6 ms·
I don't think you have to listen to Russian government propaganda to understand the NATO threat if you have any cognitive empathy whatsoever. Angela Merkel is o
by tejohnso 3y ago
I don't think you have to listen to Russian government propaganda to understand the NATO threat if you have any cognitive empathy whatsoever. Angela Merkel is on record saying that the negotiated Minsk peace agreement was a complete sham.
"The US and its allies “simulated supporting the UN Security Council resolution” which endorsed the roadmap to peace while pumping weapons into Ukraine and “ignored all crimes committed by the Kiev regime … for the sake of a decisive strike against Russia,” she explained in a social media post on Thursday [1].
Also John Mearsheimer, an American, laid out the case for Ukraine as a massive NATO threat in a public talk many years ago. Available on youtube.
Would the United States welcome Chinese and Russian nuclear capable installations in Mexico or Cuba?
How are you attempting to balance your point of view against the intense western government propaganda that you're exposed to?
[1]: https://www.globalresearch.ca/merkel-acknowledges-that-2014-minsk-accord-deception/5801808 https://www.globalresearch.ca/merkel-acknowledges-that-2014-...
- slow_typist 3y agoNo, Merkel didn’t say that. Zakharova did.
- cf141q5325 3y agoShe mentioned it in an interview with the ZEIT recently. Here the article debating the interpretation of what she said. https://web.archive.org/web/20230103062022/https://www.zeit.de/2022/53/angela-merkel-russland-krieg-wladimir-putin https://web.archive.org/web/20230103062022/https://www.zeit.... > Merkel sagte der ZEIT: "Das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Sie hat diese Zeit auch genutzt, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sieht."
- phs318u 3y agoTo me it implies that Russian designs on Ukraine were understood quite some time ago, and the "buying time" to make Ukraine "stronger" was the counter to Russia's intention. That supposition about Russia's intentions has since been proven correct. Russia may feel aggrieved that their goal of re-subsuming the independent former Soviet republics has been somewhat thwarted, but clearly that has been and still is their policy.
- _hcuq 3y agoGive Ukraine time to build up it's defenses against Russian invasion.... Is that bad? Russia is the aggressor here. It is quite simple. All the eastern European countries wanted to join NATO because they are afraid of Russian invasion. Turns out they were right.
- cf141q5325 3y agoIts indeed the information i care about, not the implications for any narratives. Distortions and pollution of the information environment is just shortsighted and counterproductive. If you stop looking at facts in favor of narrative you are making yourself vulnerable for the inevitable self destructive corruption. Which can easily be manufactured, which both China and Russia are aware of.
- orangepurple 3y agoThe war in Ukraine began in 2014 when the western intelligence agencies overthrew the elected president in a color revolution. After that the oligarchs started arming extremists (Azov et. al.) to put the brakes on the inevitable retaliation by Russia.
- _kbh_ 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- watwut 3y agoNonsense and lies. It started when Russian invaded, because they failed to turn Ukraine in puppet state like Belarus. Contrary to what your genocide supporting sources say, Ukrainians are actually able to protest with that being engineered by CIA.
- orangepurple 3y agoUS intelligence agencies overthrew the Ukranian government in 2014. This is hardly controversial or difficult to understand.
- themitigating 3y ago"Would the United States welcome Chinese and Russian nuclear capable installations in Mexico or Cuba?" There are already NATO counties extremely close to Russia, Poland shares a border
- permo-w 3y agoPoland shares a border with Kaliningrad, but not the Russia proper. this is much like how Russia is very nearby to Alaska, but not the US proper
- ElectricalUnion 3y agoBut last time the USSR tried having weapons installed in Cuba the world almost ended because the USA got angry about it.
- andrepd 3y agoAnd after installing weapons in Turkey themselves!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- stevefan1999 3y agoChina is also pissed off when South Korea decided to put THAAD from US
- lmm 3y agoThe US doesn't see Poland as US territory, and cares rather less for Polish citizens than American ones.
- _hcuq 3y agoPutin flew nuclear bombers within 50 miles of the US coast. And they weren't shot down.... And there are no nuclear weapons installations in Ukraine.
- cf141q5325 3y ago>Also John Mearsheimer, an American, laid out the case for Ukraine as a massive NATO threat in a public talk many years ago. Available on youtube. Russia has also been vocal about this for decades. The CIA director summarized it rather well during his time as Ambassador in his "Nyet means Nyet" cable. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
- cf141q5325 3y agoPls do give feedback about the downvotes. I have yet to find a better source on the background of the whole conflict.
- _kbh_ 3y ago[dead]
- natechols 3y ago> Would the United States welcome Chinese and Russian nuclear capable installations in Mexico or Cuba? Personally, it's none of my business what Mexico or Cuba do on their territory, but are you saying the US has nuclear installations in Ukraine?
- LordShredda 3y agoThey have in Germany, turkey, netherlands
- natechols 3y agoAnd have since before I was born - but what does this have to do with invading Ukraine now?
- Pelayu 3y agoThey referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
- orangepurple 3y agoPoland is doing everything possible begging for nuclear weapons, agreements be damned.
- _hcuq 3y agoSo.... where's the decisive NATO strike? They won't even supply adequate weapons to Ukraine.
- remarkEon 3y agoThe problem is not weapons. The problem for Ukraine is they are still a Soviet-tier army, operating with Soviet-era tactics. It's not productive to ship them thousands of Abrams and F-16s if they do not understand how to operate these systems in a combined arms fight. They do not, and it takes a long time to become competent at this. So, a King of Battle war of attrition it is until either Ukraine can figure out how to do this or something truly catastrophic happens with Russian supply and morale. Or NATO directly enters.
- _hcuq 3y ago"Angela Merkel is on record saying that the negotiated Minsk peace agreement was a complete sham." No she didn't. That is Russian propaganda. Show me the Zeit article. All your sources are astroturfed Russian propaganda. Your globalresearch.ca link gives you away. Anyone doubting it can go to the globalresearch front page and draw their own conclusions. Its a conspiracy theory site. I list a few articles to give a flavor of globalresearch's conspiracy bent: The “Great Zero Carbon” Conspiracy and the WEF’s “Great Reset” Towards a Failed State under Kiev Nazi Regime The Asinine Insanity of the ‘Climate Change’/C02 Hoax:
- aaron695 3y ago> Show me the Zeit article Here - https://archive.is/c4ZVK https://archive.is/c4ZVK You would have more creditability if you took 2 mins to have found it. > globalresearch.ca Is certainly not a good source, linking people the original quotes to read for themselves would show some evidence you are not a conspiracy theory also, I hear there are a few going around.
- mcpackieh 3y agoThat Zeit article has her saying the 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to buy Ukraine time. This is not precisely the same as her saying it was a complete sham; the agreement was a ceasefire and ceasefires are generally understood to provide both sides with an opportunity to lick their wounds; ceasefires aren't peace treaties, they're only temporary stoppages of wars. For Merkle to say the ceasefire was buying Ukraine time isn't a contradiction. Still, you dug up the relevant article so, vouched.
- tuukkah 3y agoThank you for revealing one more conspiracist troll for what they are. HN seems to be in danger of being drowned in a flood of them.
- _hcuq 3y ago"Would the United States welcome Chinese and Russian nuclear capable installations in Mexico or Cuba?" Puin was flying nuclear bombers down the California coast in 2014, 50 miles offshore.... nobody overreacted. If you are referring to the Romanian ABM site, Putin could have just put an ABM site in Cuba, or in international waters off the coast of the USA... The Romanian site doesn't have nuclear weapons....
- mcpackieh 3y ago> Putin could have just put an ABM site in Cuba Heh, to protect South America?
- myko 3y agoThis is pure strain Russian propaganda, nothing you have shared here backs up Putin's claims that NATO is some existential threat to Russia. Everything since the invasion of Georgia has shown Russia to be the aggressor on the world stage, countries like Ukraine that Putin considers to be owned by Russia are right to run to NATO for defense.
- chrysler 3y ago>> I don't think you have to listen to Russian government propaganda to understand the NATO threat if you have any cognitive empathy whatsoever. NATO is not a threat to Russia by any objective measure. Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, NATO countries in Europe were unilaterally diarming themselves. Just compare the size and composition of UK, French or (West-)German military in 1980s and 2010s - reduction in everything by a factor of 5-10x with a continuing downward trend. This is why NATO is struggling to support Ukraine, former powerhouses like Germany have very little left to share. Over the past two years, Russia has lost 20 TIMES more (visually confirmed) tanks than the whole German army fields. And yet we're somehow supposed to believe that such tiny force could pose a credible threat against Russia. A person with "cognitive empathy" might actually feel that the truth is exactly the opposite: NATO became so weak over time that Russia stopped fearing it, and became increasingly brazen in pursuing its imperialist goals. We have by far the most destructive war in Europe since the WWII, whole cities wiped from the earth, civilians executed in mass graves, daily terror attacks on cities where millions live - and to this day NATO's response is what exactly? Sending obsolete tanks and wasting months discussing whether Ukraine deserves modern air defense systems to stop terror raids against civilians? Is this the power you consider an existential threat to Russia? Who's the victim of propaganda here, really?
- remarkEon 3y ago>Who's the victim of propaganda here, really? You are, evidentially. Since your solution to this problem is WWIII. You're simultaneously claiming that Russia has last 20x the tank inventory of Germany, and also that Russia is somehow also capable of "pursuing its imperialist goals", which I guess still include capturing Berlin. Which is it?
- mcpackieh 3y agoYou haven't established a contradiction until you've filled in the missing term; how much Russia has left.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoThis is just not how real politics work. This is the result of bad politics of power players with a lack of understanding. Putin himself even said he might be thinking about joining NATO some day. That is was due to a weakening NATO is an analysis completely detached from reality. This ignores what happened in Ukraine in the last few decades. It is a simple explanation, but most importantly a completely wrong one. There is a reason why the relation today is much worse than it was 30 years ago.