6 ms·

Russia annexed Crimea and has been engaged in a proxy war in Donbas for 8 years. The Kremlin has now amassed 100K - 200K troops at Ukraine's border. Yet, the R

Russia annexed Crimea and has been engaged in a proxy war in Donbas for 8 years. The Kremlin has now amassed 100K - 200K troops at Ukraine's border. Yet, the Russian propaganda machine continues to claim it's the West that wants war. Can you explain how the West is the aggressor here?

tim333 5y ago
There is a sort of aggression in that the West, and most the world's people really, like human rights and democracy and oppose the murderous dictator for life thing. Obvs that threatens Putin and he doesn't want that stuff setting in too much in his neighborhood.
iqanq 5y ago
The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards, wants missiles in Ukraine pointing at Putin's face.
- consp 5y ago
  > The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards If you neighbor wants to invade you and has done that already at least one in the past decade you might want a stronger ally than nobody. That is up to the country to decide. Though the cold war has shown that neither party wins in a climate of fear.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Why shouldn't it be expanding eastwards? Seems to me that if a bunch of countries want to get together to protect each other, they have every right to do so. Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru... And let's not forget Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    If NATO was nothing but a self defense pact, I'd tend to agree, but then if that was the case no one in NATO would want to expand too much. NATO is not just a self defence organisation. It's an offensive tool. NATO has gone into more offensive missions (at least 3) than truly defensive missions (literally zero - I don't count the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a defensive act). For many members of NATO, the only existing military threat is within NATO itself (see: Turkey and some of its neighbors). The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.
    - whythre 5y ago
      >The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions. As a westerner, that does sound pretty great- especially in the face of hostility from a glorified KGB thug like Putin.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Sure. But when you're building up an offensive stance you can only expect hostility back. And it helps strongmen get into power, too.
    - Koshkin 5y ago
      It is well-known that offense is the best form of defense.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion "How Russia Got So Big": * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1R_ycU_fS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1R_ycU_fS4 My ancestry is Slavic. You're going to go have a hard time convincing me not to worry about Russia.
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  If countries close to Russia both geographically and historically are more comfortable aligning with NATO rather than Russia, perhaps the problem is with Russia.
consp 5y ago
While I agree with that premise, it is good to point out the NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic countries and weapon shipments to Ukraine is a thing. Though I doubt this is at the same scale, and we as simple people have no way to verify any of this and people generally trust the propaganda on whichever side they are on.
- ptr 5y ago
  NATO troops and weapon shipments to Ukraine became a thing after Russia started threatening Ukraine's existence -- we want to help the Ukrainian people. We as "simple" people can decide whether we trust people like Putin or people like Biden.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    No. It is not. The pressure for Ukraine to join NATO has been simmering for decades before the west financed a coup to put literal nazis in power in Ukraine. Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex This is kind of weird given that NATO propaganda right now is justifying the absence of intervention—making the case that despite the illegality of current Russian action and the potential expanded invasion, Ukraine might get aid but essentially must be written off because the alternative is a World War—whereas it is Russian propaganda that is justifying war. Like, of NATO wanted to send the kids from NATO countries to die to enrich the military-industrial complex, they really ought to get their propagandists to stop working against their own goal.
      - elzbardico 5y ago
        Of course, the pressure come from the US, which has proven in the last decades to resort to this kind of propaganda blitz before they embark in another unjustified military adventure. This is another "OMG!!!! WMDs in Iraq". And as always the American media does its part in manufacturing consent for a war that nobody needs now. Make no mistake, the US government is the aggressor here.
VictorPath 5y ago
> Russia annexed Crimea The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Russia also signed a treaty that said it agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine, not Russia. It tore that treaty up and invaded Crimea because Ukraine was thinking about not extending Russia's lease on Sevastopol.
  - VictorPath 5y ago
    The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries. This sounds like a broken promise to me.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      I think that's fair, but it's not like the former communist countries were forced at gunpoint to join NATO. Russia may not like it (and I'd imagine I wouldn't were I in the same position) but invading countries because of their own sovereign decisions is unlikely to be successful in the long-term.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries No, he didn't. And even if he did promise the USSR that, I don't see a signed international agreement. Any such personal assurance with no formal agreement could not reasonably be viewed by anyone as anything more than a statement of policy of the then-current administration, not an open-ended binding commitment. I do see a signed treaty, signed much later, committing Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, that was in force when it invaded and occupied much of Ukraine.
    - 5y ago
macilacilove 5y ago
You dont need any propaganda machine to see that countries that are furthest from the conflict geographically and economically have the least to lose. That is why the warmongerist representing US/UK war efforts in every conflict is so excited about the situation.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  Having little to lose is not a rationale for doing something. You've still not explained how the West is the aggressor in the face of the continued overt Russian military aggression that we can all see.
  - macilacilove 5y ago
    Ukraine is at the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, where Western powers regularly encourage color revolutions bringing the country to a point of civil war. "The west" has virually no skin in the game but leaders would prefer Russia sanctioned and isolated so that once again US has unchallanged superpower status. Meanwhile, as discussed, Russia, Ukraine and EU have a lot to lose in a devastating and bitter war. At the same time Russia is obliged to keep stability and relative prosperity in the region for its citizens at home and Russian nationals abroad. The best route for Russia is to defend the status quo as passively as possible while waiting for the Ukrainians to realize that for the "west" Ukraine's destruction is about as good as Russia's. And I think this route is feasible for Putin, so this will happen(not much).
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      Aside from the fact that some of your statements are plainly incorrect, you're claiming that the U.S. is fomenting war simply because it wants "unchallenged superpower status". That is obviously quite vague and unrevealing. A very elementary assertion that elides calls for verifiable facts. Worse, Russia has rolled tanks in the region, annexed territory, and continues to fight a separatist war. The idea that they are somehow not the aggressor completely defies all reason and observable reality. Likewise, the idea that they are somehow keeping stability and prosperity in the region through their overtly imperialistic military aggression in an otherwise peaceful context is directly contrary to the reality. Ukraine simply wishes to remain a free and sovereign democratic nation. If Russia were not invading and threatening them, there would be no conflict. Three comments later, and you have still failed to explain how the West is the aggressor.
elzbardico 5y ago
Russia is defending herself from the aggressive encroachment of NATO. It is not very different from the US in the past not wanting Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba.

tim333 5y ago

There is a sort of aggression in that the West, and most the world's people really, like human rights and democracy and oppose the murderous dictator for life thing. Obvs that threatens Putin and he doesn't want that stuff setting in too much in his neighborhood.

iqanq 5y ago

The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards, wants missiles in Ukraine pointing at Putin's face.

consp 5y ago
> The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards If you neighbor wants to invade you and has done that already at least one in the past decade you might want a stronger ally than nobody. That is up to the country to decide. Though the cold war has shown that neither party wins in a climate of fear.
throw0101a 5y ago
Why shouldn't it be expanding eastwards? Seems to me that if a bunch of countries want to get together to protect each other, they have every right to do so. Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru... And let's not forget Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  If NATO was nothing but a self defense pact, I'd tend to agree, but then if that was the case no one in NATO would want to expand too much. NATO is not just a self defence organisation. It's an offensive tool. NATO has gone into more offensive missions (at least 3) than truly defensive missions (literally zero - I don't count the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a defensive act). For many members of NATO, the only existing military threat is within NATO itself (see: Turkey and some of its neighbors). The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.
  - whythre 5y ago
    >The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions. As a westerner, that does sound pretty great- especially in the face of hostility from a glorified KGB thug like Putin.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Sure. But when you're building up an offensive stance you can only expect hostility back. And it helps strongmen get into power, too.
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    It is well-known that offense is the best form of defense.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion "How Russia Got So Big": * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1R_ycU_fS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1R_ycU_fS4 My ancestry is Slavic. You're going to go have a hard time convincing me not to worry about Russia.
bandyaboot 5y ago
If countries close to Russia both geographically and historically are more comfortable aligning with NATO rather than Russia, perhaps the problem is with Russia.

consp 5y ago

While I agree with that premise, it is good to point out the NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic countries and weapon shipments to Ukraine is a thing. Though I doubt this is at the same scale, and we as simple people have no way to verify any of this and people generally trust the propaganda on whichever side they are on.

ptr 5y ago
NATO troops and weapon shipments to Ukraine became a thing after Russia started threatening Ukraine's existence -- we want to help the Ukrainian people. We as "simple" people can decide whether we trust people like Putin or people like Biden.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  No. It is not. The pressure for Ukraine to join NATO has been simmering for decades before the west financed a coup to put literal nazis in power in Ukraine. Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex This is kind of weird given that NATO propaganda right now is justifying the absence of intervention—making the case that despite the illegality of current Russian action and the potential expanded invasion, Ukraine might get aid but essentially must be written off because the alternative is a World War—whereas it is Russian propaganda that is justifying war. Like, of NATO wanted to send the kids from NATO countries to die to enrich the military-industrial complex, they really ought to get their propagandists to stop working against their own goal.
    - elzbardico 5y ago
      Of course, the pressure come from the US, which has proven in the last decades to resort to this kind of propaganda blitz before they embark in another unjustified military adventure. This is another "OMG!!!! WMDs in Iraq". And as always the American media does its part in manufacturing consent for a war that nobody needs now. Make no mistake, the US government is the aggressor here.

VictorPath 5y ago

> Russia annexed Crimea The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.

jcranmer 5y ago
Russia also signed a treaty that said it agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine, not Russia. It tore that treaty up and invaded Crimea because Ukraine was thinking about not extending Russia's lease on Sevastopol.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries. This sounds like a broken promise to me.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    I think that's fair, but it's not like the former communist countries were forced at gunpoint to join NATO. Russia may not like it (and I'd imagine I wouldn't were I in the same position) but invading countries because of their own sovereign decisions is unlikely to be successful in the long-term.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries No, he didn't. And even if he did promise the USSR that, I don't see a signed international agreement. Any such personal assurance with no formal agreement could not reasonably be viewed by anyone as anything more than a statement of policy of the then-current administration, not an open-ended binding commitment. I do see a signed treaty, signed much later, committing Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, that was in force when it invaded and occupied much of Ukraine.
  - 5y ago

macilacilove 5y ago

You dont need any propaganda machine to see that countries that are furthest from the conflict geographically and economically have the least to lose. That is why the warmongerist representing US/UK war efforts in every conflict is so excited about the situation.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
Having little to lose is not a rationale for doing something. You've still not explained how the West is the aggressor in the face of the continued overt Russian military aggression that we can all see.
- macilacilove 5y ago
  Ukraine is at the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, where Western powers regularly encourage color revolutions bringing the country to a point of civil war. "The west" has virually no skin in the game but leaders would prefer Russia sanctioned and isolated so that once again US has unchallanged superpower status. Meanwhile, as discussed, Russia, Ukraine and EU have a lot to lose in a devastating and bitter war. At the same time Russia is obliged to keep stability and relative prosperity in the region for its citizens at home and Russian nationals abroad. The best route for Russia is to defend the status quo as passively as possible while waiting for the Ukrainians to realize that for the "west" Ukraine's destruction is about as good as Russia's. And I think this route is feasible for Putin, so this will happen(not much).
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    Aside from the fact that some of your statements are plainly incorrect, you're claiming that the U.S. is fomenting war simply because it wants "unchallenged superpower status". That is obviously quite vague and unrevealing. A very elementary assertion that elides calls for verifiable facts. Worse, Russia has rolled tanks in the region, annexed territory, and continues to fight a separatist war. The idea that they are somehow not the aggressor completely defies all reason and observable reality. Likewise, the idea that they are somehow keeping stability and prosperity in the region through their overtly imperialistic military aggression in an otherwise peaceful context is directly contrary to the reality. Ukraine simply wishes to remain a free and sovereign democratic nation. If Russia were not invading and threatening them, there would be no conflict. Three comments later, and you have still failed to explain how the West is the aggressor.

elzbardico 5y ago

Russia is defending herself from the aggressive encroachment of NATO. It is not very different from the US in the past not wanting Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba.