitchforks towards .world.
.ml and Hexbear got as bad as they did because they encouraged and sheltered Tankies, which I agree with you doesnt happen in world
On a certain level it’s healthy that people who have ideologies we disagree with are allowed to participate in discussions, on the other hand on lemmy tankies are an endemic threat because they themselves don’t accept or tolerate opposition, and openly abuse tolerance whenever it’s extended to them.
I suggested this elsewhere but I do think the liberal side of fediverse should build some sort of moderation compact to ensure that neutrality is maintained and that subverting an instance becomes at least harder, if not impossible.
So like, I get that first point, echo chambers arent particularly healthy, but I have two points counter to that
1: The people I’ve decided to shut out arent really driving any real nuanced discussion. Its heavily “America Bad, Russia Good”. Sure we can talk about American Hegemony, but if you want to bring it up in response to Countries seeing one of their neighbors invading another neighbor and seeking military protection from being invaded themselves, yeah no, America wasnt the driving force behind this recent push. Further, it was the most recent ignition of the Isreal Gaza clusterfuck that drove my particular hatred of Tankies. You see enough people cheering on a massacre and you dont really want to listen to them anymore
2: I’m on the internet in my free time, I’m not paid to be here, nor am I here to make the world a better place, my own mental health takes priority over contributing to a more fair and varied discussions, and Tankies are particularly bad for engaging in bad faith discussions and I dont want to get 4-5 comments into an arguement before I realise that half of what a person is saying to me is manipulative bulshit, so if they are showing all the red flags of being a Tankie, I’m just going to remove them from being a problem for my future. I’ve half quit Lemmy about 3 times already because of the extremism present here. I dont particularly want to hang out on r/thedonald to see the rights opinion, I’m not gonna listen to a tankie to try and figure out what a reasonable communist might think
I’m trying, but I don’t understand what this has to do with Ukraine NATO membership.
“Anyone who dares to say anything that disagrees with the official western line is a tankie” - you, basically. Anyway, all anyone has to do is look at the upvotes and downvotes to see who really is flooding .world and it’s not the tankies like you claim with your victim complex post.
“Anyone who dares to say anything that disagrees with the official western line is a tankie” -
More like ‘anyone with a comment history rabidly defending the acts of nations like Russia and China because anti-US’. You know, like your comment history.
You lot have been popping up here more and more as your havens get banned by people. But at least we can still block you directly.
“Rabidly defending” in this case being me simply stating that there is more to the situation than what the official western propaganda states and then having dozens of people like you jumping down my throat with angry replies and downvotes. My mistake for taking the time to respond to these people, thus giving me this “comment history”. Russia is obviously in the wrong for invading Ukraine, but we need to examine why it did it so we can prevent something like that from happening in the future. Apparently there is no room for nuance for people like you, it’s just good guys vs bad guys and you’re obviously always the good guy.
Speaking of havens, it’s also people like you who shriek endlessly about the need to eradicate all “tankies” as you march towards your goal of turning the fediverse into reddit 2.0. Go ahead and block me, you obviously can’t stand to see an opinion that doesn’t totally agree with your own.
Anyone who has experienced the horrors of the USSR or Russia knows appeasing them or sympathetic to nonsense like “why they invaded” as if their reason was anything beyond narcissistic theft, murder, and imperialism is either ignorant or malicious.
Please look into Soviet history, its involvement in genocide, its displacement of people, its alignment with the Nazis at the beginning of WW2, its subjevation and murder of millions of central and Eastern European countries. Normal decent people do not defend Russia.
You could make the same argument with the US yet you think they had nothing to do with the situation because…?
Tankies in shambles.
Tankies are never in shambles. If Ukraine doesn’t join NATO they’ll say “See, NATO was just using Ukraine” and if Ukraine joins NATO they’ll say “See, NATO is expanding east again”. Tankies are never wrong when it comes to believing their own delusions.
Sounds like a cult that would follow a racist rapist with 34 felonies.
Nah, their preferred leaders typically have the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on their conscience.
You’re in luck! The racist rapist with 34 felonies is on record saying he would finish the genocide FASTER. Ya’ll like that right?
Ah so give him time to impress them then?
Well both seem to abhor democracy, so I guess…
bOtH sIdEz
deleted by creator
You posting this screenshot around means you don’t understand that this is a self own on your part. Captain_Pronina is undoubtably correct. The people who believe the Uyghur genocide is happening are morally correct even if they get proven wrong in the future. This is because their stance is against genocide no matter what, which is a just stance. Tankies, on the other hand, don’t care about genocide, they care about simping for the CCP. That is why they’re participating in genocide denial now with Ukraine, Tibet, and the Uyghurs. Genocide denial, especially when it’s plausible, is immoral. So even if their denial turned out to be correct, they’re still evil morons because their initial reaction was to deny the genocide rather to stand against it or figure out the truth.
I mean, I’ve seen tankies spin anything to fit their narrative, I’m sure they’ll continue to do so. Remember, anything resembling support of Ukraine is an act of aggression against Russia, and tantamount to unilaterally starting WWIII.
I just have to wonder what the state of the NATO coalition is going to be if Trump takes office a second time.
Probably dented for quite a while but Europe is already in the process of re-arming and there are no existential threats that could prevent it buffalo buffalo buffalo from doing so. Russia can’t take all of the EU or European NATO countries at once and Chinas military and navy aren’t set up with long distance power projection in mind. The only exception would be the US itself if they really went off the deep end on a second Trump term.
Europe is already in the process of re-arming
They’re in the process of shoveling fortunes into a ravenous private sector arms industry.
Russia can’t take all of the EU or European NATO countries at once
None of these countries want a repeat of WW2. Quite a few have large right wing nationalist blocks sympathetic to Putin’s United Russia white nationalist model.
This won’t be a fight between Russia and the EU. It will be a war of economic attrition that favors the international arms industry and cripples the domestic service sector, to the outrage of domestic people.
Zbigniew Brzezinski is disappointed with you.
My God, it’s like the 80s took a shit
Tankies in disarray!
Tankies have blood shooting out their penises
Hip hip hooray!
That was a way worse path to NATO membership than just fixing the corruption issues that were keeping them out of NATO in the first place.
I thought they denied membership to Ukraine for being too corrupt
I don’t think the decision was ever on the table. But corruption is present in all countries, including the NATO members, so that’d be a bit hypocritical, especially now considering they’re fighting for freedom and democracy. Supposedly what the alliance exists for.
for freedom and democracy. Supposedly what the alliance exists for.
What? It’s been founded by a bunch of colonial nations (not ex-colonial at that point) still from time to time fighting colonial wars with war crimes and such. It has Turkey of all genocidal bastards as an important member.
The only reason for its existence was accumulating power. Well, as with all alliances.
Of course, kinda motivated by USSR redesigning its ground forces for capturing large parts of the world after they’ve been nuked. I’m not joking, that’s the reason ex-Soviet militaries so terribly suck at actually fighting - they are sort of a different mechanism, more like huge mobile garrisons to deploy in wastelands. Their analog of western ground forces was, say, VDV in Russia ; which is why despite nominally having the narrow function of paradropped assault troops, they’ve been used for every kind of thing important.
But corruption is present in all countries, including the NATO members, so that’d be a bit hypocritical,
Yes, and also weird.
I don’t think the decision was ever on the table.
Yes, when after 2 years of war and hundreds of thousands dead they meet and sign something about “discussing help to Ukraine” in case fighting gets more intensive by not clear which criterion - it means Ukraine is not becoming a member.
About “irreversible path” - they’ve said such things about Georgia too. Ivanishvili’s party is not good, but there’s been plenty of time before they started acting like now.
I’m not familiar with that so I looked it up and found this article:
- EXPLAINER: Ukraine not joining NATO so why does Putin worry? (apnews, Feb. 2022)
“Ukraine has long aspired to join NATO, but the alliance is not about to offer an invitation, due in part to Ukraine’s official corruption, shortcomings in its defense establishment, and its lack of control over its international borders.”
Maybe opinions have changed amongst NATO decision makers.
Just vague memories from a random on the web. But IIRC, they were not welcome in part because of corruption of the previous leader’s administration, and one of the first things Zalensky did was crack down on that.
and one of the first things Zalensky did was crack down on that.
Rather replace Russia-dependent corruption with more generalized corruption.
That was something the current administration cracked down on. Plus with the war, there isn’t a lot of loose money floating around, but there’s lots being spent on military and infrastructure, so they’re making enough in legit business to not need to use corrupt means to get it. And a lot of the Russian oligarchy has left which was part of why they didn’t want them.
Nuke time
On one hand, Russia deserves to be nuked. On the other hand, I don’t want innocent people to die. So unfortunately no nukes.
“I hope you know what you’re doing…”
No, there’s no possible way the NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, former Prime Minister of Norway, would know anything about European politics and military policy.
And there’s certainly no one he could consult on the matter.
Well then I guess there is nothing to worry about…
There’s lots of things to worry about. The Earth has gone above an average temperature of 1.5° C since the Industrial Revolution began. We’re running out of fresh water globally. PFAS is everywhere and microplastics are in every man’s testes.
And you’re worried about whether or not someone who likely knows a hell of a lot more than you do about international policy along with all of their expert advisors know what they’re doing.
I never said he didn’t. I just said I hope he does.
And then when I told you that he does, you responded with a sarcastic, “well then I guess there is nothing to worry about.”
And now here we are.
The purely defensive pact keeps on expanding.
Yeah, right after Russia invades one country, capturing and killing men, women, and children while threatening other countries. Weird…
It didn’t start there.
Where did it start?
It started when the USSR collapsed and the purely defensive pact that was created solely to fight off the USSR wasn’t dissolved with it. It became an organization looking for a purpose.
And Russia has not been an aggressor since… “please list all russian backed invasions since 1990”
The US is objectively more of an aggressor. Where’s the NATO equivalent for fighting them off? Oh right, dismantled, stomped on, and now taking victory laps around it.
Where’s the NATO equivalent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
Headquartered in Moscow.Now think for yourself why Ukraine would rather protect itself from being invaded by Russia than by the US.
Im no defender of the US but they are not actively expanding into neighbouring territory. And there is nothing stopping Russia approaching Canada and Mexico about a military alliance, except the reality of the how absurd it is.
So? They are not forcing anyone to join. Unlike certain other countries
So then how should russia feel and respond to this?
Should anyone start invading when their feelings are getting hurt now?
How did the US feel when Cuba allowed russia to put weapons there? Let me answer the question; Kennedy threatened complete war and the destsruction of the world. Should the Soviets have put weapons in Cuba?
Sure, invade the US. Ukrain has nothing to do with it.
Cool, you didnt answer the question. The problem is that if you actually think about it for a second you will realize how this whole thing was directly caused by NATO/American interference. I am not infavor of countries invading but its not the “UNPROVOKED!!” bullshit line they keep repeating. This war was completely avoidable.
Disengage from Ukraine and stop invading countries.
Well, generally, Russia can go fuck itself.
They should feel that they lost the cold war and their kleptocracy isn’t conductive to expanding their already reduced sphere of influence, so they better make peace with the fact.
Since they dont feel this and feel directly threatened, why should NATO/America keep pushing it till war?
'cause they can. There’s no good guys in international politics, you can check out an history book to confirm that.
So are you going to be the one sent overseas to die in a country that most people dont care anything about?
you clearly aren’t grokking what I’m trying to communicate
By minding their own business? Why would they care?
The care because they believe it is a direct move of aggression and endangers their people. Why did the US care during the Cuban missile crisis?
The coup in 2014 was carried out by force.
Lmfao stfu Tankie.
It’s a “coup” when I dislike it, and a glorious revolution when I do. /s
That’s why the west calls it the “revolution of dignity” lol. Do you have any sense of self-awareness? Such dignity having the CIA up your ass to make your country more west-friendly.
“revolution of dignity”
Is what Ukrainians called it after countless of them were murdered by police in the streets and they successfully ran their Pro-Putin dictator out of the country. Seethe harder fascist.
The people of Iraq also welcomed the US as liberators.
I mean, have you ever been there? I have, it was incredibly corrupt, and this was AFTER 2014. it’s not so unbelievable that people tried to enact a change…
The CIA paid a million people to stand out in the could for months on end? Whoa, where do they keep all these actors?
I’m not doing your work for you tankie. Quote the part of the article that supports your thesis.
You all do this same thing, throw a book at someone and when they refuse to bow to your demand to waste their time you declare victory.
But while the gains of the orange-bedecked “chestnut revolution” are Ukraine’s, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.
Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.
Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.
Arguments against the Orange Revolution being a coup:
The protests were sparked by widespread allegations of election fraud and corruption, which were supported by international observers and the Ukrainian opposition.
The protests were largely peaceful, with only a few instances of violence and property damage.
The Supreme Court of Ukraine annulled the election results, citing irregularities and fraud, and ordered a revote.
The new president, Viktor Yushchenko, was elected through a fair and transparent process, with international observers monitoring the election.
While there are valid arguments on both sides, the majority of evidence suggests that the Orange Revolution was a popular uprising rather than a coup. The protests were sparked by widespread discontent with the election results and the government’s handling of the election, and were largely driven by Ukrainian citizens rather than foreign powers. The Supreme Court’s decision to annul the election results was based on allegations of fraud and irregularities, and the subsequent election was monitored by international observers. Ultimately, the Orange Revolution was a significant event in Ukrainian history that led to the country’s transition towards democracy and closer ties with the West.
TL;DR Russia is poor af and everyone but American middle class settler tankies who live comfortably in the US want blue jeans and VW Jettas and not to suffer under the gangster oligopoly of Russia’s petro state.
Tankies keep pretending that this isn’t true because the US intelligence agencies opportunistically tipped the the unrest in Ukraine in their favor, just like Putin has done in ever country that is in his sphere.
Fun fact: Putin, the man that tankies slavishly uphold as a stalwart of US imperialism was himself installed into power by the CIA to keep Soviet candidates from taking back power through democratic election held after the first term of Boris Yeltsin was about to be ended, which he was almost assuredly going to lose.
Tankies continue to be played like a Switch by western intelligence and it will ultimately lead to Russia’s demise. All their accusations of everyone being western stooges is PURE F***ING PROJECTION
First you intentionally make the dumbest interpretation of how a situation can occur, then when I post an article that shows exactly how something like this goes down, you call me a name, refuse to read, and revel in your ignorance. A simple article is not a book. Operations to subvert politics in a country take many years, even decades, and the article talks about US operations to interfere in the politics of Ukraine. Do you think you can make the connection between that and what happened around a decade after that article was written or is this too difficult for you?
No you threw a link at me and expecting me to strain out whatever point you were trying to make. And you still won’t do the simple act of concisely presenting whatever you think proves you right. Instead you caterwaul for two paragraphs worth of text.
It’s probably because you’re trying to walk me to your point of view and the article really doesn’t contain the definitive proof you think it does.
All you ML propaganda tactics are predicated on deception which you justify by saying it’s for the revolution.
Your praxis does not work in the information age where anyone can fact check your biased premise.
And yes I’m well aware that western governments foment decent artificially. That doesn’t prove anything about the euromadien protests. We all know if there were some ML uprising you would not accept the idea that it was BS because western govs do velvet revolutions. Before you say that doesn’t happen Lenin him fucking self was smuggled out of Europe by Anglo bourgeoisie to overthrow the Czar.
Even if thats true (spoiler, it isnt) there have been plenty of free, internationally recognized (not just by the west), elections since them.
I wonder why? What happened recently to get all these nations lining up to join Nato?
NATO started expanding long before the current conflict.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, many former Warsaw Pact and post-Soviet states sought to join NATO.
Weird that the nations previously under authoritarian rule suddenly wanted to be part of a defensive pact once they had their freedom. That’s such an unforeseen outcome.
I mean, can you believe fucking NATO man? They were such assholes to check notes expand by allowing countries in who wanted to be in NATO to protect themselves. NATO really should have just dissolved instead of expanding and giving former Soviet block states protection from Russia.
Yes. NATO should have dissolved, or at least decommissioned a large part of their forces. It was formed to defend against the USSR. When that republic ceased to exist, it only continued because it was militarily and financially advantageous to do so.
If your neighbor sets up sniper nests on their roof, and sets up sandbags and barbed wire on the fence line while claiming that it is purely defensive ; would you take them at their word. Or, would you see that as a threat of violent escalation?
And yet here we have Russia, the successor nation showing that NATO needs to be kept around so they don’t invade another neighbor. Remember, Crimea wasn’t the first time this century they’ve done that.
To your example, my neighbor would be within their rights to do that if I have a history of kicking down doors. But I guess violence only matters from one direction, nevermind that so many former client states actively sought protection from this shit happening, especially when Russia can’t be taken at their word to leave neighbors alone.
This is some
logic.
Projection is common among your set, so I’m not surprised you see it that way.
Thanks for letting me know you’re out of arguments though.
Please expand on your comment, it doesnt say much. As I understand it, a sovereign nation has opted to join a group under its own free will due in part to threats, invasions, land grabs and broken agreements by its nuclear capable neighbour.
You’re taking NATO at face value while ignoring the actions taken underground to pry apart any countries who aren’t friendly to the west. Why would the west need to fund operations like this if it was such a voluntary and clearly beneficial relationship?: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
And you are acting like the actions taken by aggressive nations dont factor into this at all. Russia annexed Crimea, is it any wonder they want some sort of protection.
Think about when Russia annexed Crimea and then compare that to the date of the article I linked. Clearly there was more going on behind the scenes and it wasn’t just a matter of Russia deciding one day to expand their territory.
They gotta collectively match the size of Russia to be competitive.
…it is in our own security interest.
No one’s security interests are served by a new era of escalating tensions between Russia and the West. No country has more nuclear weapons than Russia. All efforts should be taken to prevent Russia from becoming desperate enough to use their nuclear weapons. By further isolating and encircling Russia, I think the chances of them using their nuclear weapons increases.
Ok, you’re right, let’s give putain all the territories he wants.
I didn’t say that. I don’t think the options must necessarily be limited to either escalation or appeasement.
Ok, I’ll bite - how do you imagine that? It’s pretty much down to Ukraine and all othet countries laying down weapons if attacked or fighting back and defend their territory. Would love to hear what you imagine being the 3rd option
I think what really scares Russia isn’t Ukraine defending their territory, it’s Ukraine allying with the West. I think Russia sees all these countries joining NATO and it looks to them like their neighbors are joining their enemy, against them. I think that makes them nervous and afraid. I think the only solution is diplomacy.
You’re buying their excuses. Chechnya wasn’t joining NATO. South Ossetia wasn’t joining NATO. Ukraine wasn’t joining NATO before they lost Crimea in 2014.
Russia is an aggressive power that uses military might to hold power over people that do not want to be ruled by Moscow.
I’ve come to the realization that the only people truly believing ruZZian excuses, are people too young to know better. And not in a “hurr it’s all 12 year Olds” kind of way but in a “you have not paying attention to the wider world for long enough to know how some places just are”
And yeah, sure we all know what we want the world to be, but unfortunately right now we have to deal with how things are.
And how things are shows that Russia is clearly in the wrong here, full stop.
It also tends to be people farthest away from what’s going on. The most anti-Russian countries tend to be those geographically closest to Russia. Those on the border with them know what’s at stake and why having military backing against Russian aggression is so important.
They also have the support of the minority that wants to tear down democracy as a ruling principle. Some of those people are quite intelligent, they’re just mean and believe in power, violence and the importance of suffering. In their world the truth is not objective, what is true is whatever the strongest person says it is, because he will hurt you if you disagree. This destruction of objective factuality is a core part of their methodology and overall worldview.
We had to defeat them in a World War just to get to where we are today, but they never did fully give up. Stubborn sorts.
Funny how there was no reply to this comment. I wonder why they didn’t get back to you. Maybe they needed to cook dinner, or go to work, or rethink their entire life.
I hope it’s the last one but I’m not counting on it.
We’ve tried this. Blair’s talks with Putin, Obama’s Russia Reset, energy cooperation in Europe, and that non aggression deal Russia signed with Ukraine.
Putin threw all of that away when he invaded Crimea and then Ukraine.
True peace in the region will be achieved by Putin being removed from power by the Russian people, ending the war at internationally recognised boarders, rebuilding Ukraine letting them choose their own path geopolitically, AND helping Russia rebuild from decades of corruption and kleptocracy.
Until then the only way to stop Putin, who only recognises strength, is to fight back.
True peace in the region will be achieved by Putin being removed from power by the Russian people, ending the war at internationally recognised boarders, rebuilding Ukraine letting them choose their own path geopolitically, AND helping Russia rebuild from decades of corruption and kleptocracy.
If that is the best path to peace, then I hope all of those things are achieved. But, if other possibilities need to be considered, I’m open to considering them.
He’s not interested in peace. Russia’s demands for a ceasefire are maximalist and would essentially erase Ukraine as a nation. They only pay lip service to diplomacy for international optics.
Medvedev literally said “we will invade Ukraine anyway after any peace deal goes through”. So how is your stance not appeasement of a warmongering dictator?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill
There isnt, they’ve been tried and failed. Time to block you for outing yourself as a Tankie
You didn’t answer the question.
Diplomacy was utilized before Russians crossed the Ukraine border to launch a full scale invasion. Also back when Russia was “intimidated” by Ukraine’s inherited nuclear arsenal and made agreement they will leave Ukraine alone - and this, among other things led us here.
Now why would they fear Ukraine joining a non-confontational alliance?
And how do you rationalize the fear of your neighbour making new friends by physically attacking them?
I don’t know if you are a russian bot or actually conflicted so I’m giving you a chance to explain what you think Ukraine should really do. In my mind, bowing down to a bully is never ever the answer and support any aid they get in their purely defensive war.
Now why would they fear Ukraine joining a non-confontational alliance?
I don’t think Russia sees NATO as non-confrontational.
And how do you rationalize the fear of your neighbour making new friends by physically attacking them?
I don’t think Russia sees it merely as a “neighbor making new friends,” I think they see it as a neighbor, that they feel culturally connected to, making alliances with their enemy.
I don’t know if you are a russian bot
I am not. I’ve never been to Russia, I don’t know any Russian people. I’m American, I’ve lived in the US my entire life. I’m just trying to look at things from Russia’s perspective, because I think that’s critical, regardless of how we proceed.
explain what you think Ukraine should really do.
I am not against Ukraine defending itself from invasion, nor am I necessarily against them joining NATO. I completely understand why they would want to do that, and I would probably want to do the same. I simply want to find a solution that will result in the least possible loss of life and an end to the conflict as quickly as possible.
Now why would they fear Ukraine joining a non-confontational alliance?
I don’t think Russia sees NATO as non-confrontational.
If Russia is so afraid of NATO attacking them, then why did they withdraw pretty much all troops from the Finnish border? There’s barely border guards there.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt then, mostly because I agree with you that the best solution is the one where the fewest amount of people die.
I think where we diverge is how to achieve this. From what we’ve seen so far, Ukraine surrendering would probably not end the war. At least long term. Russia would use the time to re-arm and retry. Even if they don’t, the people in these new russian territories would be poorly treated and potentially murdered, especially those disagreeing with the peace agreement. That is my honest opinion. Therefore, the only other ways are Russia going home or Ukraine beating them.
The first one isn’t happening, so we end up alternative three.
Do you agree or disagree with my assessment?
Try to empathize with the Russian people and not with the Russian state and things will make a lot more sense.
Ukraine isn’t allying with the west per se, it’s allying with the countries that aren’t in violation of the Budapest accords.
Thank you for the chance to clarify.
Reality and Russia’s perception are likely at odds with one another, but even if Russia’s perception is inaccurate and based on delusion and paranoia, it is nonetheless their perception.
If Russia hadn’t invaded Ukraine they wouldn’t be joining NATO. Same with Finland and Sweden.
Also, if they stopped being dickweeds they could have normal and friendly relations with the West. Russia’s paranoia is the problem, not NATO.
In the last 30-ish years nobody in Europe had considered Russia “the enemy”, on the contrary a lot of people were happy of doing business with them and putain could have chosen a path to integration with the rest of Europe and “the West” in general. I even dreamt of them being a civilised part of EU, along with the rest of the countries on the continent. But no, he had to revive the tsarist empire instead.
In the last 30-ish years nobody in Europe had considered Russia “the enemy”
I don’t doubt that, but I do think there has remained a fair amount of mistrust and animosity between Russia and the United States, possibly a hold over from the cold war era, and I don’t think Russia sees much, if any, distinction between NATO and their enemy the United States.
Before Russia did their heel turn in the aughts, they almost joined NATO after a period of significant cooperation. Russia seeing the U.S., or it’s allies, as enemies is a symptom of Putin turning a fledgling democracy into a dictatorship, not the natural state of affairs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–NATO_relations
Go to the “Development of post-Cold War cooperation (1990–2004)” section and check out “NATO-Russia Founding Act”, “NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council”, and “NATO-Russia Council”.
Back then the talk was pearl clutching over NATO with Russia being seen as some racist white alliance against China, MENA, India, and others in the global south.
Russia only sees us as enemies because Putin needed to create enemies to seize and consolidate power.
Russia should focus inward and become a country that people want to ally with and that people don’t fear will come for them. Start by putting a halt to invasions and murder. It’s some incel, victim-blaming shit from them…work on yourself Russia, be better so you aren’t the creepy guy noone trusts. Sorry if that takes generations of self sacrifice until a new population grows up only seeing your good acts for themselves and wondering why great!grandpa is so mad at a reasonable economic system that they don’t even use in Russia.
Where do you draw the line? If you are happy to give up Ukraine to avoid a nuclear war, where do you stop? Can he take all of Eastern Europe? What about the whole of Europe? Everywhere except your country?
Putin is a bully, and you stand up to bullies.
Besides, he might have the most nukes, but given the maintenance costs for 5,000+ of them and the corruption in Russia, most of them probably won’t work.
I have more cars than all my friends put together.
Of course, they’re all in various pieces, parting out for scrap, and in storage, so only my main driver works…
But hey, I’ve got the most cars!
You draw the line at “stop attacking outside your borders and we don’t have an issue” it isn’t hard…Russia has decided it wants to be seen as the villain and it wants the war to keep going … Has nothing to do with NATO or the US.
Besides, he might have the most nukes, but given the maintenance costs for 5,000+ of them and the corruption in Russia, most of them probably won’t work.
I don’t disagree with the rest of what you said, but this is kind of a silly dismissal. First of all “most of them” don’t need to work. Only a few need to and vast numbers of people will die and the Earth may be poisoned for many years.
Yes, stand up to Putin. Absolutely give Ukraine NATO membership. But don’t act like there’s no risk here. There’s a huge risk.
I wasnt acting like there was no risk, 1 nuke is too many, especially when a dictator has his finger on the button. Russia might have the highest quantity of nukes, but i’d be surprised if they had the most working nukes as the US stockpile isnt far off Russia’s.
Regardless, I wouldnt let the fact Russia is a nuclear capable nation deter us from doing what is right.
Yes, appease the bully, clearly the best strategy.
It worked for Hitler!
…wait.
By allowing Russia to expand it further provokes the west to use nuclear weapons. Huh, guess we’re at a deadlock. I guess Russia could give back what they stole.
I guess Russia could give back what they stole.
They should, but if they don’t, what should be done, knowing that no one’s interests are served by all out war between Russia and the West?
Russia’s annexation of Ukraine is a geographical one. It’s the last corridor of easier mobilisation in Europe. Should the western border close that door, they are quite trapped by borders and the Black Sea with exception of northern approach via Belarus, though a terrible and easily stoppable option.
Should they not have Ukraine, taking more territory in Europe is basically impossible and any dreams of a restored or Empirical Russia are well and truly dead. For all intents and purposes, they will be surrounded by unfriendly borders or impassable natural features. Even if they were capable of some sort of modern Blitzkrieg tactic—theyve proven that could never happen—it wouldn’t work.
Do you feel that there should be some similar sort of compromise if Israel decides to occupy Gaza and the West Bank in perpetuity?
Ah yes, appeasement. A historically winning strategy.
Is instigating wars a winning strategy?
Russia should’ve thought about that before invading Ukraine, it seems.
It is when you win them, something Russia still has to figure out.
That’s funny because Ukraine gave up their nukes and Russia signed the agreement to defend their territorial integrity. Russia’s feelings are irrelevant and if they want to nuke us all so they can get out of a contract they signed, that’s their problem.
Another thing is you can appease someone completely in reality and people like Vladimir Putin will just turn around and say it’s still not enough.
I think it’s the other way around: Russia is aggressive but a show of strength would deter it. In other words, Russia isn’t desperate to avoid a confrontation with the West. Russia wants a confrontation with the West, and it needs to know that that’s a confrontation it won’t win. (China also needs to know that, and it’s watching the situation in Ukraine closely.)
That’s not to say that we should seek out such a confrontation with the goal of intimidating Russia. A high-stakes situation like that does have the risk of escalating out of control. However, the situation in Ukraine is already such a confrontation, initiated by Russia due to its belief that the West is weak. It would have been much better to avoid creating such a belief, but now is too late for that. The best we can do is to avoid reinforcing it and, from a pragmatic perspective, it helps that most of the risk is borne by Ukraine.
In short, the nightmare scenario is Russia invading a NATO country like one of the Baltic states. Then either there is a war between nuclear powers immediately or Western unity collapses and a war between nuclear powers becomes much more likely in the near future. Our best chance of avoiding that is to stop Russia in Ukraine, where we can do so indirectly.
Edit: Also people shouldn’t be down-voting you. You’re making a valid point that needs to be addressed.
I disagree. As the cold war showed, shows of strength escalate, they do not deter. I don’t believe for a moment Russia wants a confrontation with the West or that they believe the West is weak. I think they invaded Ukraine because they were scared of the West. They were scared of Ukraine’s rich agricultural land coming under the control of the West, and they were scared of NATO being on their doorstep. I think the invasion of Ukraine was an act of fear and desperation, and if we continue down this path, more acts of fear and desperation will follow.
NATO has been on their doorstep since its inception, so this argument is unreasonable.
Norway is a founding member and share a border with them.
The geographical argument for Russia wanting to take Ukraine is nonsense BECAUSE of the nuclear threat. Having a physical buffer zone or whatever is complete nonsense in an era where anyone who poses a real existential threat can simply be nuked out of existence and start the apocalypse. A few thousand kms of extra land does exactly zilch to change the calculus for the West starting a war with Russia. Russia wants Ukraine because it wants to make more money, and no other reason.
I think Russia wants Ukraine not in order to make money but in order to have Putin go down in history as the restorer of the Russian empire. That lack of pragmatism is what’s going to make negotiations difficult.
That, but also the fossil fuels underneath Ukraine, let’s not forget about those.
What exactly was the west supposed to do though? They weren’t gonna stop at ukraine. They want to take Moldova, Georgia, maybe even parts of Finland as well before they joined NATO. Stopping then now and letting the countries join nato/eu would solve future invasions. Russia shouldn’t have to feel threatened if they stopped acting like a threat to everyone else.
The scenario you describe has already come to pass. Russia has NATO on their doorstep since Finland joined, Russia’s chances of breaking through the Ukrainian army and actually capturing that agricultural land are rather low even if Western support for Ukraine drops significantly, and Ukraine is going to be friendly to the West and hostile to Russia even if it isn’t allowed into NATO. If this scenario is intolerable to Russia, then whatever would happen is going to happen.
I do think there is a small but significant risk that Russia will use nuclear weapons in Ukraine (a scenario where both escalating and not escalating are likely to be disastrous) if its army is driven back to the border but not if the war becomes a frozen conflict with Russia controlling the territory it currently does. With that said, I disagree that shows of strength don’t deter. Western strength deterred a Soviet invasion of Europe, and it deters a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. There definitely is a risk of escalation, but there always will be. The USA has tried being isolationist before, but it was still drawn into both world wars. It will be drawn into the next one if such a war happens.
With that said, I disagree that shows of strength don’t deter. Western strength deterred a Soviet invasion of Europe
Yes, but it also encouraged the establishment of the “iron curtain” of Soviet satellite states and a nuclear arms race. It’s only by the grace of god, or sheer dumb luck that full scale nuclear war didn’t break out.
I wonder who fucking started the escalations?
Uh… nato…
Removed by mod
You may want to look up the Sudeten crisis/Munich agreement and how effective it was at preventing war.
Ok, I give up. I’ve been down voted to hell and told repeatedly by multiple people that I’m an idiot or a coward or a Russian bot for wanting a peaceful resolution to the conflict, so I’m going to defer to the expertise of all these people and concede the point. It’s not like my opinion was going to change anything anyway.
Removed by mod
Yes, I am an idiot. Thank you for helping me see how stupid I am. I don’t remember saying what you’re saying I said, but you’re so much smarter than me, so you must know better what I said than I do.
Peaceful resolution is not only the easiest thing in the word, it is 100% Russia’s choice…stop invading and go back home and try to make yourself a productive member of the world…start with your own suffering people.Russia was old news and no one cared before the invasions. If you are always treated like the bad guy, you have to put a lot of effort in to selflessly prove you aren’t and the world will take notice…or invade and get shit on and be the villain everyone said you are…
It’s not the world’s call here. Debate the people that actually can change this situation.
That’s the hivemind for you. Personally I don’t think you deserve downvotes for these comments and I don’t think you are a Russian shill. I replied to you because I understand where you’re coming from, and I was trying to get you to see things the way I see them : I actually held the same opinion when Russia annexed Crimea by force in 2014 even though people were already screaming that it was basically Hitler’s playbook. But the fact that Putin didn’t take that easy, huge W when basically the entire world went for appeasement, and instead decided to keep escalating convinced me that he is actually literally applying Hitler’s playbook (and backing it with mutually assured destruction, of all things).
I’ve been thinking about it, and I think I understand why many people have such strong reactions to the situation. Russia did illegally invade a sovereign nation, without provocation. They have killed thousands of innocent people and they have done incredible harm. It’s abhorrent. Any such unjustified invasion (like the US invasion is Iraq, for instance) is abhorrent. I suppose some people view my attempts to dispassionately look for peaceful solutions to the conflict as a kind of tacit support for Russia, or at least indifference. I am not indifferent, and I certainly don’t support their illegal and immoral actions, I just don’t want anything that could lead to more war, or more widespread war. However, as you’ve said, Russia has likely left the rest of the world with few other choices.
Good on you for trying. I gave up a while ago. A consensus has formed, at least on here and on most of the English-speaking internet and lines have been drawn. Contrary opinions are rarely tolerated. Thankfully the rest of the world isn’t as gung-ho on isolating Russia and is actually helping restore some balance, because at the end of the day whether Ukraine is a NATO country or a Russian protectorate in ten years time matters little in the grand scheme of things.
What matters more is that the global pecking order between great powers is disturbed and this will likely lead to frequent local and perhaps generalized conflict in the future. It would be helpful for more countries to remain neutral, so as to help maintain balance and independence, while limiting the reach of great powers, but under such intense competition for global dominance most countries have to pick a sponsor for better or worse. And Ukraine’s leadership has chosen NATO, naturally. Whether they could have remained neutral or not is for historians to debate. Right now, as the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Do the US, Russia, and China have to be enemies? Yes, unfortunately they do. They have competing interests and the decline of the US is leaving space open for others. Hence also the focus on getting Europe more heavily militarized again. So that it can hold its own in the uncertain times to come. That is my understanding.
Why the FUCK would a country choose their invader as a sponsor?
Indeed, why would they? I never said they should, so not sure what you’re upset about.
I’ve learned my lesson, I’m not commenting on anything related to Russia, Ukraine, or NATO again. These people are…passionate, and they are not interested in hearing opinions that run counter to their own.
It’s amazing to see how down voted a contrary opinion can be in this subject.
It’s a little easier to understand if you reversed the situation.
How would the US react if the Russians supported Mexico in joining a military pact against the US, so that the Russians could build military bases and install short range nuclear weapons in Mexico and point then at the US? What would the reaction be if Russian then spent billions of dollars financing the Mexicans from any kind of military aggression from the US?
You can’t threaten someone with a gun and not expect them to eventually shoot you.
It doesn’t matter how anyone feels about my opinion but the more we posture with violence, lies on all sides, anger and an unwillingness to step back and find sensible solutions … the closer we get to nuclear war and the end of civilization.
As an American I think that would all be reasonable…if the official US position was that Mexico has no right to exist, the Mexican people should be forcibly integrated into our society as 2nd class citizens, and the US Army was in the process of a “peacekeeping operation” in Mexico to carry all this out.
For all our flaws, we respect the borders of our neighbors and don’t have irridentist aspirations that belong in the 19th century. Russia is the aggressor here, and they have demonstrated that they have little interest in global peace or human rights, only increasing their sphere of influence.
Continually rolling over for thugs because it’s what avoids nuclear conflict will only lead to a global order based on thuggery, and it likely won’t even avoid nuclear conflict in the end.
I kinda wish the US, Mexico, and Canada were more unified though. I know we are cool, ish, but the American Union (Canadians super love it when you call them North Americans) or something less USA sounding would be kinda great.
Of the 3, the US holds far more geopolitical power. Hence the naming bias.
Call it the North American Trade Union and try to get some of the Central Americans in on it. Also invite Greenland into it just to make that situation where Denmark is part of the EU but greenland isnt more confusing.
I’m no fan of Russia … I’m just stating my opinion because I don’t want to die in a nuclear holocaust because everyone didn’t want to see reason.
There’s only one country in modern history that has spread global influence and threats in every part of the world, imposed, threatened, created and caused violence everywhere for decades while imposing their financial, political and economic powers on everyone everywhere for all of modern history …
… and it isn’t the Russians.
Ah, There it is, the thing that you ultimately wanted to say but tried to be coy about.
“America bad”
And here I thought the topic at hand was Ukraine becoming a NATO member, not AmErIcAn ImPeRiAliSm
NATO is an arm of American imperialism so it’s relevant to the article and conversation at hand.
So if the US gets out of Nato like Trump promised, what then? It magically disolves because there are no sovereign countries in there? Or is it still an arm of american imperialism and all ze eviilz in the world?
It would definitely weaken a ton although I doubt it would immediately dissolve, although its power is heavily based on our leadership and military and anyone who doesn’t see that is pretty naive. Hopefully Europe would help Ukraine enough to make up for us having Trump and probably not helping them anymore, though.
That wasn’t my question.
Probably not helping them? You mean against a trump US joining the Russians. The dude really wants us on the evil side of WW3.
America bad is literally the reason why countries don’t want NATO on their border. You don’t get to ignore that key point and pretend OP was arguing in bad faith.
America invades countries to overthrow their government steal their natural resources. Lybia, Afghanistan, Iraq, even the Genocide in Gaza is made possible by NATO countries doing the weapons logistics.
And yet Russia has multiple borders with NATO countries. “Your opinion” is parroting kremlin propaganda about “the nuclear end” that “will totally happen you guys” and can be summarized by “let’s give Russia everything they want, because they have nukes so they can now rule everyone”
I really don’t care enough about Russia to defend their actions any further but if you look on a map you see Ukraine does not just encircle Russia but actually sticks inwards quite a bit.
And Russia did start getting more imperialist the closer NATO came.
Ah yes the closer NATO came, since before they had east Germany, Poland and other countries.
Dude. Think about what you are saying or read up more. You are repeating russian propaganda and nothing else. This is a land grab invasion. NATO doesn’t have shit to do with it otherwise Russia wouldn’t grab all their troops on NATO borders and move them to Ukraine. They know NATO isn’t an offensive alliance and are using that, then telling people like you bullshit about NATO encroachment, novorossia or other idiotic ramblings.
Sorry, but as Eastern European, we begged for NATO membership because of constant (>200 years) Russian occupation hazard. We only care about America as a strong ally (of many) in the NATO group, there is no imperialism, direct, indirect, effective or otherwise interprettable. It’s a purely defensive pact with all its tenets clearly and publicly laid out.
We could not fight back alone and we wouldnt be able to, because just as to Ukraine and as to Nazis, the amount of meat Russia (yes the whole country, not just Putin) is willing to throw into the meatgrinder is incomprehensible.
Also, these sorts don’t seem to realize that NATO is on Russia’s border regardless of Ukraine’s status. Even before Russia invaded and Finland joined NATO.
They’ve never looked at a fucking map.
I mean… When they’re claiming russia applied to NATO and was rejected… What did you expect, a sound and reasonable mind? They’re literally just repeating their propaganda, nothing more.
Also with modern power projection…we don’t have to be on your border…
Russia might still have invaded without NATO provocation. However while Russia is evil, they do have a very valid point in not wanting NATO next to their border.
Especially since Russia’s NATO application got rejected.
Ukraine not joining NATO
Russia invade Ukraine
NATO now very open to Ukraine joining due to a Russian threat.
See how Russia is causing the NATO membership? Not preventing it.
To me it feels like Russia saying they’re invading due to NATO is just a smokescreen for something else, and a way to get support from their population.
And as it’s caused the NATO membership, Russians can now say “see! We told you so! They are joining just like we said!”, ignoring that they’ve directly caused this outcome.
I wonder if the main reason for this is just to try and better secure the black sea for some reason.
America bad is literally the reason why countries don’t want NATO on their border
Well, so far the only country really throwing a shit fit about having NATO on their border is Russia, probably because NATO membership gets in the way of his neo-USSR expansion plans. Don’t use a plural where it doesn’t belong.
I recall Afghanistan having a NATO problem within their borders. And Lybia. And Iraq. And many other countries.
Despite all the marketing NATO is not a defensive alliance. It is an offensive one in actions.
I also recall Afghanistan having a Russia problem inside their borders. A very large Russia problem that Russia lost. Also NATO didnt even start that, the US did, and was the primary driver of all Afghanistan actions, and then drug some part of NATO into it (which is a separate problem) after the fact. Your point?
What? None of that would have been different without NATO. Iraq did not even involve NATO at all
Oof https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_88247.htm
The participation in the invasion was also NATO participants. Same with the Genocide in Gaza right now where NATO countries are doing the military logistics to provide israel with bombs and tank shells to blow up Palestinian kids.
Either directly or indirectly NATO is just an extension of whatever imperialist escapades we go on. And the few times people actually need it it’s utterly worthless such as Srebrenica and NATO just lets a Genocide happen without doing anything.
You can have independent operations by members states. If a couple of my cousins and myself go and murder someone that doesnt mean it was done by my clan. It just means some people in my clan are murderers, most alliance networks allow independent operations and actions seperate from the alliance.
Removed by mod
Yeah, the Russians totally didn’t force other countries to adopt their economic system and extract their resources for their own gain.
Totally didn’t happen anywhere, especially not in Eastern Europe.
/s
Me as a Romanian: heh. Yup, no post WW2 puppet government extracted our resources, no sirree bob. Totally benevolent soviet occupational forces who bestowed flowers, kisses and rainbows upon the populace.
Same old script. “Ohh NATO forced us!!” “Aren’t you scared of nukes!?!?” “What about America!!?”
I’m just stating my opinion because I don’t want to die in a nuclear holocaust because everyone didn’t want to see reason.
So you are willing to sacrifice Ukraine and its people so you can appeace a dictator for a short while and sleep soundly safe in your bed thousands of miles away … How noble your opinion is
Removed by mod
All the shitheads have been spreading out to alt accounts because their home instances keep getting silenced.
Not very many, thankfully.
“I’m not a fan of Russia, i just unironically spout Russian propaganda.”
Ah indeed, the British empire has been quite bad. /s but not too much
I think your downvotes are because your “reversal” is not particularly valid, not because your opinion is contrary.
As others have said, it would need the US to first be invading Mexico before Russia or other countries start propping Mexico up militarily.
deleted by creator
Cuba.
For your hypothetical scenario to make more sense, the US would have had to annex Baja California just a decade prior, then straight up have gone to forward invasion war with Mexico to annex more, bombing the shit out of the country including children’s hospitals.
In that scenario, fuck yes Mexico would be justified in finding allies to help them maintain sovereignty and protect themselves.
That’s what happens when nations invade one another.
Cuba (country right next to the US) aligned itself with the USSR after Castro’s revolution, and the US has attempted to coup them, invade them, murder their leaders, then sink them in isolation and starvation. I’ve always defended that Cuba had the right of self-determination for their own foreign and domestic policy, and that the US was in the wrong for retaliating against them.
It would be extremely hypocritical of me to defend that Ukraine has no right to self-determine whether they want to be in a defensive pact or not, and whether they want to join the EU or not, just because a third country would like them not to do so - just as it’s extremely hypocritical of tankies and campists to say that Cuba had the right to choose their own future but Ukraine doesn’t.
Yeah, Cuba decided to choose sides in a (cold)war AND become a very real threat to US civilians. As was their right, as you said. Decisions have consequences.
The coups and assassinations were a means of punching them in the decision-makers so maybe the next ones would see the value of remaining out of the fight. The isolation and blockading was to make their population decide the fight wasn’t worth it and call upon their leadership to change stance back to at least neutral. We could have just hit everything they had with long range missiles and bombers and said “don’t join our enemies or else!” as their cities fell over and their island burned
They absolutely had the right to make those decisions and ally with who they want…and had the war gone hot, we would not have taken the time to pick off leaders here and there or blockade them and wag a finger. We would have carpet bombed cities that we heard rumors of leadership being near before entrenched soviet troops could have launched missiles from said cities (they wouldn’t care, it isn’t their country).
It wasn’t retaliation, it was striking a very real and very bad threat before it could get dug in and become permanent.
The parallel with Ukraine isn’t really the same. The US is an international bully and does some vile shit, but we, and our allies, don’t care about Russia (before this)…it was just a big sleeping threat to guard against (say…incase they start conquering neighbors…). Even if the US has bases inside a NATO Ukraine, we wouldn’t start shit with Russia or take their land…people don’t want another world war. Also, we already have all the capability and power to do whatever we want to anywhere in the world. Cuba was a threat because we were pretty much logistically untouchable when it came to prosecuting a war against us…Cuba changed that. These days, we can stuff more insane destructive power inside ONE of our cargo planes that reaches out farther than any plans for Cuba ever had. We don’t have to have a base next door to do war. We could ONLY have a base in Spain and still be an existential threat to Russia these days…and they aren’t taking all of Europe. Honestly, with how empty Russia is, we could set up launchers INSIDE their country and attack them if we really wanted to…
Sorry, I got way ranty…I don’t think your position is without some reason, but I can’t say, for as awful as it was, that Cuba was handled incorrectly given the time frame and threat. I also respect that you stick to your idea that “it is their right to decide” in any case. I just don’t think you realize how fundimentally different those scenarios are beyond a very surface level.
Just putinists apologist nonsense. Just gaslighting the world … they backed us into a corner… they made us deny they have the right to exist as a country, invade them and commit atrocities against their population.
The call is coming from inside the house…
No threat to Russia except free prosperous Ukranians living across the Russian border, who speak russian and have deep ties to Russian population. This by far is the biggest threat to Putin’s health, hence the war.
Oh and the fact that Russia sold gas to Europe though Ukraine and needed to pay. But now Ukraine found a lot of gas in the Donbas also did not help.
It’s all on Russia. Maybe if they weren’t terrible neighbors to neighboring countries, this wouldn’t happen. NATO doesn’t force countries to join, nor does it seek other countries to join. If the country wants to be a part of NATO, they have to apply. I’m tired of seeing this tired talking point.
Yeah if the US had invaded Mexico maybe it would be understandable if they sought Russian help. Your whole comment ignores the fact that Russia invaded a sovereign country in 2014 and continues to kill people every day there trying to take it over. There’s no arguing with bullies like Putin, we learned this lesson with Hitler. Burying them in the ground is better than appeasing them.
That’s not an opinion. That’s the lack of it. Plus a few grams of whataboutism. You’re a victim of Russian propaganda agents.
find sensible solutions
For example? How do you do that with terrorists?
False premise. “A military pact against”.
While it looks that way because Russia is a military invader and overall aggressor, NATO is a defensive pact. If the US decided to attack someone to be a dick, it doesn’t draw NATO in automatically…but if someone attacked a NATO member obligations trigger and everyone dogpiles the foolish attacker. Yes Russia was the boogieman use to get people to join, but it was not “against” Russia exclusively, it was against aggressors.
I get the cuban missile crisis parallel too. But this would be more like Russia and Mexico doing a “we will protect you if the US actually attacks” agreement and the US would just be annoyed with Russian bases that close and halt trade with Mexico as whiney punishment or some such. However, the US doesn’t seem to want to conquer Mexico, so it doesn’t parallel well to reality. Cuba was “let’s put offensive capabilities next to you during a war (cold…but it was a war)” that is self defense and very different.
No matter what, there will be hostile borders around the world and deterrence is all we can do to keep it quiet. Ukraine war would have never happened if it was in NATO, and the US woulda just let Russia sleep despite the strategic advantage of having Ukraine right there. The US has plenty of other horrible shit it does, we don’t conquer with military might.
I also know the story about how Putin tried to play nice with the world and got shit on and not let into the club fully, and this is part of him acting out for that. There is some very small legitimacy, or at least a logic to that claim…but you just don’t take countries anymore, especially if it makes you a threat to the EU.
deleted by creator
It wasn’t relevant. The topic was not about USSR justifications for threatening US soil.
Seems kinda obvious…
deleted by creator
The conversation was NOT about the USSR (not Russia) putting missiles there or if it was justified. It was about Cuba deciding to allow itself to be the staging ground for that action and being dealt with for it…
Sucking Russia off is not a contrary opinion. I’m not going to entertain anyone saying that maybe Russia isnt in the wrong for Invading Ukraine, and maybe the countries providing military support for Ukraine to defend itself are in the wrong for maybe making Russia feel threatened. America does a lot of shit wrong, supporting Ukraine is not one of them in any way.
edit: added accidentally missed half of sentence
What if supporting Ukraine just ends in a loss with a hundred thousand more dead people and less territory; would that have made it a mistake to support Ukraine?
The main issue is that Russia feels that it cant let ukraine join nato, its “the reddest of red lines” and yet they are pushing us toward a direct conflict with russia.
No, the only mistake would be appeasing the dictator by letting him get away with delusional imperialist conquests.
Cool, how do we stop him then without starting WW3 and/or nuclear war?
By helping Ukraine win… which is what we’re trying to do now.
But they knew from day 1 that Ukraine couldnt win. And now that its obvious to everyone else, what is gained by escallating war, spending billions of dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of people?
Everybody thought that Ukraine would fall within a week but it’s been able to go toe to toe with Russia for over two years. Ukraine has every right to defend itself, destroy Russian forces invading it, and join whatever organization it wants. It’s a free sovereign nation. If spending a few billion dollars means we destroy Russia’s capacity to wage war and help Ukraine defend itself, then so be it. Russia can get fucked. They’re the aggressors and they deserve what they’re getting.
If the US invaded Mexico, I would fully support any and every country that supported Mexico in pretty much any way.
Wild that you call out posturing with violence, but seem fine to forgive actual violence.
If the U.S. even thought about invading Mexico, I would support Mexico arming themselves to the teeth.
But Mexico is clearly not worried about it. It would be so catastrophic for the US, even if it somehow succeeded.
This happened once with the Cuban crisis, and humanity still exists thanks to the level headedness of JFK. I’m not sure the situation is comparable as, afaik, no new nukes have been stationed in Europe after the end of the cold war. And it is useful to remind that nobody would have felt the need to join NATO after the end of cold war if they hadn’t felt threatened.
Removed by mod
The US would react with diplomatic protests and perhaps sanctions. If Russia had acted that way with Ukraine it would have been their right.
How would the US react if the Russians supported Mexico in joining a military pact against the US, so that the Russians could build military bases and install short range nuclear weapons in Mexico and point then at the US?
This a convoluted scenario, as why would they do this in the first place? The US, as big of an asshole as it is, is not invading Mexico. Mexico is not the least bit worried about it.
Ukraine was very worried about Russia invading them, for years, for legitimate reasons. And what does Russia do to alleviate those fears? Repeatedly threaten them, then actually invade.
A gun happy neighbor you are complicated friends with is very different than a gun happy neighbor who is repeatedly saying they want your house. If the situation afterwards feels unfair, well, that’s Russia’s fault for getting there in the first place.
And if the U.S actually postured itself for invading Mexico, for heavens sake, I would want them to arm themselves to the teeth.
Propaganda has been turned up to 11 to manufacture consent for this war, it’s no wonder people are so polarized about it.
We already know how we treat Cuba even without them installing a military base. Direct invasion and cutting it off from the world. The hypocrisy is staggering.
