5 ms·

"An attack has to have very strong reasons, as any attack is very costly, no oligarch would spend money for no reason." So why did this current attack start? I

"An attack has to have very strong reasons, as any attack is very costly, no oligarch would spend money for no reason." So why did this current attack start? It's been 3 years and there's a dozen theories as to why exactly, there is no "strong reason" anywhere to be seen. "What could an oligarch possibly gain from starting a war with an allied neighboring country?" Again, why is Russia in Ukraine then? They went from being brethren to portraying Ukrainians as fascist scum that need to be exterminated. Why is that? "And why doesn't U.S. attack other NATO members now?" Because it has more to gain by not doing so. Again - I really can't see how you can confidently say that if only Russia was let into NATO 30 years ago this current situation wouldn't have happened.

mathfailure 2y ago
> So why did this current attack start? It's been 3 years and there's a dozen theories as to why exactly, there is no "strong reason" anywhere to be seen. > Again, why is Russia in Ukraine then? The strong reason for this attack was Russia's security concerns got ignored and stepped on by a military alliance (NATO). The military alliance that claims Russia to be their most probable enemy and thus a military alliance AGAINST Russia. The military alliance first broke some spoken agreement with Russian of non-expansion of said military alliance. Then did that again and again to the point where NATO wanted to advance in its expansion so much far as to the neighboring country to Russia. This is simply not acceptable for Russia, so it had to prevent that expansion, which it did. It could only be done by force, if the other side refused to drop possibilities of joining NATO. They didn't drop them - they got invaded for demilitarization. They resist - they die. The ones who don't resist (civilians) - aren't targeted at all (however, in a war there are always casualties among civilians). > They went from being brethren to portraying Ukrainians as fascist scum that need to be exterminated. Why is that? Because that's what Ukrainian officials policy was towards Russian natives living on their land and daring to speak their native Russian language. > I really can't see how you can confidently say that if only Russia was let into NATO 30 years ago this current situation wouldn't have happened. How is that not clear? If Russia would be part of NATO - it would have 0 security concerns of NATO expanding up to its borders. If there would be no security concerns - it wouldn't start the special operation, there simply would be no reason to, as Ukraine would probably in that case be a part of NATO as well (as well as Belarus and probably Kazakhstan and some other ex-USSR *stans)! Just that simple.
- error_logic 2y ago
  That's a convenient narrative but it overlooks the desire to prevent normalization of hostile takeovers. Russia tried to pretend that its satellite states and NATO were similar arrangements (with the latter thus being under US control), because that would make it seem like they were on even ground. To the extent it ends up being true, it will be due to Russia's influence (conveniently allied with others' authoritarian tendencies).
- snozolli 2y ago
  The strong reason for this attack was Russia's security concerns got ignored and stepped on by a military alliance (NATO). NATO is a defensive pact. Putin invaded Ukraine because he wants their port, arable land, and because he wants to go down in history as "reuniting" the Russian empire. Also, Russia has wanted to exterminate the Ukrainian cultural identity, which they've tried to do since before the Soviet Union: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-invasion-aims-to-erase-ukrainian-cultural-identity/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-i... Putin's whining about NATO is pure bullshit propaganda. Just like his claims of Nazis in Ukraine. It's all fiction, where he writes Russia as the victim.
  - imcritic3 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - gambiting 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - mathfailure 2y ago
        [flagged]
        mopsi 2y ago
        How can anyone forcibly issue a passport to someone? By denying medical care and access to essential medications to anyone who does not hold a Russian passport.

mathfailure 2y ago

> So why did this current attack start? It's been 3 years and there's a dozen theories as to why exactly, there is no "strong reason" anywhere to be seen. > Again, why is Russia in Ukraine then? The strong reason for this attack was Russia's security concerns got ignored and stepped on by a military alliance (NATO). The military alliance that claims Russia to be their most probable enemy and thus a military alliance AGAINST Russia. The military alliance first broke some spoken agreement with Russian of non-expansion of said military alliance. Then did that again and again to the point where NATO wanted to advance in its expansion so much far as to the neighboring country to Russia. This is simply not acceptable for Russia, so it had to prevent that expansion, which it did. It could only be done by force, if the other side refused to drop possibilities of joining NATO. They didn't drop them - they got invaded for demilitarization. They resist - they die. The ones who don't resist (civilians) - aren't targeted at all (however, in a war there are always casualties among civilians). > They went from being brethren to portraying Ukrainians as fascist scum that need to be exterminated. Why is that? Because that's what Ukrainian officials policy was towards Russian natives living on their land and daring to speak their native Russian language. > I really can't see how you can confidently say that if only Russia was let into NATO 30 years ago this current situation wouldn't have happened. How is that not clear? If Russia would be part of NATO - it would have 0 security concerns of NATO expanding up to its borders. If there would be no security concerns - it wouldn't start the special operation, there simply would be no reason to, as Ukraine would probably in that case be a part of NATO as well (as well as Belarus and probably Kazakhstan and some other ex-USSR *stans)! Just that simple.

error_logic 2y ago
That's a convenient narrative but it overlooks the desire to prevent normalization of hostile takeovers. Russia tried to pretend that its satellite states and NATO were similar arrangements (with the latter thus being under US control), because that would make it seem like they were on even ground. To the extent it ends up being true, it will be due to Russia's influence (conveniently allied with others' authoritarian tendencies).
snozolli 2y ago
The strong reason for this attack was Russia's security concerns got ignored and stepped on by a military alliance (NATO). NATO is a defensive pact. Putin invaded Ukraine because he wants their port, arable land, and because he wants to go down in history as "reuniting" the Russian empire. Also, Russia has wanted to exterminate the Ukrainian cultural identity, which they've tried to do since before the Soviet Union: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-invasion-aims-to-erase-ukrainian-cultural-identity/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-i... Putin's whining about NATO is pure bullshit propaganda. Just like his claims of Nazis in Ukraine. It's all fiction, where he writes Russia as the victim.
- imcritic3 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - gambiting 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mathfailure 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - mopsi 2y ago
        How can anyone forcibly issue a passport to someone? By denying medical care and access to essential medications to anyone who does not hold a Russian passport.