2382
međșđŠirl
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
2382 points (100.0% liked)
me_irl
5745 readers
1198 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What is there to negotiate? If all the russians leave ukraine, ukranians will probably stop shooting them...
Russia has always firmly opposed expansion of NATO, including the missiles and NATO troops that were lined up at their border with Ukraineâs participation.
All those countries that joined NATO, Their sovereignty doesn't end where hurt russian fee-fees begin
if Russia doesnt like it, then maybe they should reflect on how they acted like savage barbarians to those people throughout history. Maybe they should reflect that they aren't entiteld to an "Empire" or a "Sphere of Influence" or whatever they want to call it. Reflect on the fact that Eastern and Central europe are not pawns and slaves to a larger power. but nations with agency, hopes, dreams and goals.
but they wont, Imperialism, Warmongering, and Genocide are married to the current excuse of "Russian Culture"
Yeah like, instead of taking a hard look into the mirror why countries kept wanting to join NATO, or why the russian-bloc equivalent failed so much, LULZ WE JUST GONNA WALTZ IN NO NATO PLOX.
Ah, nevermind, they did discover why so many countries wanted to join NATO. đ
If it was about their sovereignty, itâs weird that you donât mind NATO attacking their sovereignty to install pro-western politicians through corruption or straight up coups. âSovereigntyâ only seems to matter when itâs anti-Russian.
Itâs not about feelings. There were many agreements for NATO not to expand. They did it anyway. There are consequences for that.
Please educate me. Which countries had pro-western politicians "Installed"
And if you're already typing Ukraine, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
With maybe the exception of Serbia, Russia has been antagonistic and Imperialistic towards Europe for CENTURIES. Theres a reason Russia finds itself fighting against most/all of Europe every century. You need only ask the butchered populations of Eastern Europe who found themselves as Russian subjects at any point in history. The only reason they were ever friendly with Serbia, was because the Serbs are like a microchasm of the same thing the Russians did. Mini-mes, if you will.
you want to scream America bad, NATO bad, fine. but remove both of them from the equation, it wouldnt change the fact that the continent distrusts Russia for a reason.
Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/bfsmbpe4plx7cc6lgxhf37lx249r22?ref=pressrex.com&format=amp
Oh boy
So if they installed pro-western politicians in Ukraine, Why was the president of Ukraine at the time of Euromaidan checks notes Viktor Yanukovitch? the Pro-Russian fraudster who was once removed from the presidency after having cheated in the elections. and even afterward, managed to ratfuck his way into a term later on in 2010. Only to get Impeached and removed from power By his own government after he ordered the Berkut and Internal Troops to use lethal force against protestors.
this tired argument of western coups against these ex soviet countries always forgets to address the fact that a couple of suspicious phonecalls in embassies doesn't hold the same power as millions of people taking to the streets over a government doing something that is widely unpopular.
if the CIA and all these other groups people accuse of toppling governments were as competent as fiction made them out to be, Joe Biden would still be President, Putin would be dead, Russia would be a balkanized state, and the Ukraine war would probably never have happened, and if it did, it would have been over by now with a Ukrainian victory.
No, youâre describing the Maidan Coup, which was backed by the US to install a far-right puppet regime because they opposed Yanukovitch maintaining neutrality with Russia, and not bowing to US demands to block a lease on a Crimean naval base.
đ Geezus some people are so far down the disinformation hole there's fuck all ways to dig them back out, ever...
Oh were there?
That's interesting, considering how controversial it still is whether oral agreements ever existed in the first place. What isn't controversial is of course that being oral-only, they can hardly be binding or transactionary. That is to say, the failure was to never transfer these agreements - if they even existed - into writing, bilaterally as that's how you'd have to do it.
âWe didnât agree in writingâ didnât seem to prevent a war from breaking the agreement.
NATO wouldn't need to expand if Russia wasn't constantly threatening their neighbors.
Theyâve only ever threatened their neighbors during NATO expansion efforts.
Russia was threatening their neighbors before NATO even existed.
NATO existed before Russia, genius. Itâs an anti-Soviet org.
The Soviet Union was still Russia. They've not changed their attitude since then.
Then explain this different government, economy, and borders.
Your immense historical knowledge seems to have missed the fact that Russia existed long before the Soviet Union, Einstein.
Youâre proposing that this Russia is the same one? When did they re-establish the czar?
This is abuser logic. "If you would quit misbehaving, then I wouldn't have to hit you!"
Itâs an adult understanding of international politics. Aggression rarely goes unanswered.
Complete horseshit. They literally invaded and installed a puppet regime in Chechnia, and there were zero NATO "expansion efforts" there. And that is just one example out of many.
"The United States should invade a country that might in the future join an alliance to help prevent the US from invading other countries as we have in the past." Do you realize how fucking stupid your nAtO eXpAnSiOn propaganda sounds!?
Iâm literally just plainly stating historical events.
...that just so happen to line up with the propaganda of the Russian invaders.
Facts donât stop being facts when a Russian says them. If theyâre factually stating the sequence of events, it doesnât change anything.
Lies don't become true just because you keep saying "facts". The Russian propaganda (that you're parroting) is the untrue part, not the events themselves. Ukraine defending itself against Russia before and during their violent, illegal invasion is not an "expansion" and has nothing to do with NATO. Full stop.
I would go one further. Ukraine trying to join NATO is not a valid reason for an invasion. In fact, I can't think of any valid reason for an invasion. Invading a country is wrong.
Maybe Ukraine wants to join NATO because they share a border with a gigantic country that wants to conquer them.
The amusing part is the invasion actually got Finland to join NATO, which, to my knowledge, did not have prior plans to do so.
If the goal of the invasion was to prevent NATO expanding to russian borders, they've already failed at it.
Lol, imagine downvoting "Invading a country is wrong" and thinking you're a sane, rational person...
Lies aren't facts, Einstein.
You are doing nothing of the sort, you are literally just regurgitating Putin propaganda.
Except Ukraine was on their border and not part of NATO and other countries on their border are. NATO Then Russia invaded and took the Crimean peninsula unprovoked. Not a surprise that Ukraine wants NATO membership, and now Finland joined NATO because of Russia's attack on Ukraine, doubling the NATO/Russia border.
Incorrect. The Crimea invasion followed a soft coup of Ukraine by the US, wherein they installed a far-right puppet regime. The following years, Ukraine allowed a torrent of NATO & US troops and missile deployments to be installed at their border with Russia.
Nope... you're spreading bullshit. People got rid of a Putin puppet. Hope we do the same.
Where did you come up with this? At no time has the US or NATO had troops or missiles in Ukraine. Get your facts correct or say nothing.
âAt no time,â when theyâre there as we speak. So stupid.
My man, if we had US troops and missiles participating in the war, Kursk would have already been a proud Ukrainian city.
You really ought to take to news sources other than Twitter or Telegram. đ
Do you think that NATO was planning to invade Russia? And if not, then WTF is Putin's problem?
The primary mission of NATO is aggression with the Soviet Union/Russia. Thatâs the only reason it exists.
Why does Russia get to dictate what other countries do within their borders?
Iâm pretty sure every country on earth would respond to a hostile force amassing troops & missiles at their border.
The fundamental difference here is between a sovereign nation pursuing defensive alliances versus an aggressive invasion violating international law. Ukraine wasn't "amassing troops & missiles" at Russia's border as an hostile threat - it was seeking security guarantees after Russia had already annexed Crimea in 2014 and fomented separatist movements in eastern Ukraine. National sovereignty means countries get to determine their own security arrangements, and Russia's "security concerns" don't justify violating Ukraine's territorial integrity or dictating its foreign policy choices.
Itâs not a sovereign nation. The US installed a far-right puppet regime in the 2014 Maidan Coup, which triggered the Crimea invasion.
Funny that folks who claim to support Ukrainian sovereignty donât give a shit about them being under a western thumb.
And where is the "non-puppet" that was removed during the Maidan Revolution hiding these days?