5 ms·

>What was the point of NATO, to attack Russia? If that's what you're implying I don't agree No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked! >My

>What was the point of NATO, to attack Russia? If that's what you're implying I don't agree No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked! >My point is that it definitely is one-sided. It's only one of the sides that have invaded the other after years of threatening of doing so. Russia has also done similar things in Georgia and Moldova, and the Baltic countries that have a sizeable Russian population would have an even better reason to be scared right now if they weren't part of NATO. All of this is Russia big-dicking its influence in that area. Just as I said before. >USA isn't feeding Ukrainian soldiers to anyone, that's again falling into the narrative that Russia wants to use that Russia is fighting the west. Ukrainian soldiers are protecting their country just as Finnish soldiers did less than 100 years ago Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war) >Nobody has asked for an invasion of Russia, the win comes when the invaders leave where they don't belong. How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then? >I agree that it is a very fucked situation, which is why Russia's aggression needs to be condemned and can't be allowed to succeed. I agree it is fucked. I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly. These have been thought out. And there is no innocent country on Earth. That is propaganda as well. Russia is doing two things from my perspective. First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost. Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China.

sorenjan 4y ago
> No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked! It was to defend western Europe against Soviet expansion. NATO has never attacked Russia, and the economic downfall was of their own doing. The scars of Soviet rule are still present in eastern Europe, even in eastern Germany. > Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war) And others are returning to Ukraine from abroad. And are you suggesting that the US is forcing the conscription? > How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then? Not sure what the purpose of those scare quotes are, do you not agree Russia has invaded Ukraine? You stop future invasions with security guarantees from other countries, and using sanctions to make war cost more than it's worth. > I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly. I never said they are, just that their reasons are wrong and should be opposed. Although a lot of their attacks lacks precision and are purposefully "erratic", killing civilians as part of their terror strategy. > And there is no innocent country on Earth. Does this mean that every country on the planet deserves to have their schools and hospitals bombed, or their territory occupied by rapists and murderers? There's a big difference between being faultless in all circumstances and being invaded by a cruel army firing thousands of artillery shells each day. > First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost. NATO have no military bases in Ukraine, nor do they have any plans for any. As a direct result of this war Sweden and Finland have applied for NATO membership, giving Russia 1340 km extra border with NATO. According to Putin, this isn't an issue, and Russia has even moved a lot of their military units close to Finland to Ukraine instead. > Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China. Yes, it's the imperialistic failings of a dead super power that can't accept that the world has moved on.
- mhuffman 4y ago
  Well you are all over the place here. I can see that you hold a passionately held position on this. I do not. >It was to defend western Europe against Soviet expansion.NATO has never attacked Russia correct and correct, never said they did. >and the economic downfall was of their own doing. well, now that isn't quite correct is it? We went hard as hell after them and used all manner of financial sanctions and threats of sanctions on other countries to decimate their trade. So, we helped a little in its breakdown, right? And that was the real point of NATO. No one was or is ever going to full on attack Russia when it can end most of the Earth. >do you not agree Russia has invaded Ukraine? From Ukraine's perspective, yes! From Russia's perspective, no! >You stop future invasions with security guarantees from other countries, and using sanctions to make war cost more than it's worth. Were those not already in place? >Although a lot of their attacks lacks precision and are purposefully "erratic", killing civilians as part of their terror strategy. I mean, I agree with you, however I am curious of a war where this did not happen? The US blew up entire fucking cities of people and we celebrate it! In your mind has the Ukraine only ever used precision strikes to take out military targets and people? >Does this mean that every country on the planet deserves to have their schools and hospitals bombed, or their territory occupied by rapists and murderers? There's a big difference between being faultless in all circumstances and being invaded by a cruel army firing thousands of artillery shells each day. No it doesn't. But I am curious if you can identify a war where this did not happen (from the perspective of the one getting BTFO'd, not the one winning, they always think they are righteous.)
  - sorenjan 4y ago
    > I can see that you hold a passionately held position on this. I do not. I live within range of Russia's Iskander missiles and see reports from the war each day. Russia is the local bully that everyone's afraid of. Our military basically exists for one reason, to stop a Russian invasion. > We went hard as hell after them and used all manner of financial sanctions and threats of sanctions on other countries to decimate their trade. So, we helped a little in its breakdown, right? And that was the real point of NATO. Speaking of being all over the place, is this in any way relevant to the current war? Russia has been given lots of chances of integrating their economy with the rest of the world since the fall of Soviet, they're not acting out of economic necessity. > From Ukraine's perspective, yes! From Russia's perspective, no! Then what were their column on their way to Kiev doing? They can call it whatever they want, nobody makes it illegal to call it a war if they don't actually think it's a war. > Were those not already in place? No, only a small part of the current sanctions were in place before the full scale invasion, and plenty of western companies has since withdrawn from the Russian market. As for the security guarantees, I'm not aware of any except the Budapest memorandum, which didn't really work out that well. > The US blew up entire fucking cities of people and we celebrate it! In your mind has the Ukraine only ever used precision strikes to take out military targets and people? I've never seen anyone celebrate the destruction of entire cities in a modern war where precision weapons where available. I'm sure Ukraine has made all kinds of strikes, but I don't consider them the same since they're the ones defending themselves. They've made a few excursions into Russia with helicopters and drones, I don't think I've seen any reports of a single civilian casualty from those. Meanwhile there were bodies of executed civilians lying on the streets and buried in shallow mass graves after Russian troops left certain places. > But I am curious if you can identify a war where this did not happen That's just proving my point IMO. Wars are horrible, and Russia are the ones that started this one. Russia can end it whenever they want, but they don't want to, so they're responsible for all the misery happening in both their neighboring country and their own right now. And the rest of us don't want war to succeed. Russia understands one thing, and that is power. They look down on what they consider to be weakness, and consider themselves to be better than others. Russian propaganda calls this a culture war against western ideas, Putin actually mentioned trans people in one of his speeches about this war that supposedly is about NATO. “You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw” ― Vladimir Ilich Lenin

sorenjan 4y ago

> No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked! It was to defend western Europe against Soviet expansion. NATO has never attacked Russia, and the economic downfall was of their own doing. The scars of Soviet rule are still present in eastern Europe, even in eastern Germany. > Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war) And others are returning to Ukraine from abroad. And are you suggesting that the US is forcing the conscription? > How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then? Not sure what the purpose of those scare quotes are, do you not agree Russia has invaded Ukraine? You stop future invasions with security guarantees from other countries, and using sanctions to make war cost more than it's worth. > I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly. I never said they are, just that their reasons are wrong and should be opposed. Although a lot of their attacks lacks precision and are purposefully "erratic", killing civilians as part of their terror strategy. > And there is no innocent country on Earth. Does this mean that every country on the planet deserves to have their schools and hospitals bombed, or their territory occupied by rapists and murderers? There's a big difference between being faultless in all circumstances and being invaded by a cruel army firing thousands of artillery shells each day. > First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost. NATO have no military bases in Ukraine, nor do they have any plans for any. As a direct result of this war Sweden and Finland have applied for NATO membership, giving Russia 1340 km extra border with NATO. According to Putin, this isn't an issue, and Russia has even moved a lot of their military units close to Finland to Ukraine instead. > Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China. Yes, it's the imperialistic failings of a dead super power that can't accept that the world has moved on.

mhuffman 4y ago
Well you are all over the place here. I can see that you hold a passionately held position on this. I do not. >It was to defend western Europe against Soviet expansion.NATO has never attacked Russia correct and correct, never said they did. >and the economic downfall was of their own doing. well, now that isn't quite correct is it? We went hard as hell after them and used all manner of financial sanctions and threats of sanctions on other countries to decimate their trade. So, we helped a little in its breakdown, right? And that was the real point of NATO. No one was or is ever going to full on attack Russia when it can end most of the Earth. >do you not agree Russia has invaded Ukraine? From Ukraine's perspective, yes! From Russia's perspective, no! >You stop future invasions with security guarantees from other countries, and using sanctions to make war cost more than it's worth. Were those not already in place? >Although a lot of their attacks lacks precision and are purposefully "erratic", killing civilians as part of their terror strategy. I mean, I agree with you, however I am curious of a war where this did not happen? The US blew up entire fucking cities of people and we celebrate it! In your mind has the Ukraine only ever used precision strikes to take out military targets and people? >Does this mean that every country on the planet deserves to have their schools and hospitals bombed, or their territory occupied by rapists and murderers? There's a big difference between being faultless in all circumstances and being invaded by a cruel army firing thousands of artillery shells each day. No it doesn't. But I am curious if you can identify a war where this did not happen (from the perspective of the one getting BTFO'd, not the one winning, they always think they are righteous.)
- sorenjan 4y ago
  > I can see that you hold a passionately held position on this. I do not. I live within range of Russia's Iskander missiles and see reports from the war each day. Russia is the local bully that everyone's afraid of. Our military basically exists for one reason, to stop a Russian invasion. > We went hard as hell after them and used all manner of financial sanctions and threats of sanctions on other countries to decimate their trade. So, we helped a little in its breakdown, right? And that was the real point of NATO. Speaking of being all over the place, is this in any way relevant to the current war? Russia has been given lots of chances of integrating their economy with the rest of the world since the fall of Soviet, they're not acting out of economic necessity. > From Ukraine's perspective, yes! From Russia's perspective, no! Then what were their column on their way to Kiev doing? They can call it whatever they want, nobody makes it illegal to call it a war if they don't actually think it's a war. > Were those not already in place? No, only a small part of the current sanctions were in place before the full scale invasion, and plenty of western companies has since withdrawn from the Russian market. As for the security guarantees, I'm not aware of any except the Budapest memorandum, which didn't really work out that well. > The US blew up entire fucking cities of people and we celebrate it! In your mind has the Ukraine only ever used precision strikes to take out military targets and people? I've never seen anyone celebrate the destruction of entire cities in a modern war where precision weapons where available. I'm sure Ukraine has made all kinds of strikes, but I don't consider them the same since they're the ones defending themselves. They've made a few excursions into Russia with helicopters and drones, I don't think I've seen any reports of a single civilian casualty from those. Meanwhile there were bodies of executed civilians lying on the streets and buried in shallow mass graves after Russian troops left certain places. > But I am curious if you can identify a war where this did not happen That's just proving my point IMO. Wars are horrible, and Russia are the ones that started this one. Russia can end it whenever they want, but they don't want to, so they're responsible for all the misery happening in both their neighboring country and their own right now. And the rest of us don't want war to succeed. Russia understands one thing, and that is power. They look down on what they consider to be weakness, and consider themselves to be better than others. Russian propaganda calls this a culture war against western ideas, Putin actually mentioned trans people in one of his speeches about this war that supposedly is about NATO. “You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw” ― Vladimir Ilich Lenin