9 ms·

I can see that you have studied this subject so I'm sure you can agree the real reasons here are multiple, complex and nuanced. They didn't invade for a single

• _kbh_ 3y ago
  > RFK Jr actually alluded to this on video in the exchange that led to the NY Post and NY Times articles mentioned up thread. Id stop mentioning RFK Jr he actually legitimately reduces the credibility of what you're trying to asert. > While Russia may have justified the invasion as restoring its unity, particularly regarding Russian-speaking Donbass and Crimea regions. It is clear that they also felt threatened by the prospect of hostile forces equipped with nuclear capable armaments and potential bio-weapons on their border only 450kms (280 miles) from their capital. So why is this never mentioned in their victory article? they only never mention the way worse justification or absorbing Ukraine into Russia as part of it. > The simplistic US=100% Good, Russia=100% Evil rhetoric must stop. It is leading us towards WWIII. A negotiated peace and de-escalation plan is the only sane path forward for humanity. We need to stop feeding the war machine and start genuinely seeking diplomatic solutions. A negotiated peace is possible and quite easy, Russia leaves all of Ukraine and retreats to its 1991 border and never comes back. Here's the problem, Russia doesn't want peace they want to claim parts of Ukraine and conquer the country as whole.
• lowkey 3y ago
  (responding to the sister comment) "Id stop mentioning RFK Jr he actually legitimately reduces the credibility of what you're trying to asert." If it wasn't already clear, I support RFK Jr and hold his foreign policy in high regard. I also deeply respect his principled approach to telling American voters the truth. Uncomfortable truths are often unpopular at first, but being genuine is an important part of healing the divide. I hold those who are willing to speak uncomfortable truths in high regard and I suspect many others do as well. "So why is this never mentioned in their victory article? they only never mention the way worse justification or absorbing Ukraine into Russia as part of it." I can't speak for Russian leadership as I don't claim to know their motives or intent. Might it be possible, as is verifiably true in the case of the US funded bio-labs as well as the nuclear-capable Stinger missiles, that they did raise these issues, but our captured western media failed to report it? Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media? Notably, all Russian media was banned in the west at the start of this war. What we call Russian propaganda, they call news - and vice versa. "A negotiated peace is possible and quite easy, Russia leaves all of Ukraine and retreats to its 1991 border and never comes back." I notice that you didn't mention any concessions from either the Ukraine or NATO. I don't see how Russia agreeing to the unilateral terms you outlined would satisfy their concerns over the potential of a NATO aligned state on their border so close to their capital. How do you see this negotiating strategy playing out? Why would Russia concede? Are they running out of ammunition? According to Biden, we certainly are or else we wouldn't be sending cluster munitions as a last resort. "Here's the problem, Russia doesn't want peace they want to claim parts of Ukraine and conquer the country as whole." It seems you believe you know their motivations better than I do. However, the best way to find out would be to call for a cease-fire and to get both sides back to the negotiating table so we can find a way forward via diplomacy instead of an endless unwinnable war.
  • _kbh_ 3y ago
    > If it wasn't already clear, I support RFK Jr and hold his foreign policy in high regard. I also deeply respect his principled approach to telling American voters the truth. Uncomfortable truths are often unpopular at first, but being genuine is an important part of healing the divide. I hold those who are willing to speak uncomfortable truths in high regard and I suspect many others do as well. You can go ahead and support a raving lunatic if you want but it doesn't stop him being a raving lunatic and a non credible source. He doesn't speak uncomfortable truths he is an idiot. > I can't speak for Russian leadership as I don't claim to know their motives or intent. Might it be possible, as is verifiably true in the case of the US funded bio-labs as well as the nuclear-capable Stinger missiles, that they did raise these issues, but our captured western media failed to report it? Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media? I can't tell if you're purposely saying stuff that literally makes no sense or if you are trying to use it as a propaganda tactic. What in christ is a nuclear stinger missile?. > Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media? Have you read anything that isn't just straight Russian propaganda?. > Notably, all Russian media was banned in the west at the start of this war. What we call Russian propaganda, they call news - and vice versa. What we call propaganda is literally Russian propaganda never forget these "news" outlets are the same places that gave you following real headlines "Why Russia won't invade Ukraine" "Ukrainian black magic battalions" "Ukrainian super soldier" > I notice that you didn't mention any concessions from either the Ukraine or NATO. I don't see how Russia agreeing to the unilateral terms you outlined would satisfy their concerns over the potential of a NATO aligned state on their border so close to their capital. How do you see this negotiating strategy playing out? Why would Russia concede? Are they running out of ammunition? According to Biden, we certainly are or else we wouldn't be sending cluster munitions as a last resort. Maybe they would negotiate stop things exploding in Russia and Crimea so often?, to stop losing soldiers?. > It seems you believe you know their motivations better than I do. However, the best way to find out would be to call for a cease-fire and to get both sides back to the negotiating table so we can find a way forward via diplomacy instead of an endless unwinnable war. Russia benefits from a cease-fire allowing them to rearm. Russia has already agreed multiple times to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and to withdraw their troops back to their own border, they never did. The only negotiations that should take place are when Russia is back in Russia. Why should Ukraine cede anything? they are slowing winning the war. Why do you reply in a way that makes it impossible to follow the conversation thread?.