4 ms·

This is the point that Robert Kennedy Jr has been making, very eloquently. Regardless of how heinous Putin may be, how nasty the Russian invasion has been, it

This is the point that Robert Kennedy Jr has been making, very eloquently. Regardless of how heinous Putin may be, how nasty the Russian invasion has been, it was not unprovoked. The USA put missiles in Turkey in 1961, and the Soviets responded by puting missiles in Cuba. The Soviets felt threatened by missiles that could hit Moscow in 30 minutes, and they responded in kind. What did the USA do? They blockaded Cuba, and the Soviets backed down, seemingly cowed. But secretly JFK had made a pact with Krushschev, and withdrew missiles from Turkey shortly after. In other words, the USA acknowledged that they had provoked the Soviets. But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation? It's very tempting to paint your military enemies as cartoon villains. In fact, painting Putin as a cleptocratic thug is easy. It gets you reelected at home. But openly humiliating him is bad foreign policy. RFK Jr's message is that Ukraine did not benefit from this war. Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army. Why provoke the war when realpolitik says it's better to compromise? Cui bono? Who benefits from this conflict? American military contractors, and American exporters of natural gas.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
If Russia had been consistent in their reasons for expansion this would be believable. But they've said too many things to believe that they are primarily motivated by NATO expansion on its lonesome. > Who benefits from this conflict? Minority populations in a variety of countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus) who nostalgically yearn for Russian confederation again.
chrysler 3y ago
Comparisons with Cuba ignore the fact that the balance of military power in Europe is heavily in Russia's favor. For example, Russia hosts nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad enclave, in the middle of Europe. Map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... And now it's placing further nuclear missiles in Belarus. And yet, when countries directly threatened by these weapons seek mutual defense pacts and cooperation with other countries in Europe and North America, you call this a provocation. Russia can place nukes in Europe and that's fine, but Poland can't even hold joint military exercises with France. Can you tell me why?
adzm 3y ago
> Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army. Their young men are being sacrificed to evict a foreign army that has invaded their soil. This has the side effect of wearing down the Russian army, so of course others are going to help who want that effect, too. But that is not why they are sacrificing their lives.
- dralley 3y ago
  Even "being sacrificed" is a bs characterization.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> This is the point that Robert Kennedy Jr has been making, very eloquently. Regardless of how heinous Putin may be, how nasty the Russian invasion has been, it was not unprovoked. I keep forgetting in Russias absolute drug hazed existence a country looking to defend itself is justification for invasion. But we know all the NATO stuff is false as Russia was given assurances by NATO members that Ukraine would be vetoed. That didn’t do anything to stop Russias brutal war. > But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation? So when’s the invasion of Finland happening? If keeping NATO from Russias door step was the goal of this war if failed already. > It's very tempting to paint your military enemies as cartoon villains. In fact, painting Putin as a cleptocratic thug is easy. It gets you reelected at home. But openly humiliating him is bad foreign policy. I’m not sure what you’re saying, are you saying that Putins army is so pathetic that he needs other countries to handicap the country defending itself so he can look good?. > RFK Jr's message is that Ukraine did not benefit from this war. Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army. RJK Jrs message is pure Russian propaganda. But even if this was a devious American plan to wear down the Russian army. The russians could easily avoid this by just leaving. The Ukrainians are defending themselves from a brutal invasion if they stop fighting there is no more Ukraine who knows how many more war crimes the Russians will commit. If the Russians stop fighting there is no more war. > Why provoke the war when realpolitik says it's better to compromise? The world has tried compromising with Russia time and time again and it just leads to more invasions and more war crimes by them. The Russians don’t understand compromise only strength, the only way to get Russia to stop is by displaying strength not compromise. > Cui bono? Who benefits from this conflict? American military contractors, and American exporters of natural gas. The Russians benefit greatly from this conflict if they win, that is why a lot of the world is trying to help stop the brutal imperialistic invasion.
CRConrad 3y ago
> But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation? Nobody is “bringing NATO” anywhere. Neither the USA nor anyone else can annex other countries to NATO. Those countries apply to join the alliance, because they want to. Educate yourself a little better on what you're talking about (in stead of listening to infamous tinfoil hatters like RKjr), then maybe you won't have to sound exactly like a Putler troll.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

If Russia had been consistent in their reasons for expansion this would be believable. But they've said too many things to believe that they are primarily motivated by NATO expansion on its lonesome. > Who benefits from this conflict? Minority populations in a variety of countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus) who nostalgically yearn for Russian confederation again.

chrysler 3y ago

Comparisons with Cuba ignore the fact that the balance of military power in Europe is heavily in Russia's favor. For example, Russia hosts nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad enclave, in the middle of Europe. Map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... And now it's placing further nuclear missiles in Belarus. And yet, when countries directly threatened by these weapons seek mutual defense pacts and cooperation with other countries in Europe and North America, you call this a provocation. Russia can place nukes in Europe and that's fine, but Poland can't even hold joint military exercises with France. Can you tell me why?

adzm 3y ago

> Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army. Their young men are being sacrificed to evict a foreign army that has invaded their soil. This has the side effect of wearing down the Russian army, so of course others are going to help who want that effect, too. But that is not why they are sacrificing their lives.

dralley 3y ago
Even "being sacrificed" is a bs characterization.

_kbh_ 3y ago

> This is the point that Robert Kennedy Jr has been making, very eloquently. Regardless of how heinous Putin may be, how nasty the Russian invasion has been, it was not unprovoked. I keep forgetting in Russias absolute drug hazed existence a country looking to defend itself is justification for invasion. But we know all the NATO stuff is false as Russia was given assurances by NATO members that Ukraine would be vetoed. That didn’t do anything to stop Russias brutal war. > But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation? So when’s the invasion of Finland happening? If keeping NATO from Russias door step was the goal of this war if failed already. > It's very tempting to paint your military enemies as cartoon villains. In fact, painting Putin as a cleptocratic thug is easy. It gets you reelected at home. But openly humiliating him is bad foreign policy. I’m not sure what you’re saying, are you saying that Putins army is so pathetic that he needs other countries to handicap the country defending itself so he can look good?. > RFK Jr's message is that Ukraine did not benefit from this war. Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army. RJK Jrs message is pure Russian propaganda. But even if this was a devious American plan to wear down the Russian army. The russians could easily avoid this by just leaving. The Ukrainians are defending themselves from a brutal invasion if they stop fighting there is no more Ukraine who knows how many more war crimes the Russians will commit. If the Russians stop fighting there is no more war. > Why provoke the war when realpolitik says it's better to compromise? The world has tried compromising with Russia time and time again and it just leads to more invasions and more war crimes by them. The Russians don’t understand compromise only strength, the only way to get Russia to stop is by displaying strength not compromise. > Cui bono? Who benefits from this conflict? American military contractors, and American exporters of natural gas. The Russians benefit greatly from this conflict if they win, that is why a lot of the world is trying to help stop the brutal imperialistic invasion.

CRConrad 3y ago

> But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation? Nobody is “bringing NATO” anywhere. Neither the USA nor anyone else can annex other countries to NATO. Those countries apply to join the alliance, because they want to. Educate yourself a little better on what you're talking about (in stead of listening to infamous tinfoil hatters like RKjr), then maybe you won't have to sound exactly like a Putler troll.