3 ms·

"the expansion of a defensive alliance" From whom was NATO defending itself in Serbia and Lybia[0]? "it is in vogue for supporters of Russia to blame everyone

by gdy 4y ago

"the expansion of a defensive alliance" From whom was NATO defending itself in Serbia and Lybia[0]? "it is in vogue for supporters of Russia to blame everyone but Russia" You even quoted me: "It could've been stopped at any moment by any side". Do you read what you quote? "Russia choose to shoot down the civilian airliner " No more than the US chose to shoot down Iranian airliner [1]. Americans who killed 290 civilians in one shot even got medals [1]. "The reason they invaded" Usually people say that the shining success of the Ukrainian democracy was threatening Putin's regime. This one is new for me. The problem is you'll fail to substantiate it with numbers. 'The only side capable of stopping this is Russia, no one else.' Obviously it's not true. Kiev and its Western patrons explicitly told that there won't be peace negotiations and it's unlikely that Putin will leave all the Russia supporters in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to the mercy of the Ukrainian nationalists. That would be hugely unpopular. "Russias inability to make themselves adhere to past agreements" The Budapest memorandum was not legally binding and the situation since it was signed had changed dramatically -- the whole idea of common security for all of Europe including Russia (explicitly described in the Annex of the Memorandum) was thrown away by NATO expansion. "Ukraine will be" I'm afraid there won't be Ukraine when it ends. Many more people will die in the process. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Post-tour_of_duty_medals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Post-tour_...

_kbh_ 4y ago
> From whom was NATO defending itself in Serbia and Lybia[0]? NATO will never attack Russia but Russia sure loves to attack countries that try and join NATO. Russias aggression in countries nearby is the number one reason for NATO expansion around Russia. > No more than the US chose to shoot down Iranian airliner [1]. Americans who killed 290 civilians in one shot even got medals [1]. Your whataboutism is commendable my friend by this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. > Obviously it's not true. Kiev and its Western patrons explicitly told that there won't be peace negotiations and it's unlikely that Putin will leave all the Russia supporters in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to the mercy of the Ukrainian nationalists. That would be hugely unpopular. Ukraine was willing to negotiate, but then Bucha happened. When Ukraine saw the rape and genocide of its citizens at the hands of the Russians all bets where off. > The Budapest memorandum was not legally binding and the situation since it was signed had changed dramatically -- the whole idea of common security for all of Europe including Russia (explicitly described in the Annex of the Memorandum) was thrown away by NATO expansion. Even if it was legally binding Russia wouldn’t care they play politics only to their own benefits. The idea of peace in Europe was collectively destroyed by Russias numerous brutal wars of conquest over the past 30 years. Seems Russia cannot let go of the Soviet Union, it would be smart for every post soviet state to join NATO to counter Russias seemingly unlimited aggression. > I'm afraid there won't be Ukraine when it ends. Many more people will die in the process. Lots of Ukrainians will die but plenty more Russians will die. Russia has no counter to the advanced weapons being sent to Ukraine by the west and lately it looks like Russia cannot even secure Crimea let alone other regions. There’s a reason that Russia has rolled out T62s to the front line, they are running out of more advanced heavy armour.

by gdy 4y ago

_kbh_ 4y ago

> From whom was NATO defending itself in Serbia and Lybia[0]? NATO will never attack Russia but Russia sure loves to attack countries that try and join NATO. Russias aggression in countries nearby is the number one reason for NATO expansion around Russia. > No more than the US chose to shoot down Iranian airliner [1]. Americans who killed 290 civilians in one shot even got medals [1]. Your whataboutism is commendable my friend by this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. > Obviously it's not true. Kiev and its Western patrons explicitly told that there won't be peace negotiations and it's unlikely that Putin will leave all the Russia supporters in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to the mercy of the Ukrainian nationalists. That would be hugely unpopular. Ukraine was willing to negotiate, but then Bucha happened. When Ukraine saw the rape and genocide of its citizens at the hands of the Russians all bets where off. > The Budapest memorandum was not legally binding and the situation since it was signed had changed dramatically -- the whole idea of common security for all of Europe including Russia (explicitly described in the Annex of the Memorandum) was thrown away by NATO expansion. Even if it was legally binding Russia wouldn’t care they play politics only to their own benefits. The idea of peace in Europe was collectively destroyed by Russias numerous brutal wars of conquest over the past 30 years. Seems Russia cannot let go of the Soviet Union, it would be smart for every post soviet state to join NATO to counter Russias seemingly unlimited aggression. > I'm afraid there won't be Ukraine when it ends. Many more people will die in the process. Lots of Ukrainians will die but plenty more Russians will die. Russia has no counter to the advanced weapons being sent to Ukraine by the west and lately it looks like Russia cannot even secure Crimea let alone other regions. There’s a reason that Russia has rolled out T62s to the front line, they are running out of more advanced heavy armour.