Putin goes on to say
”Our proposal is not to freeze the conflict, like how the west wants it, but to end it. I repeat, this is not to freeze the conflict, but for its final completion.”
Putin goes on to say
”Our proposal is not to freeze the conflict, like how the west wants it, but to end it. I repeat, this is not to freeze the conflict, but for its final completion.”
How is Russia not the aggressor in a war they started?
History begins in the winter of 2022 of course
Including more history is not to Putin's credit.
You uh
You wanna expand on that or are you going to pretend you got an epic mic drop own
Because I have no fucking clue what you're trying to say
No mic drop intended, just replying fast to a few people.
I guess before I figure out which way to expand on it I need a baseline, do you believe history will look fondly on Putin?
No, I don't. He represents the worst of the collapse of the Soviet Union. He runs a staunchly conservative, queerphobic nation that's put a number of my friends in real material danger simply for existing, and they can scarcely tell me about it because of how tightly the state cracks down on that
How history will view him depends on how the war shakes out and who you're asking and why. He's been a leader - or around the reins of power - for a very long time, and I don't see him as innocent or blameless in the events that bring us to the invasion. This was a collision thirty odd years in the making, and Great Man Theory fucking sucks as an analysis of history
This doesn't just have to do with Putin, there is no reality where any Russian president would accept Ukraine joining NATO. That has been clear since the fall of the Soviet Union.
true, Russia could have elected Karl Marx or Jesus Christ or Taylor Swift as president and they would still have responded to american provocation in similar ways. Putin is a conservative, homophobic oligarch, but just about anyone else in that position would have responded similarly to the threat of NATO nukes on their border and nazis ethnically cleansing speakers of their language. If Mexico decided to join BRICS and host Chinese nukes and militias started massacring english-speakers and anyone with american citizenship or ancestry, we would go full Iraq Invasion style and turn the entire country into rubble and irradiated craters and corpses, meanwhile Russia waited like 2 years after invading to even start targeting the electrical grid and other infrastructure.
I'm not great at geography, so when I recently saw a map that showed how some of the Western missiles could reach Moscow from Ukrainian territory...that was when it really hit me how Ukraine potentially joining NATO is basically the Cuban missile crisis except much worse for Russia. Yeah, make fun of me all you want for not taking the time to really look at a map.
yea i've had people be like 'we can hit them with nukes from anywhere why does ukraine matter' but like having 20 or 30 minutes to detect an incoming ICBM from the ocean (to maybe shoot it down/knock it off course or get everyone into bunkers to launch your own counterattack) is a much better situation in terms of deterrence than having 5 minutes to maybe detect a launch from concealed/rough terrain and have just enough time to let everyone in the nuclear command center/capital city know they are going to die (missile nerds correct me if i'm oversimplifying, ICBMs at long range need to reach near-orbit heights in their flights whereas closer range missiles can be launched to fly somewhat closer to the ground in ways harder to detect with radar or intercept with missiles of your own)
I think it also has to do with Ukraine being the perfect pathway for a land invasion as well.
Whether or not any Russian president would have accepted it doesn't justify invading another country with the intent of claiming the land as their own, nor does it make them any less of the aggressor.
You seem to be giving a green light to invade to every NATO-aligned state, including Ukraine. But hey, prove me wrong and tell us how every state that invaded, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan should answer for their crimes.
But no, if the gang of states that keep invading everywhere around the world and killing millions are encroaching on your borders after promising to not expand towards you, you have a reason to act against them.
Also, care to tell us what makes you qualified to tell the rest of the world how it should resist you?
Turns out that diplomacy doesn't work like "we are the USA and we will dictate the terms always and forever", it was only a matter of time before someone put their foot down.
That's not a moral judgement, that's just how shit happens.
I'm sure you're referring to what happened with Crimea after Euromaidan, but real quick... What was Euromaidan and how come the US state department could decide who should run Ukraine? And why exactly is it so hard to believe that regions of Ukraine with a majority of ethnic Russians would vote to become part of Russia, rather than a country whose government was installed by Nazis that publicly stated they wanted to get rid of ethnic Russians in Ukraine?
Should we go further back? Back to when NATO pledged to Yeltsin not to expand further towards Russia? Or in 00's when Russia was rejected from NATO membership (having applied after NATO expanded further towards Russia despite previous pledges).
lol. lmao
😝
Including more history is not justification but to explain why things happen. Wtf is wrong with liberals?
It's like explaining to a child how babies are made and they go "no actually babies just appear out of nowhere" lmao
The problem with informing yourself with mainstream media. Its like putin just decided to invade ukraine that morning. And he is a crazy evil dictator etc
No one said he decided that morning, just that he initiated a war.
You got the idea
In 2014 a bunch of Ukrainian nazis couped the democratically elected government and started ethnically cleansing the Russian population in the Donbas. Some sections of the Ukrainian military rebelled and formed militia units to protect the population from being murdered by nazis, leading to a low level civil war stretching on for years. Ukrainian nazi paramilitaries continued persecuting ethnic Russian Ukrainians civilians as well as shelling Donetsk and Lugansk
During this time Russia tried repeatedly to conduct diplomacy with the nazis western handlers, the US and the UK, as well as interested third parties such as Germany and France. However, it was pointless as the US never intended to back down and continuously goaded the Ukrainian nazis into attacks on the Donbas, all the while supplying them with money and weapons. When the war seemed to be escalating to the point NATO forces might join in, Russia - understanding that any actual direct combat between Russian and NATO soldiers would lead to a global nuclear holocaust - jumped in with its troops first... after spending three days voting to formally recognize the independence of the DPR and LPR, of course, because Putin is a bureaucrat to the core and these things must be done properly.
And now, the people of Donetsk and Luhansk can live quietly without fear of nazi missiles blowing up their city centers for no reason.
This part's not actually true yet.
No, you're right, the US keeps delivering longer-ranged missiles so the nazi terrorism can continue.
Cause they didn't start the 2014 Ukranian Civil War, they're just finishing it?
no sassy one-line reply to your comment :( damn i was looking for some entertainment
if i point a gun at your head and you attack me, who is the aggressor?
If I invent an imaginary gun in your hand when there was none and attack you, who is the aggressor?
Good to know the Eastern Ukrainians getting shelled in their homes for almost a full decade are imaginary
Boy, would my face have been red if I had been supporting Nazis carrying out an ethnic cleansing in those regions
Glad it was just Kremlin propaganda and epic smol bean Ukraine isn't a reactionary shithole throwing an entire generation into a meat grinder war for no good reason
That is a whole different topic than the thread you're replying to which is about Russia starting this invasion as the aggressors.
If you want to discuss the conflict in eastern Ukraine, we can, but don't start by getting snarky about some imagined argument that exists only in your mind.
The thread is about Russia seeking peace, peace for a war that was started, in part, due to the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Pretending like this is not directly part of the discussion you've tried to begin just further shows your lack of fundamental understanding on the subject. It's a poor rhetorical trick as well.
Anyway, why don't you volunteer for Ukraine? They need people, and you obviously believe this war is important enough to continue a meat grinder that has led to the average age of the Ukrainian army
forced conscriptfighter being 43.You didn't answer last time I asked, just like you ignored so many other users questions and comments that couldn't be dismissed with an asinine quip. Challenge your worldview, or please come with an actual well-founded analysis that can challenge ours.
It is absolutely not a "whole different topic". Why are you liberals so afraid of historical context?
Oh that's right, because it demolishes your delusional view of the world.
But the conflict in Eastern Ukraine is one of the main inciting incidents of the war.
This is like saying we can't bring up the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in a discussion or why Austria-Hungry invaded Serbia.
There's nothing imaginary about a hostile nuclear power on your border. That is a gun to your head. The US did not allow it in Cuba. Russia will not allow it in Ukraine.
Imagine that there is a massive military alliance led by China whose sole purpose is to "curtail" the US. Despite several attempts at diplomacy from the US this military alliance has never been anything but belligerent. In the 90's it bombed... The UK? (What's a good US equivalent to Yugoslavia?)
Since then the US has reformed itself to be more like China in part due to assurances that the military alliance would not expand further.
After this the military alliance has expanded to include most of South America and Central America. Mexico is left as the only buffer.
Some time ago there was a coup in Mexico. Wikileaks managed to capture phone conversations between Chinese apparatchiks discussing who should be put in power, and the people they discussed DID come into power, how about that?*
Now the president of America is stating publicly that if Mexico looks to join
NATOthe anti-US military alliance that has orchestrated coups in both the US and Mexico, then the US will invade Mexico as a precaution. The president states that this is a red line. The anti-US alliance refuses discussions and instead keeps stating publicly that Mexico will be made a member of the anti-US alliance, it has to be in order to prepare for "future conflict". Around this time the anti-US alliance establishes military bases on Cuba. Mexico keeps saying it will look to join NATO. No one is willing to have talks with the US (funnily enough the leader of China actually said in the 90's that expanding the anti-US alliance would be a mistake and would lead to war with the US).While all this is happening mexican fascist militias are bombing regions of Mexico with majorities of ethnic USians. This is in breach of two treaties, which is wholly disregarded by both Mexico and the anti-US alliance.
It looks like the red line is about to be crossed. A red line that the anti-us alliance had pledged not to cross.
Now if all that had happened, can you understand why the US might invade Mexico?
Okay then, let's leave this imaginary scenario and... wow would you look at that! It all has parallels to modern day Russia-Ukraine. It seems like this heavy-handed analogy that you're going to dismiss due to being "too long" or "unrealistic" (because let's be honest, you're the type to struggle with hypothetical) actually had a point! Wow pulling your head out of your ass sure can be fun, huh?
*The coup was led by a fascist militia whose main motivation was to get ethnic USians out of Mexico. After the coup a public referendum was held
Indonesia?
Ooooh or Japan maybe
I was gonna say Japan or maybe the Philippines
NATO missiles are imaginary? Damn that takes a lot of stress off me.
Russia started the war because the west wants influence over Ukraine, which is existential for Russia. This is something the United States and NATO are already aware of, so the real question is why would nato take an aggressive posture in Ukraine knowing they cannot win a war?
Inb4 you make an edit or comment saying something like "wow so many russian shills responding to this! Guess you don't like to get your echo chamber disturbed".
Please educate yourself instead
wow so many russian shills responding to this! Guess you don't like to get your echo chamber disturbed
I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. It's very telling you reply to this instead of @CascadeOfLight@hexbear.nets comment giving you a basic analysis for the reason forr the war. You are an intellectual coward. Go to the news mega and better yourself
Well you didn't put it in an edit
The a in usa stands for aggressor
usa is always the aggressor
They started hundreds of wars, this one included
https://twitter.com/RealScottRitter/status/1778355370416603236?t=5aqmxygsonIsjtjTLe1ADw&s=19