4 ms·

Britain has historical roots to the US territory, going back to centuries ago. According to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of US would be justifi

Britain has historical roots to the US territory, going back to centuries ago. According to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of US would be justified.

starkd 4y ago
[flagged]
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > Ukraine is right on the russia's border. Their economies and cultures are intertwined So, according to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of USA would not be justified, but a British invasion and occupation of The Republic of Ireland would be? > 2014 when the US formented a revolution there. Propaganda nonsense. https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-in-2014-and-since-then/ https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...
  - starkd 4y ago
    The Bulwark is a neocon publication by Bill Kristol. He still refuses to apologize for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is part of the war machine that is perfectly happy to see perpetual war. He was a solid republican, but he was all too happy to ditch everything he said he believed in to embrace the cultural issues of the left. The only thing he kept the same was his hawkish views on foreign policy. That shows a lot about him right there. He is an untrustworthy source for anything.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      I already know who Bill Kristol is, and the people (plural) behind The Bulwark are, thanks. It's not hidden, it's here https://www.thebulwark.com/about-us/ https://www.thebulwark.com/about-us/ I'm not a fan of their political project, my point is that even they don't buy this "coup" nonsense. I do not think either that he "ditched everything he said he believed in" when their political party changed and they did not, that's rather a specific framing from an extremist faction of that party. No doubt you prefer noted thinker, Dan Crenshaw.
      - starkd 4y ago
        Huh? Dan Crenshaw has been all in on this war in Ukraine. He even openly admitted that it was a golden opportunity because we could fight a major geopolitical adversary on the cheap by just sending weapons with no American casualties - completely minimizing any Ukrainian casualties.
    - starkd 4y ago
      That's the point. The people behind The Bulwark don't believe "this coup nonsense" because they are pushing for war there. All the writers there are always pushing for military solutions to everything.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        > The Bulwark don't believe "this coup nonsense" because they are pushing for war there. It could be that. Or maybe, they don't believe it because the facts don't support it, and they believe in truth as a thing that is worthwhile regardless of if it personally benefits them or not. You have a very transactional view of truth. And frankly that says more about you than anything else.
- mopsi 4y ago
  > And their have been hostilities between the two since 2014 when the US formented a revolution there. This is just another conspiracy theory. In 2014, a pro-Russian president of Ukraine backed down from a very favourable trade deal with the EU at the last minute due to Russian pressure, people came to streets to protest, he ordered snipers to shoot unarmed protestors, after which the unrest only grew, he fled the country in panic and Russia used the unrest as a cover to invade Ukraine.
  - starkd 4y ago
    The manipulations within the state dept. by Victoria Nuland are well known. She was literally caught on the phone planning who was going to be pushed as the next leader. By labelling it a conspiracy, you are simply trying to disparage a very valid possibility. Conspiracies are nothing more than multiple people collaborating to make something happen. It does happen, and they should not be dismissed out of hand.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      > by Victoria Nuland ... literally caught on the phone planning This false conspiracy theory is discussed at length here https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-in-2014-and-since-then/ https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...
  - bakuninsbart 4y ago
    The Association Agreement also included sections on political and security cooperation. More importantly, Ukraine was pretty evenly split on Maidan and the signing of the Association Agreement. [0] This split, also seen in elections was largely geographic. [1] Unsurprisingly, toppling the (democratically elected) president tore the country apart, and independent on which government you personally prefer, I think it is really hard to argue that Ukraine wasn't the victim of Big Power politics in this case. [0] https://archive.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/more-ukrainians-disapprove-of-euromaidan-protests-than-approve-of-it-poll-336461.html https://archive.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politic... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election#/media/File:2012_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election_-_List_results.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Ukrainian_parliamentary_e...
- caskstrength 4y ago
  As a Ukrainian I find your comments in this thread insulting. You should educate yourself a little about history of Ukraine before you start spewing such nonsense. I would suggest you to start with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8&list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz_1Mx1MaO6sw_ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8&list=PLh9mgdi4rN... Now, I will assume you are just a misguided westerner who watches too much Fox news and indulge you: > Ukraine is right on the russia's border. So? How about US invading Mexico, occupying and annexing its lands, killing bunch of civilians while simultaneously demanding Mexico to "respect" US "sphere of influence", speak English, stop "threatening" it by committing to neutrality, etc. > Their economies and cultures are intertwined. Let them rape and indiscriminately kill bunch of civilians in some Bucha or other towns because of similar languages and economical ties? How does that make any sense to you? Also, claiming that Ukraine doesn't have its own historical roots and cultural identity is one of the Russian propaganda talking points. > And their have been hostilities between the two "Hostilities"? Excuse me? Russia occupied and annexed parts of Ukraine repeatedly but you dubbing it "hostilities" make it sound like some kind of a border skirmish where both parties are culpable which couldn't be further from the truth. > since 2014 when the US formented a revolution there Another Russian propaganda talking point. People were fed up with Yanukovich and decided to remove him from power. Support from US was inconsequential. > I am not shilling for Russia Yes you are! Openly and brazenly. > peace agreement requires all parties to put everything on the table and deal openly Well, yes, Russia would love Ukraine to put its lands "on the table", commit to neutrality, make Russian language the second national language and a lot more. And what exactly are the offering in return? To maybe stop attacking Ukraine for some time? Am I missing something? > This could have happened. It still can. Ukraine has been offering to solve the conflict through diplomacy as soon as Russia withdraw its forces. It is not like Ukraine is going to push into Russian territory to occupy Moscow and kill Putin. You understand that, do you? Look, if you just prefer US to stop spending money on Ukraine you could just say so. Yes, this will lead to bunch of Ukrainians killed, raped or tortured in concentration (excuse me, "filtration"!) camps and you will feel somewhat bad for saying that, but at least it would be truthful. No need to play Tucker Carlson here with "border skirmishes" and "hostilities".
  - yesenadam 4y ago

Britain has historical roots to the US territory, going back to centuries ago. According to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of US would be justified.

starkd 4y ago

[flagged]

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> Ukraine is right on the russia's border. Their economies and cultures are intertwined So, according to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of USA would not be justified, but a British invasion and occupation of The Republic of Ireland would be? > 2014 when the US formented a revolution there. Propaganda nonsense. https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-in-2014-and-since-then/ https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...
- starkd 4y ago
  The Bulwark is a neocon publication by Bill Kristol. He still refuses to apologize for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is part of the war machine that is perfectly happy to see perpetual war. He was a solid republican, but he was all too happy to ditch everything he said he believed in to embrace the cultural issues of the left. The only thing he kept the same was his hawkish views on foreign policy. That shows a lot about him right there. He is an untrustworthy source for anything.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    I already know who Bill Kristol is, and the people (plural) behind The Bulwark are, thanks. It's not hidden, it's here https://www.thebulwark.com/about-us/ https://www.thebulwark.com/about-us/ I'm not a fan of their political project, my point is that even they don't buy this "coup" nonsense. I do not think either that he "ditched everything he said he believed in" when their political party changed and they did not, that's rather a specific framing from an extremist faction of that party. No doubt you prefer noted thinker, Dan Crenshaw.
    - starkd 4y ago
      Huh? Dan Crenshaw has been all in on this war in Ukraine. He even openly admitted that it was a golden opportunity because we could fight a major geopolitical adversary on the cheap by just sending weapons with no American casualties - completely minimizing any Ukrainian casualties.
  - starkd 4y ago
    That's the point. The people behind The Bulwark don't believe "this coup nonsense" because they are pushing for war there. All the writers there are always pushing for military solutions to everything.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      > The Bulwark don't believe "this coup nonsense" because they are pushing for war there. It could be that. Or maybe, they don't believe it because the facts don't support it, and they believe in truth as a thing that is worthwhile regardless of if it personally benefits them or not. You have a very transactional view of truth. And frankly that says more about you than anything else.
mopsi 4y ago
> And their have been hostilities between the two since 2014 when the US formented a revolution there. This is just another conspiracy theory. In 2014, a pro-Russian president of Ukraine backed down from a very favourable trade deal with the EU at the last minute due to Russian pressure, people came to streets to protest, he ordered snipers to shoot unarmed protestors, after which the unrest only grew, he fled the country in panic and Russia used the unrest as a cover to invade Ukraine.
- starkd 4y ago
  The manipulations within the state dept. by Victoria Nuland are well known. She was literally caught on the phone planning who was going to be pushed as the next leader. By labelling it a conspiracy, you are simply trying to disparage a very valid possibility. Conspiracies are nothing more than multiple people collaborating to make something happen. It does happen, and they should not be dismissed out of hand.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > by Victoria Nuland ... literally caught on the phone planning This false conspiracy theory is discussed at length here https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-in-2014-and-since-then/ https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...
- bakuninsbart 4y ago
  The Association Agreement also included sections on political and security cooperation. More importantly, Ukraine was pretty evenly split on Maidan and the signing of the Association Agreement. [0] This split, also seen in elections was largely geographic. [1] Unsurprisingly, toppling the (democratically elected) president tore the country apart, and independent on which government you personally prefer, I think it is really hard to argue that Ukraine wasn't the victim of Big Power politics in this case. [0] https://archive.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/more-ukrainians-disapprove-of-euromaidan-protests-than-approve-of-it-poll-336461.html https://archive.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politic... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election#/media/File:2012_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election_-_List_results.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Ukrainian_parliamentary_e...
caskstrength 4y ago
As a Ukrainian I find your comments in this thread insulting. You should educate yourself a little about history of Ukraine before you start spewing such nonsense. I would suggest you to start with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8&list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz_1Mx1MaO6sw_ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8&list=PLh9mgdi4rN... Now, I will assume you are just a misguided westerner who watches too much Fox news and indulge you: > Ukraine is right on the russia's border. So? How about US invading Mexico, occupying and annexing its lands, killing bunch of civilians while simultaneously demanding Mexico to "respect" US "sphere of influence", speak English, stop "threatening" it by committing to neutrality, etc. > Their economies and cultures are intertwined. Let them rape and indiscriminately kill bunch of civilians in some Bucha or other towns because of similar languages and economical ties? How does that make any sense to you? Also, claiming that Ukraine doesn't have its own historical roots and cultural identity is one of the Russian propaganda talking points. > And their have been hostilities between the two "Hostilities"? Excuse me? Russia occupied and annexed parts of Ukraine repeatedly but you dubbing it "hostilities" make it sound like some kind of a border skirmish where both parties are culpable which couldn't be further from the truth. > since 2014 when the US formented a revolution there Another Russian propaganda talking point. People were fed up with Yanukovich and decided to remove him from power. Support from US was inconsequential. > I am not shilling for Russia Yes you are! Openly and brazenly. > peace agreement requires all parties to put everything on the table and deal openly Well, yes, Russia would love Ukraine to put its lands "on the table", commit to neutrality, make Russian language the second national language and a lot more. And what exactly are the offering in return? To maybe stop attacking Ukraine for some time? Am I missing something? > This could have happened. It still can. Ukraine has been offering to solve the conflict through diplomacy as soon as Russia withdraw its forces. It is not like Ukraine is going to push into Russian territory to occupy Moscow and kill Putin. You understand that, do you? Look, if you just prefer US to stop spending money on Ukraine you could just say so. Yes, this will lead to bunch of Ukrainians killed, raped or tortured in concentration (excuse me, "filtration"!) camps and you will feel somewhat bad for saying that, but at least it would be truthful. No need to play Tucker Carlson here with "border skirmishes" and "hostilities".
- yesenadam 4y ago