4 ms·

> as it's become painfully obvious these past few months Then again it might have been less obvious if the USA didn’t push its military alliance towards the ea

> as it's become painfully obvious these past few months Then again it might have been less obvious if the USA didn’t push its military alliance towards the east contrary to the opinions of its own diplomats for the past thirty years at the expense of its stated goal of furthering peace and been consistently working on disturbing the balance with projects like the BMD. So actually it’s not pretty clear at all.

nocoiner 4y ago
God, I love it when I come across a Russian troll in the wild. Nice work on getting your definite articles right on this one!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  You can as I do at the same time think that the war in Ukraine is a scandalous act for which Russia is to blame and that NATO policies since the fall of the Berlin Wall have been poorly thought out and mostly detrimental to security in Europe. It’s not an either or. In the same way, I believe that Russia should bear the long term consequences of the war but that the constant delivery of advanced weapons without pushing Ukraine and Russia to negotiate ending the conflict is mostly a cynical geopolitical play allowing the USA to weaken one of his opponent at the expense of foreign lives. The world is not black and white and standing on the side which seems morally right doesn’t mean you are not exposed yourself to propaganda.
  - boffinAudio 4y ago
    .. not to mention, the US is NOT morally right on the issue of illegal wars, invasions, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In fact, it is the worlds most heinous violator of human rights, period. You don't have to be a Russian to understand that. You just have to be willing to look for yourself and see America's war victims, the endless streams of refugees it has created around the world, the piles of human waste that were created for the sake of America's warmonger industries.
yellowapple 4y ago
Ah yes, the "Why'd you make me hit you, baby?" approach to geopolitics.
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  To be fair "look what you made me do" is actually often pretty close to the mark when it comes to geopolitical rationales. For a start, it was an excuse for WWII ("we don't want to invade Czechoslovakia but we've been pushed to it by the iniquity of Versailles"). And then the nuclear arms race on both sides ("we're only building missiles because you are"). And Afghanistan/Iraq ("you left us no choice/this is for your own benefit"). When you're getting into a war it's usually a good idea for a leader to blame the other guy for the cost and damage. It doesn't make it right, it's just that along with "nuh uh not touching you", "they started it" and "stop hitting yourself", it's a common pattern to see.
moffkalast 4y ago
What I see clearly is this: - NATO countries have nukes, therefore they don't get invaded - Russia has nukes, therefore they don't get invaded - Ukraine does not have nukes, therefore despite the non-proliferation and Russian friendship treaties which guarantee not being invaded, they got invaded anyway because they have no deterrent and nobody gives a fuck It's really as simple as that.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Yeah it's the nation-state equivalent of owning a gun.
  - moffkalast 4y ago
    Nah that would be more like the standard armed forces, This is like owning a trigger to a pile of TNT under every house in town that you'll detonate if anyone decides to break into your house.

nocoiner 4y ago

God, I love it when I come across a Russian troll in the wild. Nice work on getting your definite articles right on this one!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
You can as I do at the same time think that the war in Ukraine is a scandalous act for which Russia is to blame and that NATO policies since the fall of the Berlin Wall have been poorly thought out and mostly detrimental to security in Europe. It’s not an either or. In the same way, I believe that Russia should bear the long term consequences of the war but that the constant delivery of advanced weapons without pushing Ukraine and Russia to negotiate ending the conflict is mostly a cynical geopolitical play allowing the USA to weaken one of his opponent at the expense of foreign lives. The world is not black and white and standing on the side which seems morally right doesn’t mean you are not exposed yourself to propaganda.
- boffinAudio 4y ago
  .. not to mention, the US is NOT morally right on the issue of illegal wars, invasions, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In fact, it is the worlds most heinous violator of human rights, period. You don't have to be a Russian to understand that. You just have to be willing to look for yourself and see America's war victims, the endless streams of refugees it has created around the world, the piles of human waste that were created for the sake of America's warmonger industries.

yellowapple 4y ago

Ah yes, the "Why'd you make me hit you, baby?" approach to geopolitics.

adhesive_wombat 4y ago
To be fair "look what you made me do" is actually often pretty close to the mark when it comes to geopolitical rationales. For a start, it was an excuse for WWII ("we don't want to invade Czechoslovakia but we've been pushed to it by the iniquity of Versailles"). And then the nuclear arms race on both sides ("we're only building missiles because you are"). And Afghanistan/Iraq ("you left us no choice/this is for your own benefit"). When you're getting into a war it's usually a good idea for a leader to blame the other guy for the cost and damage. It doesn't make it right, it's just that along with "nuh uh not touching you", "they started it" and "stop hitting yourself", it's a common pattern to see.

moffkalast 4y ago

What I see clearly is this: - NATO countries have nukes, therefore they don't get invaded - Russia has nukes, therefore they don't get invaded - Ukraine does not have nukes, therefore despite the non-proliferation and Russian friendship treaties which guarantee not being invaded, they got invaded anyway because they have no deterrent and nobody gives a fuck It's really as simple as that.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
Yeah it's the nation-state equivalent of owning a gun.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Nah that would be more like the standard armed forces, This is like owning a trigger to a pile of TNT under every house in town that you'll detonate if anyone decides to break into your house.