I don't disagree that Nations should be able to defend themselves. I have major issues with the US trying to dominate the world through violence and the weaponization of the Federal Reserve Note. This whole war, in my opinion is directly related to NATO expansion (which the US promised Gorbachev wouldn't happen) How would the US react with Russian missiles on its border? If the Cuban missile crisis is any indication, rather harshly. Ukraine is being lead by an extremely corrupt Western puppet. I simply don't believe Russia would have made a move against Ukraine if it had remained neutral. The 3 day operation was meant as a warning and a swift means to negotiations, not an attempted occupation. Foolish on Putin's part cause it cost a lot of Russian lives.

[–] AntY@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This is just Russian propaganda. Ukraine weren’t even close to being considered for NATO membership when the special military intervention was announced. They’ve had a border conflict with Russia since 2014 and therefore they could not join NATO.

Ukraine is defending itself. Zelenskyy said “I need bullets, not a ride” and the west simply helped Ukraine with what they actually needed. It’s completely reasonable that Ukraine can use western aid to strike military targets within Russia that threatens their sovereign territory.

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 5 months ago

Ukrainian forces were being trained and armed by NATO members for 8 years after euromaidan. It is ridiculous to believe that western powers were not trying to encircle Russia.

Even if the war was not worth the cost in lives, it is absurd to believe that Russia attacked Ukraine for shits and giggles. Or even for resources (Russia has some of the world's largest natural resource reserves), or land (largest country in the world), or people (Ukraine had a worse demographic problem than Russia, and the war has made things worse). The only thing they can plausibly gain is access to warm water ports (they already got that with crimea in 2014), and security against NATO.

[–] MetalMartin@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 5 months ago

I don't think it's Russian propaganda. We're not going to agree, but that's okay. I'm not quite ready for nuclear war. Let's hope however this turns out, we're around to discuss it. ✌️

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

which the US promised Gorbachev wouldn’t happen

According to Gorbachev himself, the US made no such promise. According to that interview, the commonly cited quote from Secretary of State James Baker, "NATO will not move one inch further east," is taken wildly out of context. It was made during talks over the reunification of Germany:

...making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context.

With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

He also said this, without further elaboration:

[Expanding NATO east] was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990.

Here is where I think Gorbachev's interview comes in for some legit criticism. I honest find this a bit perplexing. Putting severe limitations on NATO membership, knowing that many countries would want to join, was a big ask. The proper thing is to write that out in legal language, translated into Russian and English, and mutually agreed upon. This feels like the geopolitical version of empty "thoughts and prayers."