5 ms·

Ah yes, just like the Americans thought that Al Qaeda was an "existential threat" to the US. Sure, it makes sense, and it's their motive. But a motive doesn't j

Ah yes, just like the Americans thought that Al Qaeda was an "existential threat" to the US. Sure, it makes sense, and it's their motive. But a motive doesn't justify a crime.

xcv123 3y ago
Yes. However, the difference being that there was a 2014 revolution in Ukraine, and Ukraine did subsequently become aligned with the US, and the US is extremely aggressive toward its enemies and has been inciting anti-Russia hatred for many years. That border along Ukraine/Russia is a major existential risk. Russia will be at a severe military disadvantage if they lose that buffer. Ukraine should have remained a neutral buffer state. I believe the US agencies have provoked Russia to invade, and this outcome was intended or at least expected.
- nulld3v 3y ago
  I mean yeah, let's assume Russia believed really hard in globalism. The problem is if that's the case, Russia suddenly has many many more problems. They justified the invasion by claiming it will better the security situation of Russia. Now that the invasion has started, is the security situation of Russia any better? Ok, maybe the invasion didn't improve the security situation, but it would have if the West didn't meddle. They seem to have forgotten however, that the West has always been meddling in Ukraine, they literally had troops there previously. And also since Ukraine was US-aligned, wouldn't it make sense that the US would help them? But let's even assume the invasion went 100% to plan and Ukraine got completely annexed! Would the security situation of Russia be improved? NO, it would not! - Literally everybody in Europe would suddenly hate Russia - Neutral countries would no longer be neutral to Russia (as demonstrated recently) - The region is destabilized. No one was previously thinking of starting wars in Europe, now war is top of mind. - What does the "land buffer" even get them? No one would dare perform a ground invasion of Russia cause they have nukes! - If the nukes were gone, the "land buffer" would be inconsequential to the US army. The Russians somehow don't have air superiority even when Ukraine doesn't have an air force. They would be bombed out of key positions immediately with air and artillery power should the west invade. The "neutral buffer state" is a pipe-dream. One that is not actually a terrible idea (it's not a good idea mind you), but entirely unachievable.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    Your reply is well thought out. The fact is that Ukraine was being turned against Russia. This was unacceptable to them and considered an existential risk, whether by direct or indirect force, by military or political/cultural subversion. This is evidenced by the huge risk and sacrifices that Russia has accepted with this course of action. They warned that this would happen as a consequence, for many years.
    - mopsi 3y ago
      > The fact is that Ukraine was being turned against Russia. Funny. I thought it was the invasion in 2014 and the crimes against humanity committed by invading Russians that soured relations between Ukraine and Russia. Are Americans at fault for rising anti-German tensions in Poland back in 1939 too?
      - xcv123 3y ago
        The annexation of Crimea occurred immediately after the 2014 revolution. The west made their move and Russia responded.
        mopsi 3y ago
        That's not how the events unfolded. Russians pressured Ukrainian president to block a very favorable trade deal with the EU that had already received overwhelming support and passed the parliament. The general public responded with massive protests, Ukrainian president mishandled the situation and gave order to shoot at protesters, protests grew even larger in response, and the president eventually fled to Russia. Russians used the time of internal turmoil as an opportunity to invade Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to further their interest of expanding Russia to the extent of the Soviet Union. You don't need to construct elaborate conspiracy theories about CIA involvement, when Ukrainians were mad as hell over losing the opportunity to see their income sharply rise from open trade with the EU, like everyone else in Eastern Europe before them had seen.
        3y ago
- mopsi 3y ago
  > However, the difference being that there was a 2014 revolution in Ukraine, and Ukraine did subsequently become aligned with the US, and the US is extremely aggressive toward its enemies and has been inciting anti-Russia hatred for many years. The reason for the rise of anti-Russian hatred since 2014 is the invasion Russia launched, and the murdering, looting and raping that Russians brought with them. The US hasn't been inciting shit; it has been a major moderating power hoping to calm down the situation to maintain stability. This is particularly clear after the full-scale invasion in 2022. Ukraine started getting significant military aid only after news channels across the world began showing uncovered mass graves all day long and withholding ai became untenable. And to this day, the military aid remains modest compared to actual needs, out of fear that Russia could break apart if the war escalated. Ukraine is still not allowed to use foreign weapons against targets in Russia, while Russia performs daily drone and missile attacks all over Ukraine. The US has always preferred Russia as a normal, developed and stable country that they could do business with, often at the expense of the freedom and security of millions of Europeans. For example, I am old enough to remember how Bush senior[1] told us not to rock the boat when we were weeks away from declaring independence during the fall of the USSR, because the US preferred to work with the singular USSR as they always had instead of having to deal with a patchwork of newly independent countries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > However, the difference being that there was a 2014 revolution in Ukraine, and Ukraine did subsequently become aligned with the US, Ukraine didn't do anything between the 2014 revolution and the Russian invasion. (Like, literally, the revolution was still shaking out internally when the Russians launched a massive invasion from their bases in Ukraine as well as from Russia proper, which is how they took Crimea and also started the long war in Eastern Ukraine.) Ukraine did have a pro-US alignment, stronger than it had even ca. 2008 when NATO stalled them and Georgia from getting Membership Action Plan's at Russia's request (which Russia exploited by immediately invading Georgia, and one expects Ukraine would have followed sooner had it not had a period with a Russian-aligned administration that started before Russia was ready to move beyond Georgia) after the 2014 Russian invasion, but, its kind of hard to use that to justify the invasion.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    I am not talking about justification. I am talking about what motivated Russia to take this course of action.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > I am talking about what motivated Russia to take this course of action. The alignment that occurred after and as a direct consequence of the Russian invasion are neither justification nor motivation for the invasion.
      - xcv123 3y ago
        Again, I am not talking about justification. That's a moral subjective thing and I'm not interested in that conversation. Regarding motivation, you are making a claim that contradicts the evidence. There were ongoing provocations post 2014. Also I'm not talking about the alignment of individual Ukrainian peasants. This is about power at the highest levels of authority. The Ukrainian authorities willingly provoked conflict with Russia. It has become a proxy state of the west. War would most likely have been prevented if Ukraine remained neutral.

Ah yes, just like the Americans thought that Al Qaeda was an "existential threat" to the US. Sure, it makes sense, and it's their motive. But a motive doesn't justify a crime.

xcv123 3y ago

Yes. However, the difference being that there was a 2014 revolution in Ukraine, and Ukraine did subsequently become aligned with the US, and the US is extremely aggressive toward its enemies and has been inciting anti-Russia hatred for many years. That border along Ukraine/Russia is a major existential risk. Russia will be at a severe military disadvantage if they lose that buffer. Ukraine should have remained a neutral buffer state. I believe the US agencies have provoked Russia to invade, and this outcome was intended or at least expected.

nulld3v 3y ago
I mean yeah, let's assume Russia believed really hard in globalism. The problem is if that's the case, Russia suddenly has many many more problems. They justified the invasion by claiming it will better the security situation of Russia. Now that the invasion has started, is the security situation of Russia any better? Ok, maybe the invasion didn't improve the security situation, but it would have if the West didn't meddle. They seem to have forgotten however, that the West has always been meddling in Ukraine, they literally had troops there previously. And also since Ukraine was US-aligned, wouldn't it make sense that the US would help them? But let's even assume the invasion went 100% to plan and Ukraine got completely annexed! Would the security situation of Russia be improved? NO, it would not! - Literally everybody in Europe would suddenly hate Russia - Neutral countries would no longer be neutral to Russia (as demonstrated recently) - The region is destabilized. No one was previously thinking of starting wars in Europe, now war is top of mind. - What does the "land buffer" even get them? No one would dare perform a ground invasion of Russia cause they have nukes! - If the nukes were gone, the "land buffer" would be inconsequential to the US army. The Russians somehow don't have air superiority even when Ukraine doesn't have an air force. They would be bombed out of key positions immediately with air and artillery power should the west invade. The "neutral buffer state" is a pipe-dream. One that is not actually a terrible idea (it's not a good idea mind you), but entirely unachievable.
- xcv123 3y ago
  Your reply is well thought out. The fact is that Ukraine was being turned against Russia. This was unacceptable to them and considered an existential risk, whether by direct or indirect force, by military or political/cultural subversion. This is evidenced by the huge risk and sacrifices that Russia has accepted with this course of action. They warned that this would happen as a consequence, for many years.
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > The fact is that Ukraine was being turned against Russia. Funny. I thought it was the invasion in 2014 and the crimes against humanity committed by invading Russians that soured relations between Ukraine and Russia. Are Americans at fault for rising anti-German tensions in Poland back in 1939 too?
    - xcv123 3y ago
      The annexation of Crimea occurred immediately after the 2014 revolution. The west made their move and Russia responded.
      - mopsi 3y ago
        That's not how the events unfolded. Russians pressured Ukrainian president to block a very favorable trade deal with the EU that had already received overwhelming support and passed the parliament. The general public responded with massive protests, Ukrainian president mishandled the situation and gave order to shoot at protesters, protests grew even larger in response, and the president eventually fled to Russia. Russians used the time of internal turmoil as an opportunity to invade Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to further their interest of expanding Russia to the extent of the Soviet Union. You don't need to construct elaborate conspiracy theories about CIA involvement, when Ukrainians were mad as hell over losing the opportunity to see their income sharply rise from open trade with the EU, like everyone else in Eastern Europe before them had seen.
        3y ago
mopsi 3y ago
> However, the difference being that there was a 2014 revolution in Ukraine, and Ukraine did subsequently become aligned with the US, and the US is extremely aggressive toward its enemies and has been inciting anti-Russia hatred for many years. The reason for the rise of anti-Russian hatred since 2014 is the invasion Russia launched, and the murdering, looting and raping that Russians brought with them. The US hasn't been inciting shit; it has been a major moderating power hoping to calm down the situation to maintain stability. This is particularly clear after the full-scale invasion in 2022. Ukraine started getting significant military aid only after news channels across the world began showing uncovered mass graves all day long and withholding ai became untenable. And to this day, the military aid remains modest compared to actual needs, out of fear that Russia could break apart if the war escalated. Ukraine is still not allowed to use foreign weapons against targets in Russia, while Russia performs daily drone and missile attacks all over Ukraine. The US has always preferred Russia as a normal, developed and stable country that they could do business with, often at the expense of the freedom and security of millions of Europeans. For example, I am old enough to remember how Bush senior[1] told us not to rock the boat when we were weeks away from declaring independence during the fall of the USSR, because the US preferred to work with the singular USSR as they always had instead of having to deal with a patchwork of newly independent countries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech
dragonwriter 3y ago
> However, the difference being that there was a 2014 revolution in Ukraine, and Ukraine did subsequently become aligned with the US, Ukraine didn't do anything between the 2014 revolution and the Russian invasion. (Like, literally, the revolution was still shaking out internally when the Russians launched a massive invasion from their bases in Ukraine as well as from Russia proper, which is how they took Crimea and also started the long war in Eastern Ukraine.) Ukraine did have a pro-US alignment, stronger than it had even ca. 2008 when NATO stalled them and Georgia from getting Membership Action Plan's at Russia's request (which Russia exploited by immediately invading Georgia, and one expects Ukraine would have followed sooner had it not had a period with a Russian-aligned administration that started before Russia was ready to move beyond Georgia) after the 2014 Russian invasion, but, its kind of hard to use that to justify the invasion.
- xcv123 3y ago
  I am not talking about justification. I am talking about what motivated Russia to take this course of action.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I am talking about what motivated Russia to take this course of action. The alignment that occurred after and as a direct consequence of the Russian invasion are neither justification nor motivation for the invasion.
    - xcv123 3y ago
      Again, I am not talking about justification. That's a moral subjective thing and I'm not interested in that conversation. Regarding motivation, you are making a claim that contradicts the evidence. There were ongoing provocations post 2014. Also I'm not talking about the alignment of individual Ukrainian peasants. This is about power at the highest levels of authority. The Ukrainian authorities willingly provoked conflict with Russia. It has become a proxy state of the west. War would most likely have been prevented if Ukraine remained neutral.