5 ms·

The US did not make Putin invade Ukraine. That's like saying Iran made the US invade Iraq, because Saddam didn't give up WMDs because he was scared about Iran.

by enkid 5y ago

The US did not make Putin invade Ukraine. That's like saying Iran made the US invade Iraq, because Saddam didn't give up WMDs because he was scared about Iran. The only person who made Putin invade Ukraine is Putin. The US and West are not the ones that are upping the confrontation. Putin has invaded his neighbors multiple times, is interfering in internal political processes of democracies, and is threatening nuclear weapon use constantly. You can't look at this from one side and say it's the "West's" fault without looking that the Russian actions that were just as, or more escalatory. Edit: Also, I haven't flagged a single comment today, nor do I think I can flag a reply to my comments.

sinyug 5y ago
- egman_ekki 5y ago
  > The map of Eastern Europe and NATO expansion over the last 25 years makes the US intention to encircle Russia very clear. Perhaps that was the evil plan of NATO. Why I feel it's different, though, is that those Eastern European countries tried to enter NATO as quickly as possible, as they still remembered Russia/USSR saving them from democracy in the 60s/70s. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
- gruturo 5y ago
  > Russia asked for a buffer against NATO. The US took advantage of Russia's weakness post collapse of the USSR and didn't give them that buffer. Putin decided that he will create one by himself. That is the story. Except, he already borders 4 (6 if you count Lithuania and Poland due to Kaliningrad) by land, plus Turkey by water), and if he conquered Ukraine the count would rise by 3, so let's call bullshit on that. Also - he's a murderous, aggressive tyrant and a proven liar, so let's please stop giving him the benefit of doubt.
  - Yoofie 5y ago
    > Except, he already borders 4 (6 if you count Lithuania and Poland due to Kaliningrad) by land, plus Turkey by water), and if he conquered Ukraine the count would rise by 3, so let's call bullshit on that. It's not bullshit. The entire point is to reduce the direct number on Russia's borders. Just because you have a few already on your border does not mean you allow even more directly line up on your border. What he is doing completely rational from a military/geopolitical perspective.
- denis1 5y ago
  The map of Eastern Europe and NATO expansion over the last 25 years makes the fact the Russia is a shitty neighbor very clear. It's not that the US/NATO want to extend, it's that the countries of Eastern Europe seek protection from the mad neighbor to the east.
- mstipetic 5y ago
  Nobody gives a shit about Russia. Not a single, however crazy, politician is talking about invading or attacking Russia.
- ledauphin 5y ago
  A buffer is _nobody's_ right. Not Russia's, not the US, _nobody_. Ukraine, Vietnam, you name it - those people aren't anybody's buffer, and no one has any right to speak of them that way. It's not up to Russia _or_ the US to decide these things. It's up to the citizens of Ukraine. This is what Russia fundamentally doesn't respect, but Europe and the West fundamentally does. Yes, the US has done some horrible things in the past (see: Vietnam, somewhat less so Iraq), but Russia believes in "buffers" regardless of the desire of the inhabitants of those buffers, whereas the West believes (however imperfectly in practice) that countries should be self-determining. In a way, the best proof of this is Europe's response to this invasion: at first, nobody was willing to get involved. When it became clear that Ukrainians themselves were fully committed to remaining sovereign, then the influx of cash and materiel began.
- taylodl 5y ago
  Saying the U.S. was wrong in the past doesn't make Russia any less wrong now. Also, the optics of Russia invading a neighboring state looks a lot different than the U.S. invading Iraq for aiding and abetting the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks.
- MrMan 5y ago
  wow that Salon article is a bit frightening.
eezurr 5y ago
In addition to the other response you've received, NATO is the US, for all intents and purposes. If you watch the video I linked, you'll see that most (all?) countries Russia has invaded in the past was because of NATO involvement, e.g. dangling NATO membership over their heads.
- enkid 5y ago
  NATO is not the US. This is such an absurd statement considering the measures all of the other members have been taking over the last few days, often well before the US. Saying something like that totally discounts the rest of your argument in my mind.
  - eezurr 5y ago
    Well, I 've already sourced my comments. I encourage you watch the talk given by the professor.
  - Yoofie 5y ago
    Lets be real - NATO is effectively the US with a few European "puppet" states. Without the leadership or the military of the US military, NATO is dramatically and significantly weaker.
Beltalowda 5y ago
> The only person who made Putin invade Ukraine is Putin. Well, yes; but when dealing with such high-stakes international politics you need to consider what consequences your actions will have, even if you think your actions are completely justified and the consequences are stupid. To say "Ukraine is the West's Fault" is a bit clickbait-y, and the actual content is more nuanced, but I do think there's truth in that we ("the west") could and should have acted with more caution and consideration of the possible consequences rather than operate on grand ideals.

by enkid 5y ago

sinyug 5y ago

egman_ekki 5y ago
> The map of Eastern Europe and NATO expansion over the last 25 years makes the US intention to encircle Russia very clear. Perhaps that was the evil plan of NATO. Why I feel it's different, though, is that those Eastern European countries tried to enter NATO as quickly as possible, as they still remembered Russia/USSR saving them from democracy in the 60s/70s. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
gruturo 5y ago
> Russia asked for a buffer against NATO. The US took advantage of Russia's weakness post collapse of the USSR and didn't give them that buffer. Putin decided that he will create one by himself. That is the story. Except, he already borders 4 (6 if you count Lithuania and Poland due to Kaliningrad) by land, plus Turkey by water), and if he conquered Ukraine the count would rise by 3, so let's call bullshit on that. Also - he's a murderous, aggressive tyrant and a proven liar, so let's please stop giving him the benefit of doubt.
- Yoofie 5y ago
  > Except, he already borders 4 (6 if you count Lithuania and Poland due to Kaliningrad) by land, plus Turkey by water), and if he conquered Ukraine the count would rise by 3, so let's call bullshit on that. It's not bullshit. The entire point is to reduce the direct number on Russia's borders. Just because you have a few already on your border does not mean you allow even more directly line up on your border. What he is doing completely rational from a military/geopolitical perspective.
denis1 5y ago
The map of Eastern Europe and NATO expansion over the last 25 years makes the fact the Russia is a shitty neighbor very clear. It's not that the US/NATO want to extend, it's that the countries of Eastern Europe seek protection from the mad neighbor to the east.
mstipetic 5y ago
Nobody gives a shit about Russia. Not a single, however crazy, politician is talking about invading or attacking Russia.
ledauphin 5y ago
A buffer is _nobody's_ right. Not Russia's, not the US, _nobody_. Ukraine, Vietnam, you name it - those people aren't anybody's buffer, and no one has any right to speak of them that way. It's not up to Russia _or_ the US to decide these things. It's up to the citizens of Ukraine. This is what Russia fundamentally doesn't respect, but Europe and the West fundamentally does. Yes, the US has done some horrible things in the past (see: Vietnam, somewhat less so Iraq), but Russia believes in "buffers" regardless of the desire of the inhabitants of those buffers, whereas the West believes (however imperfectly in practice) that countries should be self-determining. In a way, the best proof of this is Europe's response to this invasion: at first, nobody was willing to get involved. When it became clear that Ukrainians themselves were fully committed to remaining sovereign, then the influx of cash and materiel began.
taylodl 5y ago
Saying the U.S. was wrong in the past doesn't make Russia any less wrong now. Also, the optics of Russia invading a neighboring state looks a lot different than the U.S. invading Iraq for aiding and abetting the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks.
MrMan 5y ago
wow that Salon article is a bit frightening.

eezurr 5y ago

In addition to the other response you've received, NATO is the US, for all intents and purposes. If you watch the video I linked, you'll see that most (all?) countries Russia has invaded in the past was because of NATO involvement, e.g. dangling NATO membership over their heads.

enkid 5y ago
NATO is not the US. This is such an absurd statement considering the measures all of the other members have been taking over the last few days, often well before the US. Saying something like that totally discounts the rest of your argument in my mind.
- eezurr 5y ago
  Well, I 've already sourced my comments. I encourage you watch the talk given by the professor.
- Yoofie 5y ago
  Lets be real - NATO is effectively the US with a few European "puppet" states. Without the leadership or the military of the US military, NATO is dramatically and significantly weaker.

Beltalowda 5y ago

> The only person who made Putin invade Ukraine is Putin. Well, yes; but when dealing with such high-stakes international politics you need to consider what consequences your actions will have, even if you think your actions are completely justified and the consequences are stupid. To say "Ukraine is the West's Fault" is a bit clickbait-y, and the actual content is more nuanced, but I do think there's truth in that we ("the west") could and should have acted with more caution and consideration of the possible consequences rather than operate on grand ideals.