5 ms·

> Re-rise of Russian aggression in NATO sphere of interest and the rise of China are really last 10 years or so. (1) USA has illegaly bombed and subsequent occ

by binarray2000 4y ago

> Re-rise of Russian aggression in NATO sphere of interest and the rise of China are really last 10 years or so. (1) USA has illegaly bombed and subsequent occupied Afghanistan, Iraq, part of Serbia ("Kosovo"), part of Syria - countries which are so far from the US, most US citizens wouldn't be able to find them on a map. (2) Ukraine, on the other hand, is at Russian doorstep. Both are Slavs, most of them are Christian-Orthodox and many have family ties with each other. And NATO is expanding towards Russia even thou Western politicians have promised to not expand it "an inch towards East". (3) US has risen after WWII. Now China, Russia, Iran, India... are rising. Why is that a problem? Or, maybe, you think that the US must remain the Hegemon while the Rest serves as a resource to be plundered and enslaved.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> (2) Ukraine, on the other hand, is at Russian doorstep. Both are Slavs, most of them are Christian-Orthodox and many have family ties with each other. So you’re telling me it’s okay to commit war crimes, genocide and forcibly invade a country as long as they are your neighbour?. And NATO is expanding towards Russia even thou Western politicians have promised to not expand it "an inch towards East". This never happened and even if it did it doesn’t give Russia the right to invade Ukraine, rape its people and commit genocide and war crimes with impunity.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  Russian trolls can't comprehend that their point that their pro-war crimes and pro-imperialist views completely explain that every other neighboring country that is not already russian vassal state or china wants to be in strong military alliance like NATO.
  - binarray2000 4y ago
    The US and the rest of the West uses Ukrainians as cheap/disposable peons in a war against Russia. Even before February 24th, Ukrainians have lost their country to western interests. Today, Zelensky (who is not a Slav) sells the last bits and pieces to Americans for pennies on the dollar. They have done the same in the nineties to former Yugoslavia. Almost all of us are Slavs, we mostly speak the same language, many of us have the same surnames. But, through "divide and conquer" the West (led by the US) has unleashed bloody wars. As the Serbs are the biggest group in former Yugoslavia the West has used todays Croats (Roman-Catholics) and Boshniaks (Muslims) as their peons to fight us. They cynically apply the same tactic today, using Ukrainians and Poles to fight Russians - but always for western interests. Keep in mind: Slavs are the biggest ethnic group in Europe (over 300 million). Our languages are very similar, our worldview as well as our mentality. If we'd be together in some kind of confederation, the West would have a very strong competition. And an obstacle on the way to cheap resources (humans, commodities). You must read about Heartland Theory [0] which was summarized by its author as follows: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world." [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hi... ADDEDENDUM: I forgot this, highly relevant for the previously said, quote regarding the NATO (you wrote "strong military alliance like NATO"). NATO's first Secretary General has said that the NATO was created to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." [1] [1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > The US and the rest of the West uses Ukrainians as cheap/disposable peons in a war against Russia. Even before February 24th, Ukrainians have lost their country to western interests. Today, Zelensky (who is not a Slav) sells the last bits and pieces to Americans for pennies on the dollar. The Russians literally invaded, the Russians are the ones who are solely responsible for this war. > ADDEDENDUM: I forgot this, highly relevant for the previously said, quote regarding the NATO (you wrote "strong military alliance like NATO"). NATO's first Secretary General has said that the NATO was created to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." [1] whats totally relevant is the era that, that quote was said in. NATO was formed in 1949, a mere 5 years after the end of WW2. Given how Nazi Germany and the USSR had a alliance at the start of WW2, it is wholly unsurprising that NATO, was looking to keep both of them at bay.
      - binarray2000 4y ago
        You keep throwing around the same mantra (“Russians literally invaded”, “Russians are solely responsible for this war”) while my fingertips are blue from typing walls of text, arguing with facts (from Western sources). Again: The West (led by the US) has provoked this war between Russia and Ukraine - by breaking promises and propping up Ukraine to provoke Russia. Contrary to your argument, that quote is still relevant today. Perfect example is the recent sabotage of NorthStream 1 and 2. Because it is still down Germany has to keep its mouth shut (while it loses its competitive advantage due to cheap energy from Russia), it keeps Russia out of Europe (mainly energy, but commodities, as well) and it keeps the US still in Europe (EUnuchs must buy natural gas from the US).
        _kbh_ 4y ago
        > You keep throwing around the same mantra (“Russians literally invaded”, “Russians are solely responsible for this war”) while my fingertips are blue from typing walls of text, arguing with facts (from Western sources). You can type walls and walls of text if you want, but its plainly obvious that you are trying to push a narrative, all of your "facts" have a very curious pro Russian bent to them. > Again: The West (led by the US) has provoked this war between Russia and Ukraine - by breaking promises and propping up Ukraine to provoke Russia. There was never a broken promise, as I showed to you, straight from the president of the soviet unions mouth. This promise never existed > Contrary to your argument, that quote is still relevant today. Perfect example is the recent sabotage of NorthStream 1 and 2. Because it is still down Germany has to keep its mouth shut (while it loses its competitive advantage due to cheap energy from Russia), it keeps Russia out of Europe (mainly energy, but commodities, as well) and it keeps the US still in Europe (EUnuchs must buy natural gas from the US). NS1 and 2 were sabotaged by Russia, as both a message and a means to get out of the billions in dollars of fines that they owe to a number of countries in the EU.
- binarray2000 4y ago
  Your comment is a classical projection, so often seen in the West. The US has invaded a neighboring country Mexico (Mexican–American War (1846–48)) and has stolen its territory (California). The US is a country that is founded on the genocide of the Natives and the subsequent landgrab. Today, the US sees the whole World as its backyard and uses a Hitler-esque construct of "exceptional nation" as an excuse to go into wars - directly or through proxies - against everyone. Including nuclear powers. By forcefully installing an US puppet government ("F_ck the EU'' phone call), building a huge military force in eight years and intending to use that force to expell millions of Russians, the US has provoked Russia leaving it no other choice but to start a conflict in its literal backyard. So, what you accuse Russia of is a projection as the US and the rest of the West have done all that in the Americas, Africa, Asia. With impunity. And the West did promise to Russia not to expand eastwards. German "Der Spiegel" has published an article [0] about it on 2022-02-18 but it is behind a paywall and all references to it are scrubbed by Google. There is an article about it at RT (Russia Today) [1] but to you it is most probably just "propaganda" even if it quotes "Der Spiegel". There is also a book tellingly called "Not One Inch" [2]. You may argue that breaking promises and agreements doesn't matter, but as we can see in Ukraine it leads to death and destruction. [0] https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295 https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund... [1] https://www.rt.com/news/549921-nato-expansion-russia-document/ https://www.rt.com/news/549921-nato-expansion-russia-documen... [2] https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300268034/not-one-inch/\\\ https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300268034/not-one-inch/\...*
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > Your comment is a classical projection, so often seen in the West. > The US has invaded a neighboring country Mexico (Mexican–American War (1846–48)) and has stolen its territory (California). The US is a country that is founded on the genocide of the Natives and the subsequent landgrab. Today, the US sees the whole World as its backyard and uses a Hitler-esque construct of "exceptional nation" as an excuse to go into wars - directly or through proxies - against everyone. Including nuclear powers. By forcefully installing an US puppet government ("F_ck the EU'' phone call), building a huge military force in eight years and intending to use that force to expell millions of Russians, the US has provoked Russia leaving it no other choice but to start a conflict in its literal backyard. > So, what you accuse Russia of is a projection as the US and the rest of the West have done all that in the Americas, Africa, Asia. With impunity. It's not projection, but your post sure has a lot of whataboutism. Unlike seemingly a lot of people who are pro Russian, I can hold the view that Russian war crimes in Ukraine are terrible and also that other countries have committed terrible crimes during wars. None of that excuses Russias war crimes in Ukraine though. > And the West did promise to Russia not to expand eastwards. German "Der Spiegel" has published an article [0] about it on 2022-02-18 but it is behind a paywall and all references to it are scrubbed by Google. There is an article about it at RT (Russia Today) [1] but to you it is most probably just "propaganda" even if it quotes "Der Spiegel". There is also a book tellingly called "Not One Inch" [2]. Your attempt to hide behind a paywalled article with literally 0 other evidence is an admirable effort, but unfortunately theres plenty of non paywalled articles on exactly why you're wrong. The view of the president of the Soviet Union at the time would be the most authoritative source on the matter and here's a quote from exactly him. 'Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.' > You may argue that breaking promises and agreements doesn't matter, but as we can see in Ukraine it leads to death and destruction. So what are the consequences of Russia breaking the Budapest Memorandum, where Russia literally promised to. 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. 2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory. 3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 5. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[7][8] [1]. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-... [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
rich_sasha 4y ago
It's completely irrelevant to what I wrote and to the wider thread. US/NATO needs the capacity to deliver, well, stuff that goes boom, regardless of whether it is a murderous regime, a peace-loving hippie or anything in-between. Its weapons procurement will look basically the same in either case. I could argue about what you wrote but as I consider it OT, I won't.

_kbh_ 4y ago

> (2) Ukraine, on the other hand, is at Russian doorstep. Both are Slavs, most of them are Christian-Orthodox and many have family ties with each other. So you’re telling me it’s okay to commit war crimes, genocide and forcibly invade a country as long as they are your neighbour?. And NATO is expanding towards Russia even thou Western politicians have promised to not expand it "an inch towards East". This never happened and even if it did it doesn’t give Russia the right to invade Ukraine, rape its people and commit genocide and war crimes with impunity.

KptMarchewa 4y ago
Russian trolls can't comprehend that their point that their pro-war crimes and pro-imperialist views completely explain that every other neighboring country that is not already russian vassal state or china wants to be in strong military alliance like NATO.
- binarray2000 4y ago
  The US and the rest of the West uses Ukrainians as cheap/disposable peons in a war against Russia. Even before February 24th, Ukrainians have lost their country to western interests. Today, Zelensky (who is not a Slav) sells the last bits and pieces to Americans for pennies on the dollar. They have done the same in the nineties to former Yugoslavia. Almost all of us are Slavs, we mostly speak the same language, many of us have the same surnames. But, through "divide and conquer" the West (led by the US) has unleashed bloody wars. As the Serbs are the biggest group in former Yugoslavia the West has used todays Croats (Roman-Catholics) and Boshniaks (Muslims) as their peons to fight us. They cynically apply the same tactic today, using Ukrainians and Poles to fight Russians - but always for western interests. Keep in mind: Slavs are the biggest ethnic group in Europe (over 300 million). Our languages are very similar, our worldview as well as our mentality. If we'd be together in some kind of confederation, the West would have a very strong competition. And an obstacle on the way to cheap resources (humans, commodities). You must read about Heartland Theory [0] which was summarized by its author as follows: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world." [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hi... ADDEDENDUM: I forgot this, highly relevant for the previously said, quote regarding the NATO (you wrote "strong military alliance like NATO"). NATO's first Secretary General has said that the NATO was created to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." [1] [1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > The US and the rest of the West uses Ukrainians as cheap/disposable peons in a war against Russia. Even before February 24th, Ukrainians have lost their country to western interests. Today, Zelensky (who is not a Slav) sells the last bits and pieces to Americans for pennies on the dollar. The Russians literally invaded, the Russians are the ones who are solely responsible for this war. > ADDEDENDUM: I forgot this, highly relevant for the previously said, quote regarding the NATO (you wrote "strong military alliance like NATO"). NATO's first Secretary General has said that the NATO was created to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." [1] whats totally relevant is the era that, that quote was said in. NATO was formed in 1949, a mere 5 years after the end of WW2. Given how Nazi Germany and the USSR had a alliance at the start of WW2, it is wholly unsurprising that NATO, was looking to keep both of them at bay.
    - binarray2000 4y ago
      You keep throwing around the same mantra (“Russians literally invaded”, “Russians are solely responsible for this war”) while my fingertips are blue from typing walls of text, arguing with facts (from Western sources). Again: The West (led by the US) has provoked this war between Russia and Ukraine - by breaking promises and propping up Ukraine to provoke Russia. Contrary to your argument, that quote is still relevant today. Perfect example is the recent sabotage of NorthStream 1 and 2. Because it is still down Germany has to keep its mouth shut (while it loses its competitive advantage due to cheap energy from Russia), it keeps Russia out of Europe (mainly energy, but commodities, as well) and it keeps the US still in Europe (EUnuchs must buy natural gas from the US).
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > You keep throwing around the same mantra (“Russians literally invaded”, “Russians are solely responsible for this war”) while my fingertips are blue from typing walls of text, arguing with facts (from Western sources). You can type walls and walls of text if you want, but its plainly obvious that you are trying to push a narrative, all of your "facts" have a very curious pro Russian bent to them. > Again: The West (led by the US) has provoked this war between Russia and Ukraine - by breaking promises and propping up Ukraine to provoke Russia. There was never a broken promise, as I showed to you, straight from the president of the soviet unions mouth. This promise never existed > Contrary to your argument, that quote is still relevant today. Perfect example is the recent sabotage of NorthStream 1 and 2. Because it is still down Germany has to keep its mouth shut (while it loses its competitive advantage due to cheap energy from Russia), it keeps Russia out of Europe (mainly energy, but commodities, as well) and it keeps the US still in Europe (EUnuchs must buy natural gas from the US). NS1 and 2 were sabotaged by Russia, as both a message and a means to get out of the billions in dollars of fines that they owe to a number of countries in the EU.
binarray2000 4y ago
Your comment is a classical projection, so often seen in the West. The US has invaded a neighboring country Mexico (Mexican–American War (1846–48)) and has stolen its territory (California). The US is a country that is founded on the genocide of the Natives and the subsequent landgrab. Today, the US sees the whole World as its backyard and uses a Hitler-esque construct of "exceptional nation" as an excuse to go into wars - directly or through proxies - against everyone. Including nuclear powers. By forcefully installing an US puppet government ("F_ck the EU'' phone call), building a huge military force in eight years and intending to use that force to expell millions of Russians, the US has provoked Russia leaving it no other choice but to start a conflict in its literal backyard. So, what you accuse Russia of is a projection as the US and the rest of the West have done all that in the Americas, Africa, Asia. With impunity. And the West did promise to Russia not to expand eastwards. German "Der Spiegel" has published an article [0] about it on 2022-02-18 but it is behind a paywall and all references to it are scrubbed by Google. There is an article about it at RT (Russia Today) [1] but to you it is most probably just "propaganda" even if it quotes "Der Spiegel". There is also a book tellingly called "Not One Inch" [2]. You may argue that breaking promises and agreements doesn't matter, but as we can see in Ukraine it leads to death and destruction. [0] https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295 https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund... [1] https://www.rt.com/news/549921-nato-expansion-russia-document/ https://www.rt.com/news/549921-nato-expansion-russia-documen... [2] https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300268034/not-one-inch/\\\ https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300268034/not-one-inch/\...*
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > Your comment is a classical projection, so often seen in the West. > The US has invaded a neighboring country Mexico (Mexican–American War (1846–48)) and has stolen its territory (California). The US is a country that is founded on the genocide of the Natives and the subsequent landgrab. Today, the US sees the whole World as its backyard and uses a Hitler-esque construct of "exceptional nation" as an excuse to go into wars - directly or through proxies - against everyone. Including nuclear powers. By forcefully installing an US puppet government ("F_ck the EU'' phone call), building a huge military force in eight years and intending to use that force to expell millions of Russians, the US has provoked Russia leaving it no other choice but to start a conflict in its literal backyard. > So, what you accuse Russia of is a projection as the US and the rest of the West have done all that in the Americas, Africa, Asia. With impunity. It's not projection, but your post sure has a lot of whataboutism. Unlike seemingly a lot of people who are pro Russian, I can hold the view that Russian war crimes in Ukraine are terrible and also that other countries have committed terrible crimes during wars. None of that excuses Russias war crimes in Ukraine though. > And the West did promise to Russia not to expand eastwards. German "Der Spiegel" has published an article [0] about it on 2022-02-18 but it is behind a paywall and all references to it are scrubbed by Google. There is an article about it at RT (Russia Today) [1] but to you it is most probably just "propaganda" even if it quotes "Der Spiegel". There is also a book tellingly called "Not One Inch" [2]. Your attempt to hide behind a paywalled article with literally 0 other evidence is an admirable effort, but unfortunately theres plenty of non paywalled articles on exactly why you're wrong. The view of the president of the Soviet Union at the time would be the most authoritative source on the matter and here's a quote from exactly him. 'Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.' > You may argue that breaking promises and agreements doesn't matter, but as we can see in Ukraine it leads to death and destruction. So what are the consequences of Russia breaking the Budapest Memorandum, where Russia literally promised to. 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. 2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory. 3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 5. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[7][8] [1]. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-... [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

rich_sasha 4y ago

It's completely irrelevant to what I wrote and to the wider thread. US/NATO needs the capacity to deliver, well, stuff that goes boom, regardless of whether it is a murderous regime, a peace-loving hippie or anything in-between. Its weapons procurement will look basically the same in either case. I could argue about what you wrote but as I consider it OT, I won't.