11 ms·

Will the people downvoting this comment mind telling me what is wrong with it? I'm not a Russian apologist, just a fan of history, and am trying to understand w

Will the people downvoting this comment mind telling me what is wrong with it? I'm not a Russian apologist, just a fan of history, and am trying to understand why so many people reject this narrative. edit: Now I am downvoted too just for asking..? This just makes me think that there is not a solid answer?

MattGaiser 5y ago
For one thing, NATO does not propose membership, something Russians seem to think though [0]. Countries apply to join. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
- tehjoker 5y ago
  That's a really literal way of looking at the world. For major decisions, usually there is discussion and understanding (and possibly carrots thrown in) before an application is submitted. It's not like sending resumes into an HR black hole.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    The key point, whatever incentives exist, is that it was the choice of Ukraine. Fundamentally they had to take the first official step.
    - mysecretaccount 5y ago
      This makes some sense, thank you. I still do not know why the original commenter was flagged, it does not sound like his theory is completely ridiculous.
    - hackinthebochs 5y ago
      And NATO could just as easily have said no. The issue isn't Ukraine's interest, but NATO's posture towards accepting Ukraine's application.
- skissane 5y ago
  According to that article, Putin wanted Russia to join NATO, but NATO told him "join the queue with all the other countries". Russia argued it should get special treatment (for obvious reasons) but NATO didn't agree with that. I wonder, how would the world have turned out if NATO had made a different decision here? (Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that NATO decisions justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.)
  - JamesBarney 5y ago
    I don't think Russia meets all of the following NATO requirements. --New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity. --New members must be making progress toward a market economy. --Their military forces must be under firm civilian control. --They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders. --They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.
    - skissane 5y ago
      > --New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity. NATO's founding members in 1949 included Portugal, at the time ruled by a right-wing dictatorship (1926–1974). Turkey and Greece both joined in 1952, and both have gone through periods of brutal military rule even while remaining NATO members. For the majority of NATO's existence, most of these "requirements" you cite have been mere lip service at best. Many political scientists classify Erdogan's Turkey as an anocracy – a hybrid form of government which is part-way between dictatorship and democracy, mixing elements of both systems. Yet, Turkey remains a full member in good standing of NATO. Putin's Russia is also often classified as an anocracy. Why demand genuine democracy as a condition to join NATO when its current membership includes a state which isn't one? Indeed, according to the Polity data series [0], Putin's Russia is actually more free than Erdogan's Turkey. Don't get me wrong, democracy is a truly wonderful thing – but if welcoming non-democratic Russia into NATO might have prevented this war, wouldn't that have been a wonderful thing too? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
TestSIM1 5y ago
Maybe because the U.S. military isn't bombing the Ukrainian cities right now? And it wasn't the U.S.A. who sent troops to the Crimea and annexed in 2014?
- mysecretaccount 5y ago
  My understanding is that no one (serious) is defending Russia, but claiming that Ukraine is a new battleground for the West vs. Russia and that the NATO membership proposal/the 2014 coup was antagonistic like the annexation of Crimea. What is wrong with that claim? Of course what is happening is tragic. We can all agree it should have been avoided, and I am curious if it could have been avoided.
  - TestSIM1 5y ago
    I think it boils down to this: 1) Some parts of the Ukraine (the Crimea and Southern regions of the Ukraine) have a significant pro Russian population, e.g. they wouldn't protest a lot against Russian influence. 2) On the other hand the Western parts of the Ukraine are more EU/Western aligned, hence they don't want to do anything with the Putin's regime. From Putin's perspective an independent Ukraine is no-no. And the West isn't willing to start WW3 over the Ukraine.
    - mysecretaccount 5y ago
      All of that seems sensible, but I am not sure it clears up my confusion: if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application? If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine? I think that this is the primary argument of people claiming that the USA MIC is partly to blame here. I do not have a good response to it.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        Ukraine has made no NATO application (they last had a membership action plan in 2009). They've been told that they would not succeed or meet the criteria currently.
jazzyjackson 5y ago
I can only vouch so much, I agree with you. The post may be insightful or irrelevant, but I see no reason it should be flagged. I suppose some view message boards as an information battleground and find it's their duty to maintain a single narrative.
- r721 5y ago
  I flagged it because that person copy-pasted several their comments from another thread into one rambling comment here.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    Ah, that's fair, thanks for the response.
melony 5y ago
Nobody likes seeing Realpolitik in action. When you have been drip fed ideology about the LIO your whole life, it is very difficult to accept anything else. Unfortunately, today Thucydides wakes. It is unfortunate that international relations is not a part of the engineering curriculum of your typical HN user. Through the lens of realism, Ukraine is but another Cuban missile event. Pretending that joining NATO is a strictly defensive alliance and therefore more morally "right" will not change geopolitical realities. This is a failure of leadership on every side. Media soundbites and cool reprimands were chosen over recognising the harsh truth of Great Power politics. When it becomes more important to be an ardent defender of ideology on tiktok and television than to negotiate and compromise, this is what happens.
radu_floricica 5y ago
Buffer, yes. But the Maidan protests started because Russia made the first power grab. The very openly pro-Russian government of the time had just passed legislation that put Ukraine on a direct path towards becoming what is now Belarus. TBH, if that hadn't happen, we'd just have Ukraine more or less locked by Putin now. So no, we're not talking about a buffer zone, sorry. Not even in the strict military sense - the invasion today came from Belarus as well, and some reports even claim Belarusian troops, not that it matters much. So without that regime change, we'd most likely see Ukraine as part of the Russian Federation in a military capacity as well. We _had_ a buffer zone until yesterday. NATO was supporting Ukraine without much real intention of having it join, while Russia had Crimea and half of Donbass. This could have gone for decades - see Transnistria, which does exactly the same for Moldova for 30 years.
- warner_of_doom 5y ago
  Sending them weapons is a pathway. Pledging neutrality is not.
- ironcurtain 5y ago
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    From his wikipedia page, copy/paste the section "Exile in Russia". Nothing added or deleted: According to Russian politician Oleg Mitvol, Yanukovych bought a house in Barvikha for $52 million on 26 February 2014.[215] On 27 February, a report stated that Yanukovych had asked the authorities of the Russian Federation to guarantee his personal security in the territory of Russia, a request that they accepted.[216] Yanukovych claimed that the decisions of the Rada adopted "in the atmosphere of extremist threats" are unlawful and he remains the "legal president of Ukraine". He accused the opposition of violation of the 21 February agreements and asked the armed forces of Ukraine not to intervene in the crisis. The exact whereabouts of Yanukovych when he made this statement remains unclear.[217][218] He later thanked Vladimir Putin for "saving his life". On 3 October 2014, several news agencies reported that according to a Facebook post made by the aide to the Ukrainian Interior Minister, Anton Gerashchenko, Viktor Yanukovych had been granted Russian citizenship by a "secret decree" of Vladimir Putin.[219] On the same day, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that he didn't know anything about this.[220] In 2017, Russian media suggested that Yanukovych is apparently living in Bakovka near Moscow, in a residence owned by Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.[221][222] On 26 November 2015, Yanukovych received a temporary asylum certificate in Russia for one year; later extended until November 2017.[223] In October 2017, this was extended to another year.[224] According to his lawyer Yanukovych did not consider acquiring Russian citizenship or a permanent residence permits but "Only a temporary shelter for returning to the territory of Ukraine".[224]
freeflight 5y ago
Now the original comment is flagged and gone. I will still leave this reply here because it expands on the original comments claim with more sources than just Wikipedia; > We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych. This is an aspect to this that way too many people just ignore as "Russian misinformation". The Orange revolution was a prior US attempt [0] at facilitating a regime-change in Ukraine from pro-Russian politics to pro-Western politics, which failed. In 2014 there was the next attempt McCain not only riling up protesters [1], but meeting with the future PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk and leader of right-wing militias Oleh Tyahnybok [2] that were the muscle behind the 2014 revolution [3]. Arseniy Yatsenyuk was already declared the US's "man" during the leaked "Fuck the EU Nuland" calls [4], same Victoria Nuland that was literally handing out cookies to Ukrainian protesters [5]. Yatsenyuk wasn't even too shy about these connections; His OpenUkraine foundation's list of partners reads like the who is who of US regime change actors, down to the CIA's a National Endowment for Democracy and literal NATO itself [6]. Tho it was a bit too blatant, so they ended up putting his wife in charge of the foundation and removing the partners list. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-uk... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahn... [3] https://youtu.be/KfD_CaSIxmQ https://youtu.be/KfD_CaSIxmQ [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 [5] https://euobserver.com/tickers/122437 https://euobserver.com/tickers/122437 [6] https://web.archive.org/web/20140407065419/http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners https://web.archive.org/web/20140407065419/http://openukrain...
- artem247 5y ago
  Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not in power since 2016, what that has to do with invasion of Ukraine? And only power he got was that in autumn of 2014 his party got a fairly good numbers, that's why he became a PM, not because Americans have put him there.
mopsi 5y ago
The narrative of NATO expansion is a PR meme. It was created by Russians for the 2007 Munich security conference, where Putin made a speech. NATO is a defensive pact and existing members have always been very hesitant about accepting new members, because it is intended as a cooperation platform between equals and not a substitute for building up own defense force. The initiative to join NATO has always been driven by Eastern European countries seeking to maintain independence and reduce the risk of Russian invasion. Together with EU membership, it's the holy grail of foreign policy. The referenced Mearsheimer et al are irrelevant. They depict everything as a grand Russia vs USA standoff as if it were a board game, and ignore the delicate histories and current relationships between countries in Europe. If you are a fan of history, I recommend rejecting grand narratives and reading a general history of every country in Europe. How has Sweden fared in the past 500 years? Why Russians have an inferiority complex with Finns? Why isn't Austria in NATO? The more you read, the more you'll see the complex network of relationships and understand what every country seeks to achieve. To treat all of them as pawns of the US or Russia is unbelivably ignorant. Even countries as small as Iceland have their own foreign policy, and sometimes have a great impact on international relations.
warner_of_doom 5y ago
Now do you understand the neo-McCarthyism raging through our country? If you even say something other than "Putin is Satan" or "Russia bad", you get downvoted to oblivion. Enjoy. Don't bother mentioning the complexities of this situation or once again, you'll be downvoted.
- mysecretaccount 5y ago
  It is pretty wild. When engaging with the same people downvoting you, they do not even seem to disagree with this take violently, but think you are pro-Russia just because you bring up problems with how NATO/the West reacted to this.
  - warner_of_doom 5y ago
    We could've avoided this: (1) https://i.redd.it/iq2zlt0ldrj81.jpg https://i.redd.it/iq2zlt0ldrj81.jpg (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfk-qaqP2Ws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfk-qaqP2Ws (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PPaqnReu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PPaqnReu8 We still continued in order to destabilize all of Europe and prevent them from merging Central European industrial capital with Eastern European natural resources. It's the same old policy -- everything else is just bread and circuses. Well, we still have Russia by the throat, now I just think we shouldn't squeeze so hard that they collapse -- which would lead to a complete and utter destabilization of a huge chunk of the world, and it would be detrimental to our short and long-term interests. Miscreants would take over and have a field day.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> Will the people downvoting this comment mind telling me what is wrong with it? Do the people in Ukraine want to be 'used' as a buffer? What do they want? Because without addressing that your comment has a ‘I’m in favour of sacrificing people’ vibe.
rvba 5y ago
Ukrainian people can decide themselves what they can do. The comment above is pushing Russian propaganda.

MattGaiser 5y ago

For one thing, NATO does not propose membership, something Russians seem to think though [0]. Countries apply to join. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...

tehjoker 5y ago
That's a really literal way of looking at the world. For major decisions, usually there is discussion and understanding (and possibly carrots thrown in) before an application is submitted. It's not like sending resumes into an HR black hole.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  The key point, whatever incentives exist, is that it was the choice of Ukraine. Fundamentally they had to take the first official step.
  - mysecretaccount 5y ago
    This makes some sense, thank you. I still do not know why the original commenter was flagged, it does not sound like his theory is completely ridiculous.
  - hackinthebochs 5y ago
    And NATO could just as easily have said no. The issue isn't Ukraine's interest, but NATO's posture towards accepting Ukraine's application.
skissane 5y ago
According to that article, Putin wanted Russia to join NATO, but NATO told him "join the queue with all the other countries". Russia argued it should get special treatment (for obvious reasons) but NATO didn't agree with that. I wonder, how would the world have turned out if NATO had made a different decision here? (Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that NATO decisions justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.)
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  I don't think Russia meets all of the following NATO requirements. --New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity. --New members must be making progress toward a market economy. --Their military forces must be under firm civilian control. --They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders. --They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > --New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity. NATO's founding members in 1949 included Portugal, at the time ruled by a right-wing dictatorship (1926–1974). Turkey and Greece both joined in 1952, and both have gone through periods of brutal military rule even while remaining NATO members. For the majority of NATO's existence, most of these "requirements" you cite have been mere lip service at best. Many political scientists classify Erdogan's Turkey as an anocracy – a hybrid form of government which is part-way between dictatorship and democracy, mixing elements of both systems. Yet, Turkey remains a full member in good standing of NATO. Putin's Russia is also often classified as an anocracy. Why demand genuine democracy as a condition to join NATO when its current membership includes a state which isn't one? Indeed, according to the Polity data series [0], Putin's Russia is actually more free than Erdogan's Turkey. Don't get me wrong, democracy is a truly wonderful thing – but if welcoming non-democratic Russia into NATO might have prevented this war, wouldn't that have been a wonderful thing too? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago

TestSIM1 5y ago

Maybe because the U.S. military isn't bombing the Ukrainian cities right now? And it wasn't the U.S.A. who sent troops to the Crimea and annexed in 2014?

mysecretaccount 5y ago
My understanding is that no one (serious) is defending Russia, but claiming that Ukraine is a new battleground for the West vs. Russia and that the NATO membership proposal/the 2014 coup was antagonistic like the annexation of Crimea. What is wrong with that claim? Of course what is happening is tragic. We can all agree it should have been avoided, and I am curious if it could have been avoided.
- TestSIM1 5y ago
  I think it boils down to this: 1) Some parts of the Ukraine (the Crimea and Southern regions of the Ukraine) have a significant pro Russian population, e.g. they wouldn't protest a lot against Russian influence. 2) On the other hand the Western parts of the Ukraine are more EU/Western aligned, hence they don't want to do anything with the Putin's regime. From Putin's perspective an independent Ukraine is no-no. And the West isn't willing to start WW3 over the Ukraine.
  - mysecretaccount 5y ago
    All of that seems sensible, but I am not sure it clears up my confusion: if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application? If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine? I think that this is the primary argument of people claiming that the USA MIC is partly to blame here. I do not have a good response to it.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      Ukraine has made no NATO application (they last had a membership action plan in 2009). They've been told that they would not succeed or meet the criteria currently.

jazzyjackson 5y ago

I can only vouch so much, I agree with you. The post may be insightful or irrelevant, but I see no reason it should be flagged. I suppose some view message boards as an information battleground and find it's their duty to maintain a single narrative.

r721 5y ago
I flagged it because that person copy-pasted several their comments from another thread into one rambling comment here.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  Ah, that's fair, thanks for the response.

melony 5y ago

Nobody likes seeing Realpolitik in action. When you have been drip fed ideology about the LIO your whole life, it is very difficult to accept anything else. Unfortunately, today Thucydides wakes. It is unfortunate that international relations is not a part of the engineering curriculum of your typical HN user. Through the lens of realism, Ukraine is but another Cuban missile event. Pretending that joining NATO is a strictly defensive alliance and therefore more morally "right" will not change geopolitical realities. This is a failure of leadership on every side. Media soundbites and cool reprimands were chosen over recognising the harsh truth of Great Power politics. When it becomes more important to be an ardent defender of ideology on tiktok and television than to negotiate and compromise, this is what happens.

radu_floricica 5y ago

Buffer, yes. But the Maidan protests started because Russia made the first power grab. The very openly pro-Russian government of the time had just passed legislation that put Ukraine on a direct path towards becoming what is now Belarus. TBH, if that hadn't happen, we'd just have Ukraine more or less locked by Putin now. So no, we're not talking about a buffer zone, sorry. Not even in the strict military sense - the invasion today came from Belarus as well, and some reports even claim Belarusian troops, not that it matters much. So without that regime change, we'd most likely see Ukraine as part of the Russian Federation in a military capacity as well. We _had_ a buffer zone until yesterday. NATO was supporting Ukraine without much real intention of having it join, while Russia had Crimea and half of Donbass. This could have gone for decades - see Transnistria, which does exactly the same for Moldova for 30 years.

warner_of_doom 5y ago
Sending them weapons is a pathway. Pledging neutrality is not.
ironcurtain 5y ago
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  From his wikipedia page, copy/paste the section "Exile in Russia". Nothing added or deleted: According to Russian politician Oleg Mitvol, Yanukovych bought a house in Barvikha for $52 million on 26 February 2014.[215] On 27 February, a report stated that Yanukovych had asked the authorities of the Russian Federation to guarantee his personal security in the territory of Russia, a request that they accepted.[216] Yanukovych claimed that the decisions of the Rada adopted "in the atmosphere of extremist threats" are unlawful and he remains the "legal president of Ukraine". He accused the opposition of violation of the 21 February agreements and asked the armed forces of Ukraine not to intervene in the crisis. The exact whereabouts of Yanukovych when he made this statement remains unclear.[217][218] He later thanked Vladimir Putin for "saving his life". On 3 October 2014, several news agencies reported that according to a Facebook post made by the aide to the Ukrainian Interior Minister, Anton Gerashchenko, Viktor Yanukovych had been granted Russian citizenship by a "secret decree" of Vladimir Putin.[219] On the same day, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that he didn't know anything about this.[220] In 2017, Russian media suggested that Yanukovych is apparently living in Bakovka near Moscow, in a residence owned by Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.[221][222] On 26 November 2015, Yanukovych received a temporary asylum certificate in Russia for one year; later extended until November 2017.[223] In October 2017, this was extended to another year.[224] According to his lawyer Yanukovych did not consider acquiring Russian citizenship or a permanent residence permits but "Only a temporary shelter for returning to the territory of Ukraine".[224]

freeflight 5y ago

Now the original comment is flagged and gone. I will still leave this reply here because it expands on the original comments claim with more sources than just Wikipedia; > We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych. This is an aspect to this that way too many people just ignore as "Russian misinformation". The Orange revolution was a prior US attempt [0] at facilitating a regime-change in Ukraine from pro-Russian politics to pro-Western politics, which failed. In 2014 there was the next attempt McCain not only riling up protesters [1], but meeting with the future PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk and leader of right-wing militias Oleh Tyahnybok [2] that were the muscle behind the 2014 revolution [3]. Arseniy Yatsenyuk was already declared the US's "man" during the leaked "Fuck the EU Nuland" calls [4], same Victoria Nuland that was literally handing out cookies to Ukrainian protesters [5]. Yatsenyuk wasn't even too shy about these connections; His OpenUkraine foundation's list of partners reads like the who is who of US regime change actors, down to the CIA's a National Endowment for Democracy and literal NATO itself [6]. Tho it was a bit too blatant, so they ended up putting his wife in charge of the foundation and removing the partners list. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-uk... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahn... [3] https://youtu.be/KfD_CaSIxmQ https://youtu.be/KfD_CaSIxmQ [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 [5] https://euobserver.com/tickers/122437 https://euobserver.com/tickers/122437 [6] https://web.archive.org/web/20140407065419/http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners https://web.archive.org/web/20140407065419/http://openukrain...

artem247 5y ago
Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not in power since 2016, what that has to do with invasion of Ukraine? And only power he got was that in autumn of 2014 his party got a fairly good numbers, that's why he became a PM, not because Americans have put him there.

mopsi 5y ago

The narrative of NATO expansion is a PR meme. It was created by Russians for the 2007 Munich security conference, where Putin made a speech. NATO is a defensive pact and existing members have always been very hesitant about accepting new members, because it is intended as a cooperation platform between equals and not a substitute for building up own defense force. The initiative to join NATO has always been driven by Eastern European countries seeking to maintain independence and reduce the risk of Russian invasion. Together with EU membership, it's the holy grail of foreign policy. The referenced Mearsheimer et al are irrelevant. They depict everything as a grand Russia vs USA standoff as if it were a board game, and ignore the delicate histories and current relationships between countries in Europe. If you are a fan of history, I recommend rejecting grand narratives and reading a general history of every country in Europe. How has Sweden fared in the past 500 years? Why Russians have an inferiority complex with Finns? Why isn't Austria in NATO? The more you read, the more you'll see the complex network of relationships and understand what every country seeks to achieve. To treat all of them as pawns of the US or Russia is unbelivably ignorant. Even countries as small as Iceland have their own foreign policy, and sometimes have a great impact on international relations.

warner_of_doom 5y ago

Now do you understand the neo-McCarthyism raging through our country? If you even say something other than "Putin is Satan" or "Russia bad", you get downvoted to oblivion. Enjoy. Don't bother mentioning the complexities of this situation or once again, you'll be downvoted.

mysecretaccount 5y ago
It is pretty wild. When engaging with the same people downvoting you, they do not even seem to disagree with this take violently, but think you are pro-Russia just because you bring up problems with how NATO/the West reacted to this.
- warner_of_doom 5y ago
  We could've avoided this: (1) https://i.redd.it/iq2zlt0ldrj81.jpg https://i.redd.it/iq2zlt0ldrj81.jpg (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfk-qaqP2Ws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfk-qaqP2Ws (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PPaqnReu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PPaqnReu8 We still continued in order to destabilize all of Europe and prevent them from merging Central European industrial capital with Eastern European natural resources. It's the same old policy -- everything else is just bread and circuses. Well, we still have Russia by the throat, now I just think we shouldn't squeeze so hard that they collapse -- which would lead to a complete and utter destabilization of a huge chunk of the world, and it would be detrimental to our short and long-term interests. Miscreants would take over and have a field day.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> Will the people downvoting this comment mind telling me what is wrong with it? Do the people in Ukraine want to be 'used' as a buffer? What do they want? Because without addressing that your comment has a ‘I’m in favour of sacrificing people’ vibe.

rvba 5y ago

Ukrainian people can decide themselves what they can do. The comment above is pushing Russian propaganda.