4 ms·
>"What we learned in this "special operation" is that NATO expansion is just a convenient excuse for Russia and that they constantly lie and lie and lie about l
by FpUser 5y ago
>"What we learned in this "special operation" is that NATO expansion is just a convenient excuse for Russia and that they constantly lie and lie and lie about lying."
I'll skip subject of Russia lying in general. Somehow poisoning of former spies and lying about it does not make me loose my sleep. What Russia does with its own population is disgusting though.
On this particular NATO issue I was that idiot that did not believe that Putin will really start the war. Now looking back I think the warning and the message from Putin was pretty clear and consistent. He went from wanting to join NATO, to bitching about the expansion, to annexing parts of Georgia and Ukraine when NATO had started to entertain the ideas, to starting accumulating large military presence on the border of Ukraine later on, to issuing the ultimatum and giving last warning, to finally starting the war.
>"Sure, in essence of fairness, US would probably be pissed if China would make Canada allies, but in all fairness, you also need to see that there's no US missiles butchering children in Mexican train stations."
Well. Mexico does not exactly let Russia to deploy their missiles. I am not sure what will happen if they would start the process. I think they will be given "offer they will not be able to refuse".
If we skip the Mexico and start count since say WWII you won't have much difficulties finding cohorts of children, women and civilians in general killed, maimed, starved, displaced etc. etc. All for way less reason than deploying missiles near the US. Of course it was all with good intentions and for a common benefit of humanity /s
- tremon 5y agoSomehow poisoning of former spies and lying about it does not make me loose my sleep. What about shooting civilian airliners out of the sky and lying about it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-17#Russian_media_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-17#Russian_media_coverage
- FpUser 5y agoIf this is what really happened then yes they should be punished. No questions. But it was most likely a mistake anyways. It happens often enough. Ukraine shot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812. It then tried to deny etc. etc. The US shot down Iran Air Flight 655 and had also tried to cover it up and after being cornered had never apologized.
- lalaland1125 5y agoThe US admitted that they shot down Iran Air Flight 655 within hours and issued an apology. Russia still denies Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 years later. This is a bad comparison.
- FpUser 5y agoThere was settlement. No official apology. The US "expressed regret" you can read about it on Wikipedia. The USS Vincente shot down civilian aircraft that was transmitting whatever signal it was required to be recognized as civilian. Yes it was an accident. They did not have it as their mission to down passenger airliner.
- sofixa 5y agoYou have the timeline wrong. Russia had decided to invade Ukraine long before they had their impossible ultimatum ( for NATO and Ukraine to promise Ukraine will never join) rejected. The Russian government lies about everything. They lied about Crimea, Donbas, MH17 and a ton of other things. They have assasinated dissidents, journalists alongside former spies. Anything coming out of Moscow should be treated as flat out wrong, or at most indicative of what they want to do ( they're claiming Ukraine has chemical weapons? They're probably going to use chemical weapons on Ukrainian civilians).
- FpUser 5y ago>"The Russian government lies about everything." You do not need to convince me. I know it. As for journalists I've already said that Russia stinks when it comes to treatment of its own populace.
- xdennis 5y ago> The Russian government lies about everything. They lied about Crimea, Donbas, MH17 and a ton of other things. They even deny invading Ukraine. We can't really discuss anything with them when they're living in a parallel reality.
- xdennis 5y ago> Somehow poisoning of former spies and lying about it does not make me loose my sleep. Russia used chemical weapons in a NATO country which harmed 3 and killed one (innocent UK civilian). The UK would have had cause for war. It should have at least responded in kind and assassinated Russians.
- FpUser 5y ago>"The UK would have had cause for war." Sure. For some inexplicable reason they've decided to act in a rational matter and not to start WWIII. >"It should have at least responded in kind and assassinated Russians." Yep. And they did not. Probably to their credit they do not go down to the same level and do not for example behead people like their other enemy does. Interestingly the UK does have a strange case of their own spy committing "suicide" and stuffing themselves in a duffel bag.