83
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
83 points (90.3% liked)
Death to NATO
1531 readers
2 users here now
For posting news about NATO's wars in Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, and The Middle East, including anywhere else NATO is currently engaged in hostile actions. As well as anything that relates to it.
Rules:
-
Follow Site Rules
-
No support nor defence of Western-backed governments, NATO or Western Imperialism
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The only thing that's stupid is that the west keeps pretending that it's not a party to the conflict. It's pretty clear that the west very much is directly involved in the conflict, which makes Ukraine a western proxy.
The United States can not be a party to the conflict even though they actually are. They can not admit they are and Russia has to look the other way and not admit they know they are. The implications of the US officially and undisputably being in direct armed conflict with Russia would be unimaginable.
Yes, countries are providing weapons and aid to an illegally invaded country. No one is hiding this. Your point?
Westerners are the last people on Earth who get to talk about illegally invaded countries. And yes western fucktard politicians have been claiming that the west is not at war with Russia over and over. You dumb fucks are in fact trying to hide this with the same grace and eloquence a dog tries to hide having shat on the carpet.
The U.S. is not at war with Russia, we are supporting Ukraine that is at war with Russia. Is North Korea at war with Ukraine because it's supplying weapons to the Russians? I'm against invading any nation and I protested it many times (including the U.S.)... Can you say the same?
The problem with your argument is that it ignores the reality that the west overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine in a violent coup. This something that's been extensively documented even in western media.
The nationalist regime that west installed has been doing ethnic cleansing against the people of Donbas. Again, this is something, that's well documented and has been reported on by western media. Here's a clip from CNN you might want to watch https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
Unsurprisingly, people of Donbas did not wish to be part of an ethnostate that is trying to eradicate them. This is how the civil war in Ukraine started in 2014. In 2022, LPR and DPR republics declared independence and appealed to Russia for help. Incidentally, this is precisely what happened during the breakup of Yugoslavia when Kosovo appealed to NATO for help.
We can also take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here's the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here's how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
So, question of you is whether you support ethnic cleansing of the Russian speaking population in Donbas and feel that is should have been allowed to continue?
As usual, they get scared off when they're reminded that history didn't begin in February 2022.
According to liberal world view, history is just a series of discrete and independent events that just happen randomly for no discernible reason.
All we can do is wait for the experts™️to tell us about it. Sadly, there's just no way a regular person could ever possibly understand these things on their own. It's just too complicated.
That's right, don't worry your pretty head about any of these things and just vote blue no matter who.
This happens almost every time lol their entire argument and premise is "Russia invasion", yet seem strangely quiet when you ask them why Russia intervened
They never mention the Minsk Agreements, they don't mention the coup in 2014, they zero in on the "Russia invaded" line which is why they don't focus on anything else
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
"Were not at war with Russia were just supplying weapons, intelligence, training, logistics support, equipment maintenance, and medical assistance to the country they're at war with."
I wonder why they world doesn't take Americans very seriously when it comes to geopolitics.
Also keep in mind these ate the same people who have been frothing at the mouth to go after Russia for their act of war of checks notes posting racist Facebook memes in 2016 to convince our population to elect Trump.
So you're against Ukraine invading itself, right? Against the Russian speaking population of Ukraine?
Just seeing if you're actually paying attention or if you just get your news from Western sources like other libs.
show us your dick
According to the logic applies by the west in past conflicts, Russias SMO isn't illegal. According the Un it is, but so are literally all western wars since WW2.
In fact, it's directly modelled on what NATO did to Yugoslavia where they recognized breakaway regions and then had them invite NATO to help. Russia is just following the standard set by the rules based world order here.
I'm against invading any nation and protested it many times (including the U.S.).. Can you say the same? SMO is just an invasion by a different name.
I think calling it an "SMO" is weird but the invasion was completely justified. I guess I'm a centrist now.
Invading another country is justified? How? Some perceive threat that doesn't exist? That's some American shit you're throwing around
The people of Donbas didn't want to be part of the ethnonationalist project that the country was inducted into by Euromaidan. They tried to find a peaceful way out but none existed, as the Ukrainian government shamelessly strung everyone involved along while continuing its shelling. It became apparent that the shelling would not stop except by either a) capitulation to the Banderite government or b) breaking the back of the Ukrainian military. I think option b) is more reasonable.
You aren't going to get some kind of moral defense of Russia out of me, they are a mafia as far as I'm concerned, but their cynical calculus resulted in them taking the side more worthy of support in this case and, within the scope of this case, they should therfore be supported.
I applaud your argument. It's one of the better ones. They still invaded a sovereign nation (twice), even if some people supported you. I don't see Russia supporting Chechen independence even though some Chechens want independence. Ohhhh.... I see we have to break the back of the Russian military to do that....
Perhaps such a thing should happen, I don't know the actual popularity of the independence movement. Wouldn't want to stumble into another "revolution of our time" where most people oppose it. But I am not aware of Russia bombarding Chenya either, so I think all the Intel is on your side there. Ukraine certainly doesn't seem to respect them, considering the origin of the "Orc" meme . . .
But Russia would have had much weaker justification if it hadn't spent the 8 years prior to the invasion trying to negotiate a peaceful solution to the bombardment which Ukraine, again, handled in a deceitful and destructive manner.
Certainly the Russian military needs to be disassembled eventually, since the Federation is a liberal state and thereby only very circumstantially helpful, but I'd be careful about equivocation in the context of the west and its Banderite dogs.
That liberals are full of shit when they say it's crazy for Russia to claim America and western powers are using this as a proxy war against them.