Everyone knows this is about access to a warm water port and Putin could give a fuck about the people in these breakaway regions. Why are people here taking Putin's stance on the matter credulously?
Russia was fine with Ukraine while it was openly corrupt and let them use the seaports in Crimea and Donbass. NATO really fucked up in doing everything in their power to stop Russia from having access to those ports, but stanning for Russia in this is stanning for Putin-style Russian imperialism which is explicitly anti-LGBT and anti-socialist.
I literally don't care because the US created this entire clusterfuck when it was never our business in the first place, Russia's military wouldn't even have to be there if it wasn't for US and NATO aggression, and now you're arguing on behalf the nazi alliance funding the nazi militia instead of taking the obvious, non-brainwomed stance which is "US AND NATO OUT OF FUCKING EVERYWHERE." Amazing.
Peacekeeping with a capitalist war machine is a contradiction. It will never happen, but liberals keep falling for it.
The solution is regional peacekeeping or international peacekeeping. Not an invasion and a proxy war.
The UN has extremely limited credibility in Eastern Europe after the 90s, so international peacekeeping effectively doesn't exist and is, to be blunt, a euphemism for imperialist genocide. What does regional peacekeeping look like to you, NATO? Germany? If Germany, why shouldn't Russia be involved with those efforts?
There are a few but no one obviously wants to form a new one with Ukraine atm.
Okay, so then these defense pacts don't sound like a viable alternative to Russian intervention. I feel like I'm missing something here?
The question is whether those organizations themselves can send representatives. It has happened before in some African countries.
Which organizations? I'm confused, the eastern European defense pacts sent representatives to African countries? Were these diplomats or actual military?
The African Union uses peacekeepers from other countries in the AU when two countries are in conflict. In theory the EU could do the same but the Ukraine is not part of the EU.
So then what are you suggesting? I thought this was supposed to be an alternative to US or Russian intervention, but it doesn't sound like political reality.
I think aggressive nato was a given, this move was an acceptance of ukraine joining nato in all but name :shrux: at least according to the reasoning I gleaned from our news
Putin has a lot more similarities with the Tzarist regime and with the Nazis themselves than the USSR. Reducing everything to nostalgia for said USSR and someone painting qualities of it on top of modern Russia is peak brainworms. This is an internal war of capital and there is nothing anti-imperialist in supporting Russia. It's a shit situation with two equally bad sides. This is not centrism.
WWII started when Germany argued for invading Poland to save German-speaking populations from Polish persecution and to prevent the "encirclement" of Germany by Western imperial powers.
Not wanting a relatively cold civil war in Ukraine to turn into a hot civil war or regional conflict doesn't make me a centrist. If Russia continues this sort of border imperialism, where does it end? Will Russia take back the Kuril islands?
Imperialist excursions of any kind should be condemned. All that Russia has guaranteed is not the safety of people in Ukraine but the inevitable ratcheting up of a proxy war. All for a warm water port - which we can both agree - NATO never should have jeopardized by backing Euromaidan .
WWII started when Germany argued for invading Poland to save German-speaking populations from Polish persecution and to prevent the “encirclement” of Germany by Western imperial powers.
I thought the above dude's point was acknowledging the "liberation" of german speaking poles as a flagrant lie by the nazis and likening it to russia's motives in donbass. maybe I'm just bad at parsing arguments and don't get what points people are making.
Yeah, they were also making it sound like it was the main motivation and excuse for nazi aggression, which isn’t accurate. It was one of the lines they ran with, but based around “living space” more than any kind of humanitarian reasoning.
Trying to compare nazi Germany to Putin is frankly gross, not a coherent argument, and also extremely insulting to anyone with family who survived the Shoah.
There are plenty of things to criticize Putin on without trying to claim he’s a nazi, especially when the Ukrainian government is literally run by neo-nazis after their NATO-backed coup.
I was just confused by the quip. I see what you meant now. I was following the exchange until I thought I was reading the other guy be like "so the nazis had this talking point" and you coming back with "but that's a nazi talking point" and at that point my brain short circuited and stopped functioning
The USSR was trading with Nazi Germany as they annihilated western european nations, the Germans were receiving their much needed oil from the Soviets.
for fuck's sake. learn history and stop repeating Western Cold War lies and propaganda. The British and French were trying to goad Germany and Russia into war.
The Soviets were the last country in Europe to sign a pact with the Nazis and here’s a handy infographic of the countries that did sign.
The Soviets spent over a year before then trying to sign an anti-Nazi alliance with the British and the French, but both of those countries were uninterested.
Effort Post With Sources
The British confirmed all of this in 2009 when the 70 year limit ran out and their archive was opened and the full scale of what Stalin offered the Brits and French was basically enough to ensure WW2 never happened.
The British and French however sent delegates with no authority to sign an alliance. The polish hated the Soviets because Poland was fascist under Pilzudski and were hoping for an alliance with Hitler.
Poland also realized that if they allowed the Soviets onto Polish territory the Soviets would unilaterally annexe the land the Polish had stolen from the Soviet Union in the 1918-1920 invasion of the USSR where Poland annexed land from Belarus, Lithuania (they stole Villinus the capital of Lithuania) and Ukraine.
The Polish then enacted a forced “Polandisation” of the citizens living there. Suppressing native languages and treating Belarussians/Lits and Ukrainians as 2nd class peoples.
Bear in mind this is one year after they signed the Munich agreement which gave Hitler Czechoslovakia.
"Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.
The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin’s generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.
But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after the foreign secretaries of the two countries, came on August 23 - just a week before Nazi Germany attacked Poland, thereby sparking the outbreak of the war. But it would never have happened if Stalin’s offer of a western alliance had been accepted, according to retired Russian foreign intelligence service Major General Lev Sotskov, who sorted the 700 pages of declassified documents.
"This was the final chance to slay the wolf, even after [British Conservative prime minister Neville] Chamberlain and the French had given up Czechoslovakia to German aggression the previous year in the Munich Agreement," said Gen Sotskov, 75.
The Soviet offer - made by war minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army chief of general staff Boris Shaposhnikov - would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany’s borders in the event of war in the west, declassified minutes of the meeting show.
But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who lead the British delegation, told his Soviet counterparts that he authorized only to talk, not to make deals.
*“Had the British, French and their European ally Poland, taken this offer seriously then together we could have put some 300 or more divisions into the field on two fronts against Germany - double the number Hitler had at the time,” said Gen Sotskov, who joined the Soviet intelligence service in 1956. “This was a chance to save the world or at least stop the wolf in its tracks.” *"
And yes, there were talks to join the axis! Germany at this point was in war with Britain and France and the Soviets needed another year and would still suffer horrendous losses (27 million dead)
So what was the result of those axis talks? (Besides the end point which was Germany invading the Soviet Union but let’s continue down the fantasy path that the Soviets trusted fucking Hitler and they were going seriously joining any German axis) .
“Hitler, however, saw the Soviet territorial ambitions in the Balkans as a challenge to German interests and saw its plan as effectively making Bulgaria into an adjunct of the Axis pact. On several occasions, Molotov asked German officials for their response to Moscow’s counter-proposals, but Germany never answered them. Germany’s refusal to respond to the counter-proposal worsened relations between the countries. Regarding the counter-proposal, Hitler remarked to his top military chiefs that Stalin “demands more and more”, “he’s a cold-blooded blackmailer” and that “a German victory has become unbearable for Russia” so that “she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible.””**
-Ericson, Edward E. (1999), Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941,
Right so the axis talks ended with Hitler so pissed off at the Soviet Union Hitler assessed
Stalin was a “cold blooded blackmailer” and that he “demands more and more”
“A German victory is unbearable for Russia”
that the Soviets were trying to have Germany “brought to her knees as soon as possible”
And Hitler killing the talks.
We’ve established so far that the Soviets prioritized a British-French and polish anti-nazi alliance. That the British, Poles and French were rat bastards that saw communism as a greater evil than fascism and were hoping for the Germans and Russians to kill each other.
At this point though I’ve only quoted bourgeois sources so let’s see what the Soviets said about all this .
"After the first imperialist war the victor states, primarily Britain, France and the United States, had set up a new regime in the relations between countries, the post-war regime of peace. The main props of this regime were the Nine-Power Pact in the Far East, and the Versailles Treaty and a number of other treaties in Europe. The League of Nations was set up to regulate relations between countries within the framework of this regime, on the basis of a united front of states, of collective defense of the security of states. However, three aggressive states, and the new imperialist war launched by them, have upset the entire system of this post-war peace regime. Japan tore up the Nine-Power Pact, and Germany and Italy the Versailles Treaty. In order to have their hands free, these three states withdrew from the League of Nations.**
The new imperialist war became a fact.
It is not so easy in our day to suddenly break loose and plunge straight into war without regard for treaties of any kind or for public opinion. Bourgeois politicians know this very well. So do the fascist rulers. That is why the fascist rulers decided, before plunging into war, to frame public opinion to suit their ends, that is, to mislead it, to deceive it.
A military bloc of Germany and Italy against the interests of England and France in Europe? Bless us, do you call that a bloc? “We” have no military bloc. All “we” have is an innocuous “Berlin-Rome axis”; that is, just a geometrical equation for an axis. (Laughter.)
A military bloc of Germany, Italy and Japan against the interests of the United States, Great Britain and France in the Far East? Nothing of the kind. “We” have no military bloc. All “we” have is an innocuous “Berlin-Rome-Tokyo triangle”; that is, a slight penchant for geometry. (General laughter.)
A war against the interests of England, France, the United States? Nonsense! “We” are waging war on the Comintern, not on these states. If you don’t believe it, read the “anti-Comintern pact” concluded between Italy, Germany and Japan.
But war is inexorable. It cannot be hidden under any guise. For no “axes,” “triangles” or “anti-Comintern pacts” can hide the fact that in this period Japan has seized a vast stretch of territory in China, that Italy has seized Abyssinia, that Germany has seized Austria and the Sudeten region, that Germany and Italy together have seized Spain – and all this in defiance of the interests of the non-aggressive states. The war remains a war; the military bloc of aggressors remains a military bloc; and the aggressors remain aggressors.
**It is a distinguishing feature of the new imperialist war that it has not yet become universal, a world war. The war is being waged by aggressor states, who in every way infringe upon the interests of the non-aggressive states, primarily England, France and the U.S.A., while the latter draw back and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors.
Thus we are witnessing an open re-division of the world and spheres of influence at the expense of the non-aggressive states, without the least attempt at resistance, and even with a certain amount of connivance, on the part of the latter.**
To what are we to attribute this one-sided and strange character of the new imperialist war?
trading with the Nazis was kinda profitable for Stalin, he who seeked an alliance with the western powers just a few years ago
Yes, Stalin tried to broker an anti-fascist coalition and France / Britain weren't interested. That meant Russia had to buy time while they built up the army and weapons needed to fight fascists solo.
It should also be mentioned that the USSR was one of the last hold outs for trading with either of those countries.
The Fascists, of course, cared as much as Stalin did for ideological diffierences
This is completely ahistorical and frankly also fascist apologism.
stanning for Russia in this is stanning for Putin-style Russian imperialism which is explicitly anti-LGBT and anti-socialist.
stanning for neo-nazis in this is stanning for nazi-style American-backed imperialism which is explicitly anti-LGBT and anti-socialist. Not supporting nazis and american imperialism != supporting Putin. There is not a "good team" here, aside from opposing American military intervention.
Help me out then and outline them, what are the different sides to this conflict? Also, given what you said about Russia as a contrast, which one(s) are explicitly pro-LGBT and pro-socialist? Genuinely asking this in good faith.
That" journalist" had weapons and grenades on them. The article itself is filled with weird paragraphs ranting about "Neo-Stalinism". The article you linked is also a secondary source that links out to Radio Free Europe, which is literally funded by the CIA.
You're either not aware that you're repeating imperialist propaganda or you're intentionally licking boot. Either way, describing what's outlined in that article as concentration camps is disgustingly flippant and a disservice to survivors of The Shoah. I won't bother arguing a definition of that either way.
There are no pro-LGBT or pro-socialists in this fight. None that I see.
Both LPR and DPR have socialists involved in their governments. They are apparently not fully socialist, but I would say that those two states were pro-socialist. I can't speak to whether they are pro-LGBT.
That website is sketch as hell and also references Radio Free Europe in multiple articles. It also has a lot of questionable stories in it and is clearly very biased against Russia.
Lol what the fuck no. Begging you to get a better understanding of anti-imperialism and to be less idealist. All the bullshit with Pussy Riot alone makes it very clear Putin isn’t a socialist or supportive of queer rights.
Putin could give a fuck about the people in these breakaway regions
I don't think it's total altruism or anything, but I think Ukraine constantly violating the Minsk agreement gave Putin some great propaganda material about "defending Russians around the world" on a golden platter. Getting involved is only a positive for his popularity, regardless of ports or other economic consequences (which I wouldn't doubt play in as well).
The "warm water port" thing hasn't been important for a long time.
Economically, most bulk exports are by pipeline or rail. Militarily, the most important warships travel under the ice now.
Crimea just isn't that important as a fleet base, even with Montreux Convention.
Eh, considering putin will suffer severe popularity losses from this (I suspect like tanking from 65 to less than 50), it will cost money, and so on, i suspect it’s natsec question exclusively. It’s not warm water port, it’s putting thaad system into donbas, or some shit which scares russia
deleted by creator
Everyone knows this is about access to a warm water port and Putin could give a fuck about the people in these breakaway regions. Why are people here taking Putin's stance on the matter credulously?
deleted by creator
Russia was fine with Ukraine while it was openly corrupt and let them use the seaports in Crimea and Donbass. NATO really fucked up in doing everything in their power to stop Russia from having access to those ports, but stanning for Russia in this is stanning for Putin-style Russian imperialism which is explicitly anti-LGBT and anti-socialist.
deleted by creator
The US invaded Iraq because they were anti-socialist? I don't understand what you are saying.
Are you for Putin-style Russian imperialism?
"Do you support Saddamn Hussein?"
What does that even mean?
Saddam invaded Kuwait. What country did Ukraine invade?
You know exactly what it means, liberal
Anyone cheering on Putin's blunders is only supporting a more aggressive NATO.
The solution is regional peacekeeping or international peacekeeping. Not an invasion and a proxy war.
Ah yes let me just do some light peacekeeping with this here totally impartial worldspanning imperial military:so-true:
What exactly do you think Russia's peacekeepers are going to do?
I literally don't care because the US created this entire clusterfuck when it was never our business in the first place, Russia's military wouldn't even have to be there if it wasn't for US and NATO aggression, and now you're arguing on behalf the nazi alliance funding the nazi militia instead of taking the obvious, non-brainwomed stance which is "US AND NATO OUT OF FUCKING EVERYWHERE." Amazing.
Peacekeeping with a capitalist war machine is a contradiction. It will never happen, but liberals keep falling for it.
The UN has extremely limited credibility in Eastern Europe after the 90s, so international peacekeeping effectively doesn't exist and is, to be blunt, a euphemism for imperialist genocide. What does regional peacekeeping look like to you, NATO? Germany? If Germany, why shouldn't Russia be involved with those efforts?
Mutual defense pacts among Eastern Europe are possible outside the NATO framework.
Sure, I can follow that. Do these defense pacts already exist then or are they hypothetical? If they do exist, why hasn't The Ukraine activated them?
There are a few but no one obviously wants to form a new one with Ukraine atm.
The question is whether those organizations themselves can send representatives. It has happened before in some African countries.
Okay, so then these defense pacts don't sound like a viable alternative to Russian intervention. I feel like I'm missing something here?
Which organizations? I'm confused, the eastern European defense pacts sent representatives to African countries? Were these diplomats or actual military?
The African Union uses peacekeepers from other countries in the AU when two countries are in conflict. In theory the EU could do the same but the Ukraine is not part of the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-UN_peacekeeping_missions
So then what are you suggesting? I thought this was supposed to be an alternative to US or Russian intervention, but it doesn't sound like political reality.
How can any diplomatic solution be a political reality now? Russia has invaded.
All that is out of the window now.
deleted by creator
I think aggressive nato was a given, this move was an acceptance of ukraine joining nato in all but name :shrux: at least according to the reasoning I gleaned from our news
Oh, Saddam invaded kuwait a second time in the 2000’s? How did I never hear about this wow
deleted by creator
Putin has a lot more similarities with the Tzarist regime and with the Nazis themselves than the USSR. Reducing everything to nostalgia for said USSR and someone painting qualities of it on top of modern Russia is peak brainworms. This is an internal war of capital and there is nothing anti-imperialist in supporting Russia. It's a shit situation with two equally bad sides. This is not centrism.
WWII started when Germany argued for invading Poland to save German-speaking populations from Polish persecution and to prevent the "encirclement" of Germany by Western imperial powers.
Not wanting a relatively cold civil war in Ukraine to turn into a hot civil war or regional conflict doesn't make me a centrist. If Russia continues this sort of border imperialism, where does it end? Will Russia take back the Kuril islands?
Imperialist excursions of any kind should be condemned. All that Russia has guaranteed is not the safety of people in Ukraine but the inevitable ratcheting up of a proxy war. All for a warm water port - which we can both agree - NATO never should have jeopardized by backing Euromaidan .
This is literally a nazi talking point, my dude.
What the Germans claimed and what they acted upon are two different things.
Oh what the fuck, I’m disengaging.
:PIGPOOPBALLS: :pit:
Removed by mod
It’s frequently used to excuse or minimize nazi ideology and the very clear goals Hitler and other nazis stated from the beginning.
I thought the above dude's point was acknowledging the "liberation" of german speaking poles as a flagrant lie by the nazis and likening it to russia's motives in donbass. maybe I'm just bad at parsing arguments and don't get what points people are making.
Yeah, they were also making it sound like it was the main motivation and excuse for nazi aggression, which isn’t accurate. It was one of the lines they ran with, but based around “living space” more than any kind of humanitarian reasoning.
Trying to compare nazi Germany to Putin is frankly gross, not a coherent argument, and also extremely insulting to anyone with family who survived the Shoah.
There are plenty of things to criticize Putin on without trying to claim he’s a nazi, especially when the Ukrainian government is literally run by neo-nazis after their NATO-backed coup.
yeah
I was just confused by the quip. I see what you meant now. I was following the exchange until I thought I was reading the other guy be like "so the nazis had this talking point" and you coming back with "but that's a nazi talking point" and at that point my brain short circuited and stopped functioning
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
for fuck's sake. learn history and stop repeating Western Cold War lies and propaganda. The British and French were trying to goad Germany and Russia into war.
The Soviets were the last country in Europe to sign a pact with the Nazis and here’s a handy infographic of the countries that did sign.
https://pics.onsizzle.com/what-countries-signed-contracts-with-hitler-and-when-1933-uk-1601874.png
The Soviets spent over a year before then trying to sign an anti-Nazi alliance with the British and the French, but both of those countries were uninterested.
Effort Post With Sources
The British confirmed all of this in 2009 when the 70 year limit ran out and their archive was opened and the full scale of what Stalin offered the Brits and French was basically enough to ensure WW2 never happened.
The British and French however sent delegates with no authority to sign an alliance. The polish hated the Soviets because Poland was fascist under Pilzudski and were hoping for an alliance with Hitler.
Poland also realized that if they allowed the Soviets onto Polish territory the Soviets would unilaterally annexe the land the Polish had stolen from the Soviet Union in the 1918-1920 invasion of the USSR where Poland annexed land from Belarus, Lithuania (they stole Villinus the capital of Lithuania) and Ukraine.
The Polish then enacted a forced “Polandisation” of the citizens living there. Suppressing native languages and treating Belarussians/Lits and Ukrainians as 2nd class peoples.
Bear in mind this is one year after they signed the Munich agreement which gave Hitler Czechoslovakia.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html
And yes, there were talks to join the axis! Germany at this point was in war with Britain and France and the Soviets needed another year and would still suffer horrendous losses (27 million dead)
So what was the result of those axis talks? (Besides the end point which was Germany invading the Soviet Union but let’s continue down the fantasy path that the Soviets trusted fucking Hitler and they were going seriously joining any German axis) .
-Ericson, Edward E. (1999), Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941,
Right so the axis talks ended with Hitler so pissed off at the Soviet Union Hitler assessed
And Hitler killing the talks.
We’ve established so far that the Soviets prioritized a British-French and polish anti-nazi alliance. That the British, Poles and French were rat bastards that saw communism as a greater evil than fascism and were hoping for the Germans and Russians to kill each other.
At this point though I’ve only quoted bourgeois sources so let’s see what the Soviets said about all this .
Removed by mod
This is literally anti-communist propaganda.
Yes, Stalin tried to broker an anti-fascist coalition and France / Britain weren't interested. That meant Russia had to buy time while they built up the army and weapons needed to fight fascists solo.
It should also be mentioned that the USSR was one of the last hold outs for trading with either of those countries.
This is completely ahistorical and frankly also fascist apologism.
Removed by mod
Do you view the Soviet Union as having collaborated with Nazis?
Wait, was there a lib doing the whole “hitler and stalin were allies” bullshit here? wtf
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
stanning for neo-nazis in this is stanning for nazi-style American-backed imperialism which is explicitly anti-LGBT and anti-socialist. Not supporting nazis and american imperialism != supporting Putin. There is not a "good team" here, aside from opposing American military intervention.
There are more than two sides to this conflict.
Help me out then and outline them, what are the different sides to this conflict? Also, given what you said about Russia as a contrast, which one(s) are explicitly pro-LGBT and pro-socialist? Genuinely asking this in good faith.
Removed by mod
That" journalist" had weapons and grenades on them. The article itself is filled with weird paragraphs ranting about "Neo-Stalinism". The article you linked is also a secondary source that links out to Radio Free Europe, which is literally funded by the CIA.
You're either not aware that you're repeating imperialist propaganda or you're intentionally licking boot. Either way, describing what's outlined in that article as concentration camps is disgustingly flippant and a disservice to survivors of The Shoah. I won't bother arguing a definition of that either way.
Both LPR and DPR have socialists involved in their governments. They are apparently not fully socialist, but I would say that those two states were pro-socialist. I can't speak to whether they are pro-LGBT.
Removed by mod
That website is sketch as hell and also references Radio Free Europe in multiple articles. It also has a lot of questionable stories in it and is clearly very biased against Russia.
:bruh:
Putin just ranted against communism for two minutes straight last night during his Ukraine speech.
Are you claiming Putin is socialist?
Lol what the fuck no. Begging you to get a better understanding of anti-imperialism and to be less idealist. All the bullshit with Pussy Riot alone makes it very clear Putin isn’t a socialist or supportive of queer rights.
Are you implying Russia can't be imperialist?
I am begging you to read this statement from Kenya's mission to the UN.
https://twitter.com/KenyaMissionUN/status/1495963864004976645
Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth? There are people throughout this thread explaining this for you if you want to figure it out.
Seeing a lot of reactionary support for capitalist Russia because it is not the capitalist United States.
In case you didn’t see it, I already disengaged after you started doing weird nazi apologism in a different thread here.
Removed by mod
:blob-stop:
deleted by creator
I don't think it's total altruism or anything, but I think Ukraine constantly violating the Minsk agreement gave Putin some great propaganda material about "defending Russians around the world" on a golden platter. Getting involved is only a positive for his popularity, regardless of ports or other economic consequences (which I wouldn't doubt play in as well).
The "warm water port" thing hasn't been important for a long time. Economically, most bulk exports are by pipeline or rail. Militarily, the most important warships travel under the ice now.
Crimea just isn't that important as a fleet base, even with Montreux Convention.
Don't they already have a mediterranean port via :assad-must-stay:
Not one they can access by road or train.
Eh, considering putin will suffer severe popularity losses from this (I suspect like tanking from 65 to less than 50), it will cost money, and so on, i suspect it’s natsec question exclusively. It’s not warm water port, it’s putting thaad system into donbas, or some shit which scares russia
I mean they already have Crimea.
Russia's actions today aren't going to get it anywhere near these goals
deleted by creator
Yea, there's no way Macron and Olaf doesn't know this will happen. Probably the best route for this situation