this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
71 points (78.9% liked)
World News
32319 readers
801 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah the best way to discourage a revanchist is to give him what he wants. Succeeding in Ukraine will definitely convince Putin not to attack the baltics, poland, or finland.
Amazing how there are still people here who don't understand that NATO lost.
NATO are only tough against small countries with marginal militaries.
It's literally an alliance of bullies.
You don't understand anything about military reality, let alone actual motivations.
The CIA itself reports and has been reporting for years that Putin has no expansionist ambitions politically and no expansionist capabilities militarily.
There's a reason why the Russian military has not tried to take Kiev and it's because defending supply lines across the wide open plains of Ukraine is incredibly difficult and costly.
Russia is not capable of taking all of Eastern Europe and holidng and it has no plans or intentions to do so.
You don’t understand what Russia wants; you understand what Western propaganda tells you it wants.
INB4 NATO is a defensive alliance.
Just because you can cherry pick a dozen articles from the last TEN YEARS about NATO and Ukraine doesn't make you right.
I don't even need an article to refute all of that - Russia attacked a neighbor unprovoked, NATO has attacked NOBODY ever.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. The fact that there have been so much consistent reporting over such a long period of time about NATO and Ukraine means it absolutely needs to be considered.
Again, please tell me this is satire. NATO has attacked multiple countries over the years. But also, since the advent of nuclear weapons, firing the first shot stopped being the standard. Because the first shot can now be a total annihilation shot, no country is capable of having a strategy that judges threats only by who fired the first shot. It must be judged by who is establishing the positioning to undermine security. Russia is not deploying nuclear capabilities around the world. The USA is deploying nuclear capabilities around the world, and in Europe it is doing so through NATO. This may be a shock to you, but deploying nuclear capabilities to undermine the security of another nation is NOT an act of peace.
This isn't true, unless Arabs aren't people. Being a liberal we probably aren't people to you so whatever crimes NATO committed doesn't count.
Edit: I always forget Yugoslavia, a European country that NATO attacked. The US even bombed the Chinese embassy there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade
I just showed you any number of Western media sources on how it was provoked, but here’s another from Jeffrey Sachs: The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace
For just two examples, NATO bombed the city of Belgrade for 78 straight days, and it destroyed Libya.
Lol. Neoliberal wrecking crew turned autocrat's errand boy.
Naomi Klein wasn’t wrong about neoliberal/neocolonial shock therapy, but she was wrong to paint Sachs as the great villain of that story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWYZpF2ngnc
History has misjudged Jeffery Sachs according to... Jeffery Sachs!
Let's be real, he's the main guy pushing the "NATO expansion" theory of Russian aggression everywhere, and it exists mainly to cover for his own crimes.
What's more likely: that Russian revanchism came from anger over some arcane treaty negotiations, or that it came from the absolute collapse in material condition, civil society, population, daily lived experience and life expectancy that Russians experienced as Sachs and his evil clients dismantled the once-great civilization for their own enrichment? What do you think Marx's assessment of those two theories would be?
Sachs is a bag man. He helped the oligarchs destroy Russia and then he made himself useful to the new ruler when they were gone. He also spends a lot of time in Beijing and has a lot of good things to say about Xi as well. The guy's a serpent.
Well there’s your problem: you believe the imperial core’s narrative that this is about “Russian revanchism” and not about decades of NATO expansion or Western Ukrainian fascists terrorizing eastern Ukrainians for almost a decade.
Believe what you like, but you don’t seem to be winning any hearts and minds here, and hardly anyone reads this far down conversation threads, anyway.
That is not what happened. It is now known that that was in fact a false flag attack by CIA-backed Banderite fascists. It is also now known that the “peaceful protest” was not entirely grassroots, but rather astroturfed.
But why am I wasting my arguing with you when you’re obviously here for some reason to carry water for imperialists? The US is aiding and abetting a genocide in Palestine as we speak, yet somehow you still think we’re the good guys (though, to be fair, I wouldn’t call Russia a perfect angel, either).
ComPleTeLy UnProVokEd 🤡
If NATO is really as effective as it's claimed to be, then the baltics, Poland, and Finland have nothing to worry about.
The enemy is both strong and weak. Russia is a paper tiger that will roll over all of Europe.
That's what I don't get. Russia is a laughing stock with its outdated equipment and inability to conquer Ukraine, yet it is also a massive threat to Europe leading Sweden and Finland scrambling to join NATO.
And if we are to believe that NATO is an effective alliance, then surely Russia will go no further than Ukraine. Yet we can't let Putin win because he will try to go further than Ukraine.
Make it make sense. Some people are talking out both sides of their mouths.