Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic Robert Fico paid an official visit to China, October 31-November 5. He met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on November 1. Noting that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Slovakia, Xi said that after three-quarters of a century of development, … Continue reading China-Slovakia relations elevated to strategic partnership
Talking about justifying things is just a way to do moralizing. The way to avoid conflicts is by developing understanding for the interests and concerns of different nations, and treating one another with respect. After the fall of USSR, the west decided that it can ignore Russia's security concerns and keep pushing an aggressive military alliance onto Russian borders. That's what caused the war.
Plenty of western experts have been warning about this for decades on end. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
Show
Show
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Show
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Show
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Look at a map sometime and learn a bit of history. Finland borders a very difficult forested terrain, and Russia has never been invaded through Finland. However, Russia has been invaded multiple times through Ukraine.
But I guess it's only an invasion and imperialism if it happens to Russia?
Oh, and most effective ones against Russia itself? Never bothered with Ukraine;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Russian_War_(1609%E2%80%931618)
So the fuck you talking about? Especially claiming to know any of the history of the region? Kiev Rus? Yeah, Moscow basically did not exist when it was at it's height of power ffs. If you bothered to learn any history every surrounding country, including China, considers them a imperialist dangerous neighbor willing to invade given any chance, and always working toward that. With the small difference China is probably already marking Siberia as it's territory nowdays.
And obviously you're pretending that neither has the technology changed, and obviously 1000km of steppe is the best possible approach, since aircraft, drones, satellites and tactical missiles of nukes are not an option... This NATO bullshit was clearly checked when Scandinavians joined, Královec by the Baltic is now surrounded by it, borders extended in a tarain much harder to secure, a key new possible lifeline for Russian economy is threatened by Finish and Norwegian proximity, but no, somehow Ukraine would be a threat, and that's why the fighting focuses not on a direction of capital, but on the resource rich areas. How can you be so blind?
Maybe should read the wiki links you're spamming? 😂
What I'm talking about, is that Ukraine is a big wide open steppe through which majority of the invading forces attack. The fact that you can't understand this really is phenomenal.
And obviously you’re pretending that neither has the technology changed, and obviously 1000km of steppe is the best possible approach, since aircraft, drones, satellites and tactical missiles of nukes are not an option
And obviously you're ignorant of how actual warfare works given then you think you can win a war without ground invasion. You're like a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Oh look, the same clown who's cheering for Ukrainians to keep dying in a senseless war pretends to give a fuck about people in Sudan. You ain't fooling anybody.
You'd do anything not to accept the fact, that your argument is absolute bullshit, wouldn't you?
Poles raided Moscow, and set their Czar btw, going straight through current day Belarus. So did the French reach it. So attempted the Germans. The argument of Ukraine being needed for that has no basis neither in history nor modern warfare.
It's obvious that you're not interested in honest or rational discussion here and just keep deflecting. I love how you think you're being clever while being utterly transparent.
your reply had fuck all to do with the comment you replied to
Oh look, the same clown who’s cheering for Ukrainians to keep dying in a senseless war pretends to give a fuck about people in Sudan. You ain’t fooling anybody.
Faced with the fact that you don't actually give a shit about other people, you simply hop on to a different topic like the clown that you are.
You claim Finland is somehow impossible to cross, even tho Russia itself invaded over these terrains at least 3 times in the XX century. You claim Ukraine is somehow key to Russian security even tho both times Moscow was reached by European countries it was done over Belarus. I'm coping? That is nearly funny.
The fact that Russia had as much difficulty in Winter War as they did actually shows why Finland is bad terrain. It's hilarious how you keep doubling down on your idiocy here.
You picked the one with the worst effect for Russia out of three, yes, but still won by Russia, so what was your point exactly?
And have you ever seen any footage of actual fighting in Ukraine? It's either armored units getting butchered in the open fields, or tree-lines being the only safe means of approach and defensible entrenched positions.
Finland is exactly the type of terrain that enables modern military action. Unless you're expecting NATO to use heavy cavalry, or (the earlier) battle of Kursk style mass tank formations, which is by now even less likely then cavalry. Pick your favorite highway of death between the Iraqi and the north of Kyiv one for a reality check my dear tank aficionado. Not to mention the absolutely spectacular position of Severomorsk - northern fleet command, relative to NATO borders nowadays. Or the fact that Russia is in reality so scared of NATO that there's hardly any equipment or experienced troops left in that region currently as a cherry on top.
Yeah, I've seen plenty of footage of fighting in Ukraine, and if you pay attention to Kursk then you'll see how much harder fighting there is because of terrain. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, yet you're brimming with confidence. Absolutely incredible stuff.
Either yandex has some different maps or every map and satellite footage proves you wrong. Feel free to post anything that would prove that, or just enjoy the comparison of how much less forests is has compared to Ukraine.
Actually even took screens to have more fun of showing how idiotic your argument is, but lemmys limit hits in and I cant be bothered to spend the extra 2 minutes compressing it. Did you at least take a look at the maps now?
Talking about justifying things is just a way to do moralizing. The way to avoid conflicts is by developing understanding for the interests and concerns of different nations, and treating one another with respect. After the fall of USSR, the west decided that it can ignore Russia's security concerns and keep pushing an aggressive military alliance onto Russian borders. That's what caused the war.
Plenty of western experts have been warning about this for decades on end. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Ok, so how come Finland in NATO is not a problem?
Look at a map sometime and learn a bit of history. Finland borders a very difficult forested terrain, and Russia has never been invaded through Finland. However, Russia has been invaded multiple times through Ukraine.
Yeah, absolutely no invasions going over these forests whatsoever, apart for say these;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat
But I guess it's only an invasion and imperialism if it happens to Russia?
Oh, and most effective ones against Russia itself? Never bothered with Ukraine;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Russian_War_(1609%E2%80%931618)
Even for nazis Ukraine was one of three axis of attack, but they never reached as far as the earlier two, partially due to the massive distances over the steppes.
So the fuck you talking about? Especially claiming to know any of the history of the region? Kiev Rus? Yeah, Moscow basically did not exist when it was at it's height of power ffs. If you bothered to learn any history every surrounding country, including China, considers them a imperialist dangerous neighbor willing to invade given any chance, and always working toward that. With the small difference China is probably already marking Siberia as it's territory nowdays.
And obviously you're pretending that neither has the technology changed, and obviously 1000km of steppe is the best possible approach, since aircraft, drones, satellites and tactical missiles of nukes are not an option... This NATO bullshit was clearly checked when Scandinavians joined, Královec by the Baltic is now surrounded by it, borders extended in a tarain much harder to secure, a key new possible lifeline for Russian economy is threatened by Finish and Norwegian proximity, but no, somehow Ukraine would be a threat, and that's why the fighting focuses not on a direction of capital, but on the resource rich areas. How can you be so blind?
Maybe should read the wiki links you're spamming? 😂
What I'm talking about, is that Ukraine is a big wide open steppe through which majority of the invading forces attack. The fact that you can't understand this really is phenomenal.
And obviously you're ignorant of how actual warfare works given then you think you can win a war without ground invasion. You're like a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Out of 2 forces that reached Moscow, which one went through Ukraine?
BTW another pro-peace undertaking of Russia: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/18/russia-vetoes-sudan-ceasefire-resolution-at-un-security-council
Oh look, the same clown who's cheering for Ukrainians to keep dying in a senseless war pretends to give a fuck about people in Sudan. You ain't fooling anybody.
Out of 2 forces that reached Moscow, which one went through Ukraine?
Out of 2 brain calls you have available which one did you use to write that reply?
You'd do anything not to accept the fact, that your argument is absolute bullshit, wouldn't you?
Poles raided Moscow, and set their Czar btw, going straight through current day Belarus. So did the French reach it. So attempted the Germans. The argument of Ukraine being needed for that has no basis neither in history nor modern warfare.
It's obvious that you're not interested in honest or rational discussion here and just keep deflecting. I love how you think you're being clever while being utterly transparent.
What's "deflecting" about giving you very simple, clear historical evidence your argument is invalid?
your reply had fuck all to do with the comment you replied to
Faced with the fact that you don't actually give a shit about other people, you simply hop on to a different topic like the clown that you are.
You're hillarious, here's a refresher of your own escaping https://lemmy.ml/comment/15056594
I'm not escaping anything there, but hey you cope the best you can there.
You claim Finland is somehow impossible to cross, even tho Russia itself invaded over these terrains at least 3 times in the XX century. You claim Ukraine is somehow key to Russian security even tho both times Moscow was reached by European countries it was done over Belarus. I'm coping? That is nearly funny.
The fact that Russia had as much difficulty in Winter War as they did actually shows why Finland is bad terrain. It's hilarious how you keep doubling down on your idiocy here.
You picked the one with the worst effect for Russia out of three, yes, but still won by Russia, so what was your point exactly?
And have you ever seen any footage of actual fighting in Ukraine? It's either armored units getting butchered in the open fields, or tree-lines being the only safe means of approach and defensible entrenched positions.
Finland is exactly the type of terrain that enables modern military action. Unless you're expecting NATO to use heavy cavalry, or (the earlier) battle of Kursk style mass tank formations, which is by now even less likely then cavalry. Pick your favorite highway of death between the Iraqi and the north of Kyiv one for a reality check my dear tank aficionado. Not to mention the absolutely spectacular position of Severomorsk - northern fleet command, relative to NATO borders nowadays. Or the fact that Russia is in reality so scared of NATO that there's hardly any equipment or experienced troops left in that region currently as a cherry on top.
Yeah, I've seen plenty of footage of fighting in Ukraine, and if you pay attention to Kursk then you'll see how much harder fighting there is because of terrain. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, yet you're brimming with confidence. Absolutely incredible stuff.
How is the terrain there different?
look at a map sometime, Kursk is a heavily forested area
Either yandex has some different maps or every map and satellite footage proves you wrong. Feel free to post anything that would prove that, or just enjoy the comparison of how much less forests is has compared to Ukraine.
lmfao ok
Actually even took screens to have more fun of showing how idiotic your argument is, but lemmys limit hits in and I cant be bothered to spend the extra 2 minutes compressing it. Did you at least take a look at the maps now?