https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2135509
this is practically a child’s view of the world. good guy vs bad guy. Russia = bad, NATO = good. plus, someone should tell her she has it completely backwards: ending russia is kinda natos entire thing
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2135509
this is practically a child’s view of the world. good guy vs bad guy. Russia = bad, NATO = good. plus, someone should tell her she has it completely backwards: ending russia is kinda natos entire thing
The countries in NATO have been engaged as aggressors in almost all wars in the 21st century.
I mean for sure, but also that's not addressing the other points in my comment. Russia is clearly the aggressor in this case.
I'm not sure why people are whole-hog against NATO when there's a more imminent threat against world peace pounding on the door of its neighbors. Y'know, the same one that was found to have directly affected the election of the US. The same one that's also stomping human rights into the ground (okay the US is also doing this to its own people for this one, you got me).
Maybe once Putin keels over we can dissolve NATO.
Why did Ukraine break two seperate ceasefires with the seperatist regions? If they didn't this wouldn't be a problem.
Because you're wrong and NATO is the much larger threat, demonstrated through their whole bloody history.
US allies also spend similar amounts or greater on advertisements around the US election. Russiagate was kind of just xenophobia applied to something everyone has been doing.
Oh, okay, you're operating on great man theory and not material analysis. This makes your content make sense.
"The official Twitter account of the Donetsk rebels said in the early hours of Sunday that its forces were "taking Mariupol", but later accused Ukraine of breaking the ceasefire. Fighters from the Azov battalion, who are defending the town, said their positions had come under Grad rocket fire.
Earlier on Saturday the truce had appeared to be holding, with only minor violations reported, as hopes mounted that the deal struck in Minsk on Friday could bring an end to the violence that has left more than 2,000 dead in recent months.
Both sides accused the other of violating the ceasefire, but there did not appear to be any serious exchanges of fire and no casualties were reported."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/06/eastern-ukraine-ceasefire-russia
" The war began in April 2014 when armed Russian-backed separatists seized government buildings and the Ukrainian military launched an operation against them. It continued until it was subsumed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022)
At least be correct about what you're citing. Russian backed separatists claim to be "taking Mariupol" and then backtrack with "oh no! We didn't break the ceasefire! I promise! ".
Unsourced guardian article and Wikipedia lmao
The person I'm replying to did not even attempt to cite anything, but you're gonna try and discredit my sources. Okay lol
Get smoked fascist
Love using twitter as Casus Belli and waving the bloody shirt of literal Nazis. Also the Guardian being your basis for these events is so fucking telling
Please enlighten me as to how an official account for a separatist group declaring they're attacking is not cause for retaliation.
Russia is literally a fascist government.
Either you don't understand what a fascist is or you don't know what literally means.
Also a tweet is not the same as a formal declaration, but more than that your idea of when a war starts is AFTER genocidal policies and the crushing of self determination. The war started during Maidan, the separation was in response to something. History is not just good actors and bad actors. And yet despite viewing it as such you still manage to simp and accept at face value literal fascists. Azov are literal Nazis, let you treat them as innocent defenders. Go ahead and support the OUN why don't you?
The war that started in 2014 where Ukraine broke two ceasefires with the separatist regions, and has been doing ethnic cleansing against ethnic Russians on the Russian border, that Russia didn’t join until 2022?
lol
How do you libs still believe in Russiagate?
Mostly based on the fact that Russian disinformation campaigns were found to have a widespread effect on the election and people's voting decisions. There's nothing to "believe" in, it's just a fact that it happened.
This is not correct and I've posted a link to the Nature Communications article elsewhere - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9
Didn't you hear? Nature is funded by Russians.
lmfao America is just full of reactionaries and racists who liked the idea of voting for a billionaire, building a wall, and killing immigrants. They didn't need to be brainwashed by Putin into voting for Trump.
no it isn't
deleted by creator
100,000 dollars in Facebook ads counts as "widespread effect on the election" to you? Are you being serious?
You're looking at this from an emotional standpoint, not geopolitical.
NATO's existence is why Russia js aggressive. Think on it geopolitically, not emotionally:
You're the leader of a country. The vast majority of your western border - the half of the country most inhabited by your population - is surrounded by hostile nations. The hostilities date back a few decades to the Cold War but that ended when the previous political system of the country dissolved. You spent the first decade or so of the new political system trying to make friends with these nations, but they keep refusing, all the while portraying you in all their media as the bad guys. Any move you make on the geopolitical scale for your own nation's sake is tarred, while similar actions by the other countries are praised. No matter what you do, you cannot please these other countries, and they continue to threaten to put military bases and nuclear weapons on your border, eventually sealing your entire western border away behind hostilities.
What the fuck is one expected to do in this situation, and if this shit was happening to the US or anywhere in Europe, you know full well they wouldn't take it lying down. Why is there an expectation that Russia does, when the world wouldn't?
Maybe I'm drinking stupid juice, but I think that people hating Russia isn't really a valid reason for them to invade Ukraine. I know that's not specifically what you're saying, but in essence that's the line of reasoning that I've heard throughout this thread.
That said, Russia can't be painted as "innocent" like so many posters here are stating. They routinely violate human rights. See:
Russian censorship of, among many other things, the internet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Russia
Russia's anti-lgbt policies: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/europe/russia-upper-parliament-lgbt-propaganda-law-intl/index.html
Russia's anti-protest laws: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly_in_Russia
Russia's general laundry list of human rights violations: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/europe-and-central-asia/russia/report-russia/
I'm not saying the US is much better, although it is marginally, but claiming that Russia is just "scared and defending itself" doesn't really track. It's an authoritarian regime.
If I'm misunderstanding this, somehow, please let me know.
Yes boss, you have catastrophically misunderstood the point.
The point isn't that people were mean tk Russia and therefore they're allowed little a invasion as a treat. The point is that they've been encircled by hostile nations since the 1990s despite all attempts at overture to them, and that the encirclement continues to get worse. NATO was formed explicitly to take on Russia, and the point of this thought experiment is to try and see this not from an emotional point of view (aka Russia bad) but from a geopolitical point of view of a nation's leader.
Go back and read my post again. If you were the leader of Russia, knowing that decades of attempted détente didn't work and that the organization who's express goal is to break your country apart, and that that organization is doing its best to place troops and nuclear armaments on every inch of your border, would you accept that, or would you perhaps try and prevent that?
We know what happened when the shoe was on the other foot. The US placed nuclear missiles a thousand miles from Moscow on the Black Sea. When the USSR understandably got annoyed and placed nukes in Cuba, the US was seconds away from ending the entire world despite the Soviets repeatedly saying the nukes were defensive response to the Black Sea nukes.
So if we know that the US won't accept hostile nations arming up on their border, why do we expect others to just kowtow to that?
Passing laws against use of the Russian language and bombing a linguistic minority is just "not liking someone" don't ya know?
Just to reiterate if the other post is not clear upon first reading, I could not imagine missing the points all over this thread more than the way you did in this comment. I would re-read it many more times. It's a huge disagreement at basic ways of understanding geopolitics that the gap is either unbridgeable between you and these thoughts or it will seem like a mindfuck when you get what's being said
I found this to be a good video on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 also no one here is defending Russia when it comes to their human rights abuses
Do you think politics is just good guys and bad guys?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9