• carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yes and I asked you what changed and if you can contextualize. You yourself understand that historical context is important. After all ignoring historical context would rob this conflict of it's meaning, no? Or are you one of those rubes that believes Putin ordered an attack out of his own volition?

    • ex10n@lemm.ee
      ·
      10 months ago

      There's plenty of historical context to cover. Like how Ukraine became the breadbasket feeding the Soviets in the USSR at the expense of their own population.

      • carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]
        ·
        10 months ago

        Sure but you're ignoring that the Soviet Union got dissolved and had a friendly western handpicked succesor at that point. So no more threat to UA, no? NATOs purpose was also a reaction to the creation of Soviet Russia, but what was it's purpose after the dissolution of the SU? Why join and expand NATO when everyones friendly now?

        • ex10n@lemm.ee
          ·
          10 months ago

          If everyone was friendly, why did Ukraine not give Russia their soverign land? The people of Ukraine voted for Zelensky fighting Russian influence for this exact reason. NATO continues to exist to promote stability and peace in the EU full stop. They're a defensive pact to deter outside aggression. Ukraine believes joining this pact will protect them from Russian aggression. Much like Finland and Sweden. Come on now, even Switzerland has chosen the side of Ukraine here.

          • carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]
            ·
            10 months ago

            If everyone was friendly, why did Ukraine not give Russia their soverign land?

            Everyone was friendly right after the dissolution of the SU. With the prospect of NATO expansion and initially friendly Russia getting declined 3 times into the alliance they added 1 and 1 together.

            The people of Ukraine voted for Zelensky fighting Russian influence for this exact reason.

            Zelenski got voted for because he promised an end to the civil war in donbas https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30414955 https://www.france24.com/en/20190416-russian-speakers-ukraine-candidate-talking-language

            a defensive pact

            Like in Yugoslavia?

            • ex10n@lemm.ee
              ·
              10 months ago

              Zelensky was voted for many reasons, this is surely a component of it! His charismatic effect and desire for sovereign governance are others.

              • carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]
                ·
                10 months ago

                Yeah but the protection of the Russian minority was a key mandate.

                You want to talk about historical context yet fail to contextualize anything shown to you. Your "spurring debate" is actually just bad propaganda

                • ex10n@lemm.ee
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Exactly! Ukraine's goals aim to unify a diverse population! Majority and minority alike. It's a beautiful resistance movement towards outside Russian aggression negatively impacting the lives of the Russian minority in Eastern Ukraine!

                    • ex10n@lemm.ee
                      ·
                      10 months ago

                      To my knowledge it was a direct policy decision from Putin. It'd be nice to have a free and fair election to see some positive change towards this poor decision making.

                        • ex10n@lemm.ee
                          ·
                          10 months ago

                          Similar to the reasons Moldova, Georgia, and the Kuril Islands were occupied. Russian expansionism.

                            • ex10n@lemm.ee
                              ·
                              10 months ago

                              NATO only expands with mutual agreement between the parties involved. If a sovereign country feels the need to join NATO, just follow their reasoning to learn about the historical context.

                              • carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]
                                ·
                                10 months ago

                                NATO was a reaction to Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union was a reaction to NATO. If the Soviet Union fell, who was the great enemy? What was it's purpose, if not for keeping western global hegemeny. NATO historically has always been the agressing force. Learn about history to get a proper context, lib.