Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Post Reply New Topic

^It’s actually the other way around, in reality.

First, you would need Mexicans and Canadians having quite recent and very bad experiences with being violently occupied by USA. Then, you would need them univocally begging China for decades to protect them from a threat of Americans invading them again. And China saying, okay, I might ally with you some day but no bases on your soil, I don't want to provoke USA. And then, USA invading Mexico/Canada before the deal is closed.
Only then, you would have the situation reversed.

The glorious army that libreated Kyiv from nazis in three days does not care for reality.

Do enlighten us.

What's there to enlighten?
Russia is actively attacking another state, claiming they're "only defending themselves".
NATO is not.

Putin kept on saying that, in essence, no military action was imminent all through February, 2022. On February 24th, the invasion of Ukraine started.

Putin kept on saying to Ukraine "I'm not touching you!"

Ah I see. Well, the meme refers to the much longer lead up to open hostilities - NATO escapades in the years prior to the opening shots of the war in 2014 - I posted it parallel to what Josh68 was posting. I apologise, I thought you were trying to flip that script on Russia - and surely you are no such fool.

On a related note:


magz if you still have time to make such vapid replies, you surely have the time to dig up what I asked for - a Russian "nuclear threat" from 2002 or prior or indeed anything that might justify the ridiculous provocation that was the EIS project.

Why would talking (and only talking!) about an anti-missile system be a provocation to Russia if Russia allegedly did not plan to attack these countries?

We didn't hide we joined NATO to be protected from a possibility of a future Russian invasion. If that was enough to provoke them, that says something about them, not about us.

We also didn't hide we feared a possible future invasion from Germany - actually, our Western border is much more dubious than the Eastern one - but German reaction was quite different.

If you insist - yes, I oversimplified. First, we feared an invasion from Russia. Then, we joined NATO. Then, Americans proposed an anti-missile system. Russia protested and threatned to put missiles in Kaliningrad Oblast in response. Americans withdrew from the project. Russia deployed missiles in Kaliningrad Oblast anyway. NATO did nothing. Russia attacked Ukraine full-scale. American anti-missile systems were hastily deployed in Poland. Finland and Norway filed for NATO membership, promising over 1300 km of new direct NATO-Russia border.
I believe now the chronological order is correct.

I was refering to the 2009-2021 period when USA already abandoned the project "not to provoke Russia" but Russia did not resign from their "reaction" to it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/so ... 023-02-16/

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The Eastern bloc nations were no longer under Russian control. You're completely ignoring that NATO expansion to the east continued despite assurances given that it would stop at the borders of a reunification Germany. That expansion did create to the tension that led to the Ukrainian invasion by Russia. Cause and effect.

If you piss on someone's lawn, and the home owner comes out and blows your head off with a shotgun, your actions are a direct provocation. It doesn't excuse the act of homicide, but it was a determining factor in the violent act.

To say that Putin's invasion was unprovoked is just factually incorrect.

Should countries not be allowed to act in their own self-interest just because they're near Russia?

No country is going take kindly to weaponry amassed along it's border, that's the point. What about this is hard to understand?

So, you believe Russia's violence is justified?

How close does a country need to be to Russia in order to lose their right to self-determination?

If Russia's neighbours feel the need to protect themselves against Russia, how does that entitle Russia to attack them?

I don't believe any invasion of this kind is ever justified. I'll leave it to you to sort out the point I'm making, because I've grown tired of engaing in circular conversations.

As I've already said, such a defense system would have interfered with Russia's ability to retaliate to a nuclear first strike by the USA thereby undermining MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction - their (and anyone's) only real deterrent to a nuclear attack.

Can you actually think of a more provocative action? I cannot. What were Poland and the US thinking? You act all surprised and hurt when Russia warns you that building such infrastructure would mean you are now a target for such missiles. That "silly little idea we were just chatting about with the US" implicitly threatened them with total nuclear annihilation.



Timeline looks roughly right now, but it leaves out a lot of back and forth which would expose just how soured the relationship between Russia and the US empire has become and how utterly arrogant and stupid the USA has been in general towards Russia, not that they could do much worse than the EIS project.

Have you now conceded that Russia didn't actually threaten to nuke Poland before EIS was talked about?

There were no actual Ukrainian troops positioned along the Russian border.

Russia’s motivation for invading Ukraine was butthurt that Ukrainians deny their “Russianess,” their desire to replicate the “glories” of the Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia, and a desire for a strategic position on the Black Sea coast.

All this crap about Nazis in Ukraine and the “threat” posed by NATO is a bunch of propaganda.