Sovereign nations voluntarily choosing to join a political and military association is no where close to being equivalent to Russia's illegal Invasion of a sovereign state.
Russia to annex Kherson Oblast
- Thread starter dukkha
- Start date
Sovereign nations voluntarily choosing to join a political and military association is no where close to being equivalent to Russia's illegal Invasion of a sovereign state.
Here is a list of European and central asian counties Russia has invaded in the last 80 years
Ukraine twice
Georgia
Afghanistan
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Finland
Poland
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
start a thread about it......then we can ignore your mindless drivel there instead of ignoring it here.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
non responsive......fuck yourself.....
moon
Satire for Sanity
NATO broke its word. It advanced east towards Russia, Ukraine was its final piece. The Russians objected.
Now accept the Biden -led clusterfuck .
moon
Satire for Sanity
" We " ? You have significant others ?
Do they also limp ?
Haw, haw, haw, haw.......................................haw.
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
that is the USSR not Russia.. you aren't stupid. stop the dezinformatsia
familiarize yourself with Russia's redlines.
why arent they valid? why did Biden laugh them off even as Russia was massing?
You still haven't responded to the link. it's an NPR link that has the basics of NATO expansion
and the lies and aggressive posture behind it
Russia broke its word. They said that Ukraine would be independent and Russia would respect their borders. It looks like Russia is the one that created this clusterfuck
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 3007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
Russian red lines? Oh.. you mean where they simply break their word whenever they think they can without consequence?
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 3007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
In 1992 the Russians said they would respect Ukranian borders. It looks like they have violated that repeatedly over the years.
The Russian Federation mounted three invasions of neighboring countries in just the last 14 years: Georgia, and Ukraine twice.
Russia was the heart of the Bolshevik revolution, Russia was the leader of the USSR, and Russia made all the important foreign policy decisions for the Union including the invasions of Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Finland, and Poland.
Russia is an imperialist country, and it has been for the last 500 years.
Crimea wasnt an invasion. it literally happened without a shot fired and backed by referendum
I have no idea why you keep going over this -it's been exhaustively discussed.
But Russia today is a far different animal then the USSR.
In fact if Ukraine was neutral and not hostile to Ukraine - or more specifically if the USA hadn't meddled in the Maidan , Yanukovych was content not to be in either the west's or Russia strategic camp
Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008 should have dispelled any remaining doubts about Putin’s determination to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who was deeply committed to bringing his country into NATO
had decided in the summer o! 2008 to reincorporate two separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
But Putin sought to keep Georgia weak and divided. After fighting broke out between the Georgian government and South Ossetian separatists, Russian forces took control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Moscow had made its point. Yet despite this clear warning, NATO never publicly abandoned its goal of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance. And NATO expansion continued marching forward,
with Albania and Croatia becoming members in 2009
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
it is clear that Washington backed the coup. Nuland and Republican Senator John McCain participated in antigovernment demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine,
proclaimed after Yanukovych’s toppling that it was “a day for the history books.”
As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did.
No wonder Russians of all persuasions think the West played a role in Yanukovych ouster
Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
proclaimed after Yanukovych’s toppling that it was “a day for the history books.”
As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did.
No wonder Russians of all persuasions think the West played a role in Yanukovych ouster
Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
The US deliberately chose — across administrations of both parties — to subsidize and “train” Ukraine’s military, flood the country with weapons, and otherwise assume the role of primary foreign sponsor. That’s the indisputable reality. Last week, Putin called Ukraine a “colony” or “puppet” of the US. Why do you think everyone from Hunter Biden to Rudy Giuliani correctly ascertained that they could secure huge sums of money from shady Ukrainian financial interests for doing next to nothing, other than having prominent political connections in the US?
US made “no serious attempt to negotiate with Putin — to offer the kinds of concessions that lay discernibly at the core of his motivation.” Is anyone curious why the relevant decision-makers in the Biden Administration, the think tank-industrial complex, the war-drumming media, and elsewhere have been so adamantly opposed to even contemplating the possibility of giving Putin an assurance that NATO would not expand to Ukraine?
Again: every “serious” analyst had already acknowledged that Ukraine joining NATO was effectively “off the table” anyway. Withholding NATO membership from Ukraine wouldn’t have somehow violated Ukraine’s sovereignty; it would’ve been an assertion of NATO’s well-established prerogative to admit or not admit prospective members based on the criteria its constituent states choose. Prior to the invasion, Putin described the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO as eventually meaning that Russia would be accused of occupying NATO territory, given its control of Crimea — a situation which could then prompt a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia.
In short, everyone seemed to agree that Ukraine would not be officially joining NATO any time soon, and yet they were still zealously unwilling to codify this into a formal pledge that could’ve potentially averted war.
I think to understand the reasons, one has to appreciate the ideological backdrop of the current conflict with Russia, particularly in the context of recent developments specific to the US. And yes, that requires an understanding of the frenzy wrought by Russiagate.
Some of Russiagate’s staunchest proponents from 2016-2020 are back in action, tossing off mega-viral tweets which assert a “straight line” between Russia’s “attack” on the 2016 election — one of history’s greatest crimes in their minds — and the present war, with January 6 somehow thrown in for good measure:
Back when the term “alt-right” was still constantly in circulation, you couldn’t look at a “prestigious” US media outlet without seeing some grand proclamation anointing Putin as the fearsome tribune of global right-wing fanaticism.
The Atlantic ran pieces proclaiming some new terrifying nexus of “Trump, Putin, and the Alt-Right International.”
Serious-seeming NatSec sites gravely pondered how to go about “Confronting Russia’s Role in Transnational White Supremacist Extremism.”
Media-adjacent academics christened themselves newfound Experts on the “The Unholy Alliance of Russia and the American Far-Right.” And on and on and on.
US made “no serious attempt to negotiate with Putin — to offer the kinds of concessions that lay discernibly at the core of his motivation.” Is anyone curious why the relevant decision-makers in the Biden Administration, the think tank-industrial complex, the war-drumming media, and elsewhere have been so adamantly opposed to even contemplating the possibility of giving Putin an assurance that NATO would not expand to Ukraine?
Again: every “serious” analyst had already acknowledged that Ukraine joining NATO was effectively “off the table” anyway. Withholding NATO membership from Ukraine wouldn’t have somehow violated Ukraine’s sovereignty; it would’ve been an assertion of NATO’s well-established prerogative to admit or not admit prospective members based on the criteria its constituent states choose. Prior to the invasion, Putin described the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO as eventually meaning that Russia would be accused of occupying NATO territory, given its control of Crimea — a situation which could then prompt a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia.
In short, everyone seemed to agree that Ukraine would not be officially joining NATO any time soon, and yet they were still zealously unwilling to codify this into a formal pledge that could’ve potentially averted war.
I think to understand the reasons, one has to appreciate the ideological backdrop of the current conflict with Russia, particularly in the context of recent developments specific to the US. And yes, that requires an understanding of the frenzy wrought by Russiagate.
Some of Russiagate’s staunchest proponents from 2016-2020 are back in action, tossing off mega-viral tweets which assert a “straight line” between Russia’s “attack” on the 2016 election — one of history’s greatest crimes in their minds — and the present war, with January 6 somehow thrown in for good measure:
Back when the term “alt-right” was still constantly in circulation, you couldn’t look at a “prestigious” US media outlet without seeing some grand proclamation anointing Putin as the fearsome tribune of global right-wing fanaticism.
The Atlantic ran pieces proclaiming some new terrifying nexus of “Trump, Putin, and the Alt-Right International.”
Serious-seeming NatSec sites gravely pondered how to go about “Confronting Russia’s Role in Transnational White Supremacist Extremism.”
Media-adjacent academics christened themselves newfound Experts on the “The Unholy Alliance of Russia and the American Far-Right.” And on and on and on.
Your claim was that Russia is no threat to invade anybody.
Four months ago you even roared with incredulous laughter when Biden warned you Putin was preparing for his second invasion of Ukraine in the last 8 years. Your ability to predict who Russia will invade does not have a good track record.
Georgia is a sovereign nation that did not ask Russia to invade it.
Russia has a long history of imperialist ambition.
So does the United States for that matter. Manifest destiny was a policy of imperialism.
pretty much everyone missed the invasion - US intelligence being Russiaphobic in nature is not to be trusted.
If you want to give credit to Biden for taking that advice -sure .
But you are missing the entire reasoning for Russia's relations to Uk that resulted in the invasion
~~~
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.
~~
the other post show just how damaging the US meddling in the Euromaidan was-
Nuland was the brains but McCain and Kagan were willing dupes
The other post 56 I find more interesting as it's tied to the Russian Hoax.
Biden not being much more then an empty suit partisan no doubt thinks Putin is a threat to US democracy
or is "authoritarian" like Trump. so he hates Putin because he hates Trump. We know how he thinks.
So there are meddling, geopolitics, NATO/EU expansion and plain old Russian Hoax
(which also damaged US/Russian relation) that led to the invasion
moon
Satire for Sanity
Yes, ' independent ' means non-NATO. Get a grip.
that's the Budapest Memorandum,, It's worthless -we made sure to interfere with their revolution
and of course militarization of Uk.