Russia attacks Ukraine

I don't have a Ukrainian flag on either of my online profiles, and one thing does not exclude the other; I already said there's more than one factor at play here. Of course this is involves NATO, but limiting this to current politics - and especially making it be about America (sigh) is reductionist to the extreme. Russia is a major power with major ambitions, and if the US is dangerous to the world (which it is) this kind of imposive danger is something Russia is also striving for.
 
Ukraine bad. I hope Russia wins.

Reminds me of how South Korea was unfairly carved away from the North via imperialist war because of McCarthyism! Something all South Koreans are very sad and angry about to this day.
 
zegh8578 said:
stuff
Click to expand...

I'm too tired from taking care of my fucking crazy dog so I'm not gona look up facts and just spit this from memory:
Russia made it clear that tensions would stay at ease as long as their bordering countries didn't join NATO.
If you live in America, do you want a Russian base built in Ontario or Quebec?
Shit, we almost had WWIII 50 years ago because of what happened in Cuba.

Here's the deal man, the United States is footing the bill to increase their weapon manufacturer's profits that will soon be worthless if this conflict escalates.
 
mobucks said:
Russia made it clear that tensions would stay at ease as long as their bordering countries didn't join NATO.
Click to expand...
Would you say, this gives Russia the right to invade Finnland and Sweden now, since they want to join NATO as well? I am not trying to "trick" you into something here. I share your criticism with NATO and I believe there is a back-story and history to all of this as well.
But we can not ignore the fact that exactly BECAUSE those countries have Russia as neighbour is the reason they want to join NATO. And not due to pressure from the US. Neutrality with NATO is absolutely possible - see Switzerland, Austria (which is even a member of the EU) and well up to this day Sweden and Finnland.

So if Putins main goal with the invasion was to keep NATO from russian borders ... then maybe Putin should kill Putin next because Putin has become a much larger danger to Russia than anyone else since Finnland and Sweden are very likely to join and instead of one bordering nation, Russia will now have two. And on top of all that Putin is constantly threatening everyone and everything with "I go nuclear trollolo!".

Before the Invasion I would have agreed with you and this idea that NATO could be a threat to Russia in a certain way. But now with the Invasion I changed my mind. Putin made it crystical clear that he's invading Ukraine because of imperialism. Not because of NATO. Particularly as Ukraine had zero chance to join NATO as long as there was a dispute going on between Ukraine and Russia about the Donbas. There was no rational rason for this invasion.
 
No one said it’s Russia’s right to invade. It’s really never any nation’s right to invade.
 
In that case you should invade just like Hitler did for the same reasons. Because surely this is an honest framing of a complex situation.....
 
Verevoof said:
No one said it’s Russia’s right to invade. It’s really never any nation’s right to invade.
Click to expand...
The thing is that often the discussion steers in a direction that creates a sort of equivalancy between Russia and the NATO (The United States in particular) which is in my opinion a bit of a problem. Which does not mean that one can not criticise US and Euro Imperialism. I protested against the war Irak and I was very glad that Germany and a few others decided not to participate. I was also always critical about Afghanistan and the war there. I always feel that we're doing more to support international terrroism and particularly radical islamist groups rather than actually fighting against them. Geopolitics is a really fucked thing. No doubts about it.

But I am not sure how much it helps the current situation really to say "Russia made it clear that tensions would stay at ease as long as their bordering countries didn't join NATO.". Particularly when you consider that somewhere in the 1990s Putin himself said, he has zero issues with nations joining NATO, because every nation has of course the right to chose their own allies as a souvereign entity. Same as some nations (Belaruss and a few others) chose to be friends with Russia and become part of their sphere of influence. Why is that often kinda glanced over for some reason? Russia also agreed in the early 1990s that it would never, ever threaten Ukraines souvereignity and borders. Which was one of the conditions for Ukraine giving up the post-soviet nuclear arsenal they still had on their territory.

If we really want to talk about the history and the events which lead to this whole crisis and war, sure. Let us do that. But then we have to be honest and do a correct analysis. As much as there have been what some consider provocations there have also been open discussions, diplomacy and chances. Normandy Format, G20, G8 and many more. For fucks sake, no EU country was economically tied as closeley to Russia like Germany, except for Hungary maybe. If the goal of all the western powers was to provoke and "defeat" Russia, then I don't know why so many EU members willingly gave up parts of their infrastructure to Russia and opening their economy to their oligarchs.

I mean there are many open qustions regarding Ukraine and all the things that happend over the last 30 years. And neither the EU nor the United States are without blame. That much is for sure. But it could be also possible that a large part of Ukraine simply didn't feel safe from Russia. Like not at all. So maybe there was a genuene process of democratisation and preferences for Europe and NATO. Just as how the Baltic States chose it.

Not trying to get in a fight here or something. Just saying. I am one of the biggest "NATO" critics around here - I think. But despite all criticism and history, the cards have been played. The beds have been made. And at the end of the day, it turns out Putin is worse than NATO.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
The thing is that often the discussion steers in a direction that creates a sort of equivalancy between Russia and the NATO (The United States in particular) which is in my opinion a bit of a problem. Which does not mean that one can not criticise US and Euro Imperialism. I protested against the war Irak and I was very glad that Germany and a few others decided not to participate. I was also always critical about Afghanistan and the war there. I always feel that we're doing more to support international terrroism and particularly radical islamist groups rather than actually fighting against them. Geopolitics is a really fucked thing. No doubts about it.

But I am not sure how much it helps the current situation really to say "Russia made it clear that tensions would stay at ease as long as their bordering countries didn't join NATO.". Particularly when you consider that somewhere in the 1990s Putin himself said, he has zero issues with nations joining NATO, because every nation has of course the right to chose their own allies as a souvereign entity. Same as some nations (Belaruss and a few others) chose to be friends with Russia and become part of their sphere of influence. Why is that often kinda glanced over for some reason? Russia also agreed in the early 1990s that it would never, ever threaten Ukraines souvereignity and borders. Which was one of the conditions for Ukraine giving up the post-soviet nuclear arsenal they still had on their territory.

If we really want to talk about the history and the events which lead to this whole crisis and war, sure. Let us do that. But then we have to be honest and do a correct analysis. As much as there have been what some consider provocations there have also been open discussions, diplomacy and chances. Normandy Format, G20, G8 and many more. For fucks sake, no EU country was economically tied as closeley to Russia like Germany, except for Hungary maybe. If the goal of all the western powers was to provoke and "defeat" Russia, then I don't know why so many EU members willingly gave up parts of their infrastructure to Russia and opening their economy to their oligarchs.

I mean there are many open qustions regarding Ukraine and all the things that happend over the last 30 years. And neither the EU nor the United States are without blame. That much is for sure. But it could be also possible that a large part of Ukraine simply didn't feel safe from Russia. Like not at all. So maybe there was a genuene process of democratisation and preferences for Europe and NATO. Just as how the Baltic States chose it.

Not trying to get in a fight here or something. Just saying. I am one of the biggest "NATO" critics around here - I think. But despite all criticism and history, the cards have been played. The beds have been made. And at the end of the Putin is worse than NATO.
Click to expand...
Putin is a greater danger to his own nation than NATO is to Europe. He threatens Ukraine with a nuclear conflict if they join NATO. but he should be more concerned about Finland and Sweden. That's right on their Northern border. If Finland gave them the biggest bloodied up nose 80+ years ago. Imagine- Theyre likely willing to do it again if Russia threatens them with either a land invasion or nuclear threats.
 
I admit I have a very freshman level understanding of the situation, so I'm gonna back out of this conversation.

TBH I just wanted to share a video of someone asking black guys to piss on me beat me.
 
In the end, war is a violent solution to a complex problem. Just because you cant grasp the complexity of the problem doesnt mean the reasons are invalid
 
the world was divided into socialist and capitalist blocs – and attitude which had governed Soviet Cold War strategy since 1948. In place of an endless arms race, global ideological struggle and a Europe divided between East and West, Gorbachev called for an end to the blocs and for co-operation between nations – whatever their political and economic systems – on international disarmament and development, as well as on global ecological problems. In elaborations of this vision over the next two years Gorbachev advocated the creation of a continent united from Lisbon to Vladivostok, characterised by a pan-European security system, free trade, and ‘intra-European relations founded on international law’. He looked to financial assistance from the West, 2channelled possibly through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which would allow East European states (and the Soviet Union) to make a smooth transition – not to free market capitalism – but to a pluralist form of social democracy. The objective was a ‘Greater Europe’ with major centres at Moscow, Brussels and Ankara within a 3multi-polar world in which Russia would remain a key player. It was a concept which had echoes of John F. Kennedy’s famous call for a ‘world safe for diversity’ in June 1963. Over the next generation, Gorbachev’s successors in Moscow all called for a new era of international co-operation based on the principles he had established between 1989 and 1991. During the Yeltsin era a good deal was made of how Russia and Western Europe could help each other. Russia possessed an abundant reservoir of raw materials (especially oil and gas); Western Europe had skills, advanced technology and investment. The creation of institutionalised arrangements providing for an exchange would help to relieve Western Europe’s energy deficit and, at the same time, contribute to the modernization of the Russian economy, bringing together the two halves of the continent in the process. In June 2008 President Dmitri Medvedev advocated a new regional European Security Pact, based on the United Nations Charter, by which Russia would become part of what he called the ‘Euro-Atlantic community’. Russia, said Medvedev, had ‘come in from the cold’.
 
mobucks said:
I admit I have a very freshman level understanding of the situation, so I'm gonna back out of this conversation.
Click to expand...
Here is what I believe. The one calling the shots aren't better. They just don't realise it.

So you're already further than most of them. That's an achievement.
 
Russia is losing. NATO is winning. This means everybody loses like if Russia wins and everybody loses.
 
Albrecht Shufflegroover auf Twitter reports. Viewers now ask why Zelenskiy is no longer funny and that TV programme is sooo boring
 
Russians crashed another plane into an apartment building, in Irkutsk.

This one was on a test flight straight out of the factory.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top