654
Zelenskyy straight-up said Ukraine is going to lose if Congress doesn't send more aid
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
654 points (95.9% liked)
World News
32315 readers
545 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
Win in my opinion would be have the ability to control all of Ukraine eventually, or force Ukaine to capitulate. Maybe they would not be able to occupy because that was never their goal, it was to stop Ukraine from joining nato.
I wouldn't say they're doing so well on the hearts and minds front....
As far as capitulation, that's what we're talking about here. What could they possibly capitulate too that would be considered a win at this point? Just about the only thing that would come close is the entirety of Ukraine, and maybe a chunk of Moldavia? That's going to be an occupation, and everyone knows how well those go these days.
Okay, well mission accomplished. You stopped a neighboring nation from potentially joining, and scarred two other neighbors into the express lane.
Plus, I don't think that's really an academically honest opinion. It would be like saying America invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction.
A lot of Ukrainians were not really excited about NATO prosperity until Russia started pulling the same shenanigans they did in Georgia and Moldavia. It's not exactly a new tactic in Russia's foreign policy.
In Russia and Eastern Ukraine they did...
The US facilitated the coup in 2014 (at least there's a smoking gun), Russia tried to join NATO 3 times and got denied, domestically Navalny got propped up by the west. The writing was on the wall..unlike Iraq
You're reversing cause and effect. First there was the prospect of joining NATO for Ukraine and Georgia then the war in Georgia happened as a response/protest from russia.
Also you're admitting that the a lot of Ukrainian were not excited about joining NATO, why push for it anyway.. not really democratic. Sounds what a puppet government would do
Ahh yes, murdering the opposition into compliance, definitely winning the hearts and minds there. It's not like tens of thousands of Russian men of service age fled the draft or anything.
As far as eastern Ukraine..... "Girkin was one of the commanders in Russia's annexation of Crimea, which immediately followed the revolution. In an interview on 22 January 2015, he explained that Russian media falsely portrayed Crimeans as supporting the annexation; Girkin said a majority of the local administration, law enforcement and army were opposed to it.[45][46] Girkin stated that under his command, the rebels "collected" deputies into the chambers, and had to "forcibly drive the deputies to vote [to join Russia]".
Sounds real democratic....
And Russia was facilitating the ruling Ukrainian oligarchy, the only real difference was that America didn't put boots on the ground when they got politically outmaneuvered.
They didn't try to join NATO three times. In the early 00's and as a response to the war on terrorism Russia began running joint exercises, establishing the NATO Russian joint council.
How so?
You're talking about 08' Bucharest Summit? The Russian federation was still in a join council with NATO at the time, and neither Ukraine nor Georgia were a priority to him, they were mainly focusing on Kosovo.
Actual public support for joining NATO only started after 2014, after the events in Georgian, and as a response to the Russian backed separation movement.
You're asking why they wanted to join NATO for protection when they already have Russians occupying parts of their eastern territory?
The vast majority of Ukrainians did not want to join in 08' nor would it have been possible with their current government. Even after their 2014 election, and actual public interest increased, they still had to make major changes to their judiciary system before they would even be considered.
Finally, even if we accept the rhetoric from Russia that NATO was the reason they facilitated the succession in eastern Ukraine, that doesn't explain why they invaded the rest of the country. It isn't possible for a country to join NATO while they are engaged in territorial disputes. So why destroy your neighbors when the goal is already accomplished?
This all started because in 04 Ukraine was tired of being a defacto vassal state to Russia. The country that had been propping up oligarchic leaderships with deep ties to Russian capital since the fall of the Soviet Republic. Once Putin couldn't hold down the eastern blok with soft power alone, he used the only tools left to him, subversive hard power.
I just don't really understand why you give the state the benefit of doubt, considering their historic relations with their neighbors in the caucuses and eastern Europe.
Putin is undeniably popular in Russia, having reversed neoliberal policies and bringing political stability after yeltsins shock therapy. Crimea: That's a lot of people no? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgMZBjgCFHo
Ukraine seems to be a pawn in your worldview. Ok.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule That's at least one, not gonna do you the effort to find you the other ones
You missed how Navalny was propped up by the West??
NATO–Russia relations stalled and subsequently started to deteriorate, following the Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2004–2005 and the Russo-Georgian War in 2008. 2004–2007
In the years 2004–2006, Russia undertook several hostile trade actions directed against Ukraine and the Western countries (see #Trade and economy below). Several highly publicised murders of Putin's opponents also occurred in Russia in that period, marking his increasingly authoritarian rule and the tightening of his grip on the media (see #Ideology and propaganda below).
In 2006, Russian intelligence performed an assassination on the territory of a NATO member state.[citation needed] On 1 November 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, a British-naturalised Russian defector and former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) who specialised in tackling organized crime and advised British intelligence and coined the term "mafia state", suddenly fell ill and was hospitalised after poisoning with polonium-210; he died from the poisoning on 23 November.[55] The events leading up to this are well documented, despite spawning numerous theories relating to his poisoning and death. A British murder investigation identified Andrey Lugovoy, a former member of Russia's Federal Protective Service (FSO), as the main suspect. Dmitry Kovtun was later named as a second suspect.[56] The United Kingdom demanded that Lugovoy be extradited, however Russia denied the extradition as the Russian constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens, leading to a straining of relations between Russia and the United Kingdom.[57]
Subsequently, Russia suspended in 2007 its participation in the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. 2008 Meeting of the NATO–Russia council in Bucharest, Romania on 4 April 2008
In 2008, Russia condemned the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo,[58] stating they "expect the UN mission and NATO-led forces in Kosovo to take immediate action to carry out their mandate ... including the annulling of the decisions of Pristina's self-governing organs and the taking of tough administrative measures against them."[59] Russian President Vladimir Putin described the recognition of Kosovo's independence by several major world powers as "a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries", and that "they have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face".[60] Europe was not unanimous in this matter, and a number of European countries have refused to recognise the sovereignty of Kosovo, while a number of further European nations did so only to appease the United States.[citation needed]
Nevertheless, the heads of state for NATO Allies and Russia gave a positive assessment of NATO-Russia Council achievements in a Bucharest summit meeting in April 2008,[61] though both sides have expressed mild discontent with the lack of actual content resulting from the council.
In early 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush vowed full support for admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, to the opposition of Russia.[62][63] The Russian Government claimed plans to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia may negatively affect European security. Likewise, Russians are mostly strongly opposed to any eastward expansion of NATO.[64][65] Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated in 2008 that "no country would be happy about a military bloc to which it did not belong approaching its borders".[66] Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin warned that any incorporation of Ukraine into NATO would cause a "deep crisis" in Russia–Ukraine relations and also negatively affect Russia's relations with the West.[67]
Relations between NATO and Russia soured in summer 2008 due to Russia's war with Georgia. Later the North Atlantic Council condemned Russia for recognizing the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions of Georgia as independent states.[68] The Secretary General of NATO claimed that Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia violated numerous UN Security Council resolutions, including resolutions endorsed by Russia. Russia, in turn, insisted the recognition was taken basing on the situation on the ground, and was in line with the UN Charter, the CSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and other fundamental international law;[69] Russian media heavily stressed the precedent of the recent Kosovo declaration of independence.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=dgMZBjgCFHo
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Lol, reversed neoliberal policies by organizing the oligarchs in order of personal loyalty?
Ahh yes, my country's stability is built upon a mountain of sanctions. Surely the benefits of adopting a wartime economy will never end, and never have any foreseeable consequences......
Lol, so when you claim that America led a coup you were implying ....?
Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”
Yeah, having a single off-handed remark does not qualify as trying to join NATO three times. They never applied. You haven't found one example, let alone three....
What do you mean by propped up? Are you implying that Russians are just a pawn to be played with?
Yes, as I said. Putin started feeling his power slip in the eastern block, as a response to the orange revolution they implemented hostile trade deals.
Yes, Putin was the only hold out in Kosovo, he wanted a resolution that both Kosovo and Yugoslavia would agree to....which was a political impossibility. The serbs wanted to murder or displace any Albanian left in Yugoslavia, there's not really a middle ground available there.
Putting just wanted a pretext to spark more instability in former Soviet states.
Not really helping your argument...... Isn't this the meeting you claimed eventually causes both conflicts in Ukraine and Georgia? Funny that it didn't seem to bother him much at the time?
Yes....at the Bucharest summit NATO claimed they wanted Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, the same summit you just said went well
I thought you claimed the reason things soured was because the announcement at Bucharest? Now your claim is suggesting that things only soured after Russia backed a coup in Georgia....?
Lol, are you even reading what your quoting? None of this is helping your argument......
Pretty much yes. The toppling of the USSR brought shock-Therapy and privatization with Yeltsin and brought a lot of unemployment and instability. Putin alleviated that, making him popular. Yeltsin and Clinton even handpicked the guy to make sure he doesn't bring back the USSR (Sidenote, ever wonder why they don't show life expectancy curves never go before the 90s in russia? No, It's not because the numbers were faked).
You libs never explain why Putin a US handpicked guy went from friend to foe. Could it be because Rosneft and Gazprom are SOEs and Putin doesn't want to sell these off to Western capitalists?
They wouldn't let him, because he wanted to be an equal imperial country
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-is-right-russia-belongs-in-nato/377557/
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-says-discussed-joining-nato-with-clinton/28526757.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
I don't deny it, the US topples regimes as it pleases and uses them as pawns. Like they do with Ukraine right now, or how they facilitate a genocide in Gaza, or agitate Taiwan against Mainland China. It's always funny to me when its usually libs you can't admit it and then you write shit like that. I seem to have rattled you lol
Ergo he, as someone who does realist politics, saw the writing on the wall as NATO was expanding toward him.
Russia had interest to join, but only if NATO internally reformed for members to be on equal footing (Which hasn't happened until today, USA is the leader still) and Russia got rejected.
I mean we're getting actually trapped in the minutia of the argument. The overall argument is that NATO is a reaction. First there was the creation of NATO (why if USSR and USA were allies in WW2?) and then came the Warsaw pact chronologically. The USSR, mind you, was an economic alliance. Even if we assume NATO saw the USSR as a threat (it actually was for it's capitalists) and was created as a result, why keep it, if not for imperialism after the dissolution of the USSR? US even handpicked Putin so it was all friendly back then, why increase members? For what threat? USSR is dissoloved and Putin was friendly at the time. If you had signs form Putin that expansion is seen as aggressive, why agitate? Saying now that the threat came true is a fucking joke.
Because NATO was formed from the Treaty of Dunkirk during the onset of WW2 as a mutual aid and assistance program if either Russia or Germany attacked. This was expanded to the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium in 48 during the Treaty of Brussels. This was called the Western Union.
Interest in America joining was fairly immediate after America adopted the Truman doctrine, which stated they would support any democracy being attacked by an "authoritarian" government. Which was a response to Stalin enacting the coup in Czechoslovakia after the Communist party in Italy and France failed to make any gains. This of course happened after the Soviet and Nazi split Poland between themselves.
Thus the north Atlantic treaty was formed.
The Warsaw pact was a defense agreement? Or are you talking about prior to 55'?
You said it yourself earlier, NATO wasn't exactly confident in the federation's ability to maintain its commitment to democracy. But there was some cautious optimism, military spending was cut drastically, and there was a large demobilization of military equipment and personal.
NATO had serious talks about it's future, delisted Russia as a sworn enemy, and started to be involved in more humanitarian aid. Russia under Yeltsin aided in the NATO intervention in ethnic cleaning in Bosnia 92'.
Things really don't start to deteriorate until Kosovo in 99'. For some reason this time, Russia wouldn't allow intervention to pass the UN security council, let alone help intervene like in Bosnia. After the conflict was over nato wanted to work with Russia to act as peace keepers, Russia for some reason this time wanted to act independently to look after their serbs. NATO was afraid it would partition the city and lead to future break away conflicts.
Coincidentally from years 97 to 99, Putin served as deputy chief of the Presidential Staff, chief of the Main Control Directorate of the Presidential Property Management Department , 1st class Active State Councillor of the Russian Federation, First Deputy Chief of the Presidential Staff for the regions, head of the commission for the preparation of agreements on the delimitation of the power of the regions and head of the federal center attached to the president, head of the FSB, acting prime minister, Prime Minister, Acting President, and finally elected president in 2004.
How? By the time Putin left St Petersburg for Moscow Yeltsin was 10% vodka by body weight. They thought they had a handle on Yeltsin like they did in the early days, but he was already somebody else's drunk puppet.
You think I'm a liberal, but I've probably been organizing mutual aid groups for leftist and at risk minority populations for longer than you've been an adult. I can't believe I've witnessed mother fucking Putin go from "Yeltsin attack dog" to "Defender Against Western Hegemony" in such a short period of time?
A reactionary that knowingly or self-deceptively dropped atomic bombs on Japan, even though Japan was pretty much defeated already.
Conveniently jumping timelines and failing to mention the Munich conference, conflating non-aggression pacts with splinting Poland,..
A defensive alliance created in 1949 a significant escalation on a thinly veiled pre-text used by western capitalists.
A reaction to the NATO formation, came the soviet unions defensive alliance the warsaw pact in 1955. Meaning, the first major escalation came from the Capitalist countries after WW2.
I know it wasn't signed and fuck Gorby for not getting it in writing, but NATO (a defensive alliance) should have been disbanded after the Warsaw pact disbanded. Increasing member states when everything was friendly, communicates geopolitically that there is a threat. What threat if theres no more SU and Yeltsin and Putin being friendly?
It was a defensive alliance, you're arguiing for a world police which basically means keeping the US as a hegemon. Fuck that.
Does not justify having kept NATO after the dissolution of the SU.
https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-s-a-solid-man-declassified-memos-offer-window-into-yeltsin-clinton-relationship/29462317.html
Don't forget, he was also massive racist. But again, this bedsides the point. We were discussing the history of how NATO formed.
Jumping time lines? The Munich conference was in 38' prior to the war, and prior to the beginnings of NATO.
When did I even mention non-aggression pacts in regards to Poland? What are you considering a non aggression pact?
It was reflexive to the coup in Czechoslovakia 48'.... A defensive alliance is more of an escalation than annexing 2 countries?
Lol, my dude. WW2 ended in 45', the Soviets ran the coup in Czechoslovakia in 48', NATO formed in a direct response to this in 49'. Who's conveniently jumping around the timeline again?
I'm not arguing for it, I'm just trying to accurately depict the history of NATO's relationship with the Russian federation. You can go and look at the demilitarization of NATO from the 90's all the way until 2014.
Europe was tired of investing 3% of their economy for security theater. Even after Russia's turn about over Kosovo and Georgia, the European members were still highly resistant towards maintaining the alliance. Likely if Russia would have been consistent with their dealings with NATO in 99, it probably would have been dissolved.
Capitalist don't want to pay for war equipment they don't use, there's just no profit return on military spending unless you are on the supply side like America.
You think an alliance that lasted multiple decades is just going to vanish overnight? Again, there is a process of demobilization that was well underway, that is until the Russians started playing their little game of partitions.
This is from 99', Vladimir Putin had already served as acting prime Minister, along with like 8 other positions. He had already secured his power by 99' and Yeltsin was well into his drink. Even if you read the article, it's not Clinton hand picking Putin, it's Yeltsin selling Putin to the Americans because he was already in control in Russia.
This is the frustrating thing, you could not academically honestly read that article and think that it proves your point. You're just looking up articles with headlines that are tangentially connected to your claim.
I thought you might actually be interested in honest discourse, but I can see now that you don't care about honest discourse. You just want to be performative and establish a rhetoric that suits your biases.
No you were justificating the formation of NATO. I am arguing that the NATO formation itself was a major reactionary force of aggression on thinly veiled pretext.
Not sure what you mean by "annexing". The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (CSSR) was never formally a part of the Soviet Union. The USSR "running a coup" is a major stretch, as the communists inside the CSSR were not a minority and were quite capable of doing it themselves. And, again, the Warsaw pact was formed later, to which CSSR was indeed a member.
So yeah the formation of NATO is a major escalation run by fascists, to serve capitalists interests by being aggressive towards the USSR. Why are you so thick about it?
Yes dude, and Poland was having a non aggression pact with Germany in 1934, so a non-aggression pact in 1939 from Stalin was him buying time for it was known that Hitler would expand east. Munich was basically screaming the invite for Hitler to go there after all.
Yeah you're arguing and justificating it by saying shit like this: "You can go and look at the demilitarization of NATO from the 90’s all the way until 2014.", because it doesn't matter how much it demilitarized, when it shouldn't have been formed in the first place and disbanded at the latest with the dissolution of the Warsaw pact. I'm not arguing NATO didn't demilitarize after the dissolution of USSR. I'm arguing that the expansion east when there was no threat is - geopolitically speaking - an aggression.
Did you even bother to check how the US MIC is profiting off of the Ukraine war? Because you sound really naive saying things like:
Having it kept around after the fall of the USSR is what made Russian "play their little game of paritions". You made a friend a foe, which causes war and serves the MIC.
As I said before: you're reversing cause and effect. Why are you so thick about it?
It's because you don't understand the context and thus fail to read the subtext of it and the significance of the provided source...
.., because when you provide a non-western or anti-capitalist source shitlibs usually to try to invalidate it. I failed you realize that you'd do regardless of source, because you don't even grasp the context.
Your "lols" are?
"The Treaty of Brussels was a mutual defense treaty against the Soviet threat at the start of the Cold War. It was signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom and was the precursor to NATO. The Soviet threat became immediate with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, leading to the creation of a multinational defense organization, the Western Union Defence Organisation, in September 1948.[4] However, the parties were too weak militarily to counter the Soviet Armed Forces. In addition, the communist 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état had overthrown a democratic government, and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy. He got a receptive hearing in the United States, especially with the American anxiety over Italy and the Italian Communist Party.[5]"
We have direct quotes from the primary sources, which just so happens to actually align with the actual events recorded in history. You are just participating in revisionist history.
Sorry, defacto annexation, but please feel free to continue being pedantic.
The general expectation was that the Communists would be soundly defeated in the May 1948 elections.[10][11] That September, at the first Cominform meeting, Andrei Zhdanov observed that Soviet victory had helped achieve "the complete victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie in every East European land except Czechoslovakia, where the power contest still remains undecided."[11] This clearly implied the KSČ should be accelerating its own efforts to take complete power. That notion would be reinforced during the Prague Spring, when party archives were opened and showed that Stalin gave up the whole idea of a parliamentary path for Czechoslovakia when the Communist parties of France and Italy failed to achieve power in 1947 and 1948.[11]
Because reality matters. Yes, NATO is run by a bunch of shit bags, but that doesn't change the events of history no matter how much you want it to. The Soviet Union was not perfect, and a lot of their down fall has to do with how they expanded communism in eastern Europe.
There is a reason why Mao lost faith with the Soviets, and there is a reason why he developed his ideology about revolution being tailored to the proletariat of the individual culture.
But the non aggression pact with Poland and the Soviets happened in 1932, not 1934…?
Lol, we've been arguing this whole time how NATO was formed in the first place..... You are just being factitious in avoidance of the actual argument. Either have an actual rebuttal, or just admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
Can you not read what you just quoted? "Unless you are on the supply side like America". I was talking about Europe, go work on your reading comprehension.
Lol, yeah they were so upset when they were performing joint peace keeping exercises together, or stopping an ethnic cleansing......
What evidence do you have to support this claim you keep making? Oh yeah....none. You aren't even providing context....
Says the person who keeps mixing around dates.
Lol, I totally have a source, she goes to a different school, you wouldn't know her.
I'm fucking Korean you dolt. I don't care if it's non western, so long as it's accurate and not directly from a blatantly biased source. My family had to immigrate from an actual fascist dictatorship for participating in socialist student uprisings, so I think I'll be okay with leftist sources.
As for calling me a shitlib.
What revolutionary actions have you taken? What organizing, mutual aid, or mutual protection have you participated in? Being a leftist isn't about defending your perspective on any particular theory so hard that you alienate other leftist, or even potential leftist. It's the opposite, it is about proving your ideology is better by showing it, taking care of people, doing things that our capitalist governments won't.
Lying about history doesn't do any of that. The internal contradictions in capitalism is self evident. The only thing leftist need to do is provide contrast by showing what mutual cooperation can achieve when enacted upon.
It seems you're such a lib that you believe "actual events recorded in history" can be presented neutrally, when you can "actual events recorded in history" only in a biased manner. There is no such thing as no-bias. When I say you're justifying it, it is because you giving the capitalist narrative.
So suddenly you do care about defacto things.
Poland-Germany not Poland-Soviets
The main point is that Stalin's non-agression pact with Hitler was long after all other nations appeased and it was obv. Hitler would attack in order to buy time.
It's because you can't read. I at least been arguing about when NATO was formed. And it was formed on a thing geopolitical Pre-Text ("defacto" pretext as opposed to "dejure" pretext which is easier to justify decisions to other countries)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin
https://valleysunderground.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/blackshirts-and-reds-by-michael-parenti.pdf
Thinking that there's only one or "true" version of history snief
Lol, so first you were "libs automatically discount any non western sources", now you're claiming that all western sources are biased.
You'll notice when I quote from wikipedia I'm not quoting subjective opinions, I'm quoting dates and primary sources. While you have done nothing but source from opinion pieces that don't even back up your claim. Embarrassing.
And normally when someone presents evidence that supports their affirmation and you don't agree with it, you would submit your own evidence that supports your rebuttal. You have done nothing but rely on nonsensical rhetoric.
Lol, no I'm fine with the original statement. I was just attempting to not argue about such a pedantic dispute.
Right, but your sentence structure in the claim suggested that the Soviet Poland non aggression pact was made in reaction to the Nazi non aggression pact. It could have been done mistakenly though, I'm guessing English is not your first language?
Ahh I see, so your claiming the Soviets invaded Poland to create a buffer state between that Nazi Poland and Russia? Do you have any evidence to support this? It doesn't seem likely considering just how caught off guard Stalin was when operation Barbarossa started.
I would link primary sources, but I'm sure if I used wiki to quote fucking Stalin and his military commanders you would shriek about capitalist biases.
And I've linked plenty of supporting evidence to show that's not true. I understand pretext, but there are clear historical accounts of action and reaction, something that wouldn't exist if you were operating solely on pretext.
You have not given an iota of evidence to support this theory, other than your rhetoric of Soviet good, NATO bad. Soviet good, NATO bad does not mutually exclude NATO from being formed from a genuine reaction of the west.
Lol, so no non western sources then? Also, what does this have to do with Bosnia, which happened in the 90s? Another mistake with keeping your timeline together?
Lol, what does this have to do with my statement about my family being involved in socialist uprisings?
You should actually read this at some point. It has a pretty good section in it about the privilege of exploitation inherent to your western societies.
There's a difference between the narrative of history and actual historical events you uneducated moron. The point of historic discourse that avoids the brunt of biased historical narrative is to avoid subjective claims, and rely on dates and quotes from primary sources. When we are arguing over the narrative of history we utilize these dates and quotes to strengthen our affirmation of what the narrative should be. That is the point of the actual discussion.
The argument you are utilizing is called alethic relativism, but you are pushing it to the point of rhetorical fallacy. You can claim there is no subjective truth and all facts are viewed subjectively to support ones own argument. However, you cannot then claim that your perspective is true.
You should really read some of the theory you claim to uphold. Parenti is good material for introducing leftism to libs, but if you just stop there, all you are going to know is how to be an agnsty teenage agitator. This is not what builds the mutual aid networks actual revolutions start from. Go read setting sites by Scott Crow, that's where actual leftism starts.
You're just a spoiled first world brat who is only a "socialist" because it provides you an excuse to validate your laziness. You were born with more opportunities that 99% of the rest of the world, what have you done with it? How have you used that privilege to help others?
You've just brought the arrogance and elitist perspective inherent in your people to ideas youve colonized from others. What do you know about being a worker or the world, what work have you done?
Typical game chair leftist.
It's funny how I rattled you so much, for saying that you're carrying water for NATO (while seem to be viewing yourself as leftist lol)
Both statements are true? Did I claim something to the contrary? All sources are biased and the bias has to be taken into account.
Wikipedia for example has a heavy western/nato/neoliberal bias. It's fine to quote it, but it's not "actual events recorded in history" or not "subjective opinion". The moment you have an author writing phenomena there's bias to it. Try Derrida or Foucault sometime.
Wikipedia is counted evidence I see, while heavy biased sources that have articles not supporting their current current narrative is just opinion. Ok.
You copy pasted wikipedia. You're right there are clear accounts, but these have been done on thin pretext? Just because it happened how it happened doesnt mean it was right to happen? And when the thin pretext is pointed it's:
Details matter. Especially with history, because it can shift narrative. Doesn't seem to be very intellectually honest from your side just to dismiss as pedantic.
Mf NATO is a reaction of the west ('s capital class). It's what I'm saying the entire time. It's a reaction to an economic powerhouse that was forming in the east. And forming a defensive alliance to counter that is a major escalation in threat. And it resulted in forming the warsaw pact. You keep reversing cause and effect. When I called you out that "annexing" of CSSR didn't formally happen and you admitted it, you hopefully do understand how the formation of NATO is at the root of the problem, do you? I don't understand how you are so obtuse and thick about it?
Yes the evidence for the buffer zone is molotov-ribbentrop? And no Stalin wasn't caught off guard as the M-R was a way to buy time to shift the USSR Industrial center closer to the Urals/Crimea. USSR needed the time because shifting Industrial centers takes time. Nazi Germany was europes economic powerhouse at the beginning of WW2, mind you. You also saw at the beginning of the war how the USSR was taken by the Blitzkrieg. Once the SU industrial centers fully formed to support the war effort you saw how the USSR was starting to crush the nazis.
What do you mean no western sources? I've been providing western sources. But when you do quote at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge their bias. i.e. NATO biased source saying NATO did a humanitarian action is not the same as a NATO biased source admitting their humanitarian action killed a bunch of people in passive voice.
You do understand that after the dissolution of the SU, Russia was friendly and tried to join NATO so they did these operations together? Russia was aspiring to join NATO? 2007 Putin munich speech marks a shift as Putin starting to realize that they cannot get into the big boy imperial club, when he's making demands on NATO and not privatizing Russias SOEs?
Fighting strawmans I see.
Yes there is subjective and an objective truth (which only can be experience, but not materialize as it will become subjective), but to arrive closer at the objective truth you need to take multiple perspectives (subjective truthts) into account , but regardless how many subjective truths you view, there's no way of ever fully claiming that it is "objective" as there always will be contradictions to resolve. The variety of subjective truths are a mere lense/abstraction of the objective truth. And one's own is also one as such.
The "art" of reading subtext is to having to have understood multiple contexts (subjective truths) in order to "fill gaps" of what is not being told in the text that you're reading, and trying to get a skewed glimpse of the objective truth.
There's no "objective" perspective as you seem to think, in the sense that you can read about it on wikipedia.
You comprehend the natural world dialectically/"objective", and interpret it materially. Once it's materialized, it has been interpreted and thus is subjective.
Reading Derrida, Foucault, Hegel/Marx, Stalin, etc. might help.
You seem to have accepted that the NATO perspective is the "truth" when it's one skewed/subjective truth of many.
You gave no answers to these simple questions:
The overall argument is that NATO is a reaction. First there was the creation of NATO and then came the Warsaw pact chronologically. The USSR, mind you, was an economic alliance. Arguing that the "annexations" is valid pretext to form NATO is carrying water for imperalists, when you yourself admitted that it wasn't officially annexed. Even if we assume NATO saw the USSR as a threat (it actually was for it’s capitalists as I admitted before) and was created as a result, why keep it, if not for imperialism after the dissolution of the USSR? Seeing the "serious demilitarization" efforts from NATO in the 90s is just naive to keep it around (Could the forces of the MIC be at play?) The US even handpicked Putin so it was all friendly back then, why increase members? For what threat? USSR is dissoloved and Putin was friendly at the time. If you had signs form Putin that expansion is seen as aggressive, why agitate? Saying now that the threat came true is a fucking joke.
You seem to read a lot, but don't seem to be understanding the things that you read.
Lol, there is that european penchant for self flattery. Rich coming from someone supporting the man who set the death nail of communism in Russia.
Lol, correctly naming dates where historical events occurred.... Biased as fuck dude.
Lol, yes let's deconstruct the idea of a shared reality where skepticism of subjectivity is high we can't agree on events occurring on dates recorded by multiple parties. I'm sure that will help this historical discourse move right along.
Also, this is just an appeal to a eurocentric perspective of authority.
Lol, attacking the source of the evidence and not the evidence itself? Also, the last piece of "evidence" you cited was literally an opinion piece, one that didn't even support your argument.
Defacto literally means in fact. Demanding someone to say in fact a Russian coup rather than Russian coup is being pedantic.
And I'm saying that you haven't given any evidence to support that theory, while I have given specific events of expansions by the Soviets. When NATO first formed the Soviet state was not the economic powerhouse that we know of post WW2. There's a reason why the lend and lease program was so important to Soviets after Barbarossa.
Defacto annexation means annexation you dolt.
Lol, this ignores the fact that as relations soured between germany and Russia they actually created a buffer zone in Poland. If all of Poland was supposed to be a buffer zone for an imminent attack, wouldn't he have moved more troops in the area?
Yes, I threw away the brunt of my military power for logistical advantage...... despite the industrial centers being moved only happened as a reaction to the invasion.
Read what you quote...... No nonwestern sources.
Except they already took this position in 99 with Kosovo.....
A long winded way to say truth is what I believe to be true.
Ahh, fill the gaps with assumptions that suit your biases...
Lol, eurocentric trash. You should read more about dualism, you would benefit from learning about the mind body problem. Try Yukio Mishima.
Ahh yes, my interpretation is perfect because my brain was damaged by reading too much 19th century eurotrash whom separated the mind from the body because it made sense of their religious worldview.
Euro-brain, Euro-body, Euro-gaming chair, the perfect comrade. It's funny how much you hate the west, but embody all of its worst qualities. Right down to the dogmatic appeal to rhetoric that allows you to quantify the world into a false dichotomy of physical and metaphysical.
Go kick rocks, I'm done with you and your odd internal contradictions. How can someone be so eurocentric and hate the west so much? I mean I get hating the west..... But then believing the same flawed philosophy that caused all the reasons to hate the west, to be valid?Strange.
NATO did more to do that, but go off king
Well when you come out thinking an annexation happened when it didn't then yes you simpleton
In fact a US coup happened in 2014 you're right.
Armchair general knowing how to do war I see
I see reading comprehension is not your thing. I was saying all sources are permitted as long the bias is taken into account?
Well you dumbfuck there you go, this is not supporting your position
Way to admit that you can't read subtext and explains a lot actually
Lol Says the person supporting NATO and carrying water for NATO
Except that the US said last week that Ukraine WILL join NATO. Its an astounding stupid move when that is precisely what Russia doesnt want to happen. Biden is such a fuck up its astounding. Literally that dick head is pushing us directly into WW3.
I wonder why?
No one wanted to join NATO before Russia started experimenting with their break away tactics in Georgia in 08'. Before then most of the time when NATO offered membership the country would reject them. It's actually not really that great of a deal, unless you are afraid of actually being attacked.
Ahh yes, the belligerent party who started all this has no autonomy nor responsibility over its own actions.
You are so ignorant as to the situation that I dont know where to start... I would recommend that you read Scott Hortons book "Provoked" because you just have a basic lack of understanding what is happening.
You mean the great mind that brought us "The Great Ron Paul"? I'm sorry, I don't really feel the need to read how America caused all this by failing to protect the free market...
Ron Paul has been one of the greatest politicians we have ever had, but that is not related to the discussion of Ukraine (which he agrees we obviously should have never been involved in). But I guess if you dont know about Ron Paul, you wouldnt know the history of why these conflicts are happening.
Maybe if you really enjoy racist cartoons, homophobia, and advocating for a race war?
If you make an appeal to authority, I think it's appropriate to criticize the legitimacy of that authority. I think being a fanboy of Ron Paul makes it pretty self evident that he has an odd perspective on current events.
Just about his ties to the growing white nationalist movement going back as far as ruby ridge. He is one of the architects of modern organized white nationalist violence.
Lol, just because I don't have the same perspective of an oxymoronic an-cap, doesn't mean I'm unaware of history. If there is one consistency in Russian governments of the last 200 years, it's been imperial expansion via Russian chauvinism. It doesnt matter if we're talking about the Romanovs, the Soviets, or the federation, when Russia expands its borders it attempts to annex via assimilation into Russian culture and language.
Gotcha, standard NPC propaganda, pass.
At least you're consistent with your political beliefs, Libertarians being incapable of empathic behavior and all. Oh, you don't share the same archaic belief structure as me......you must not be a sentient being.
Way to turn solipsism into a political ideology, the ancient boy fuckers would be so proud of you.
I give zero care what you opinion is, I could just listen to any shitlibs and its clear.
Lol, my dude. You are a libertarian...... Where do you think the lib in libertarian derives from? It's Liberalism, as described by John Locke, a system of government that focuses on individual liberty, private property, and the protection of the free market.
Pretty much the thing your entire world view revolves around. You aren't just a shitlib, you are an ultra shitlib. To the point that you don't even understand the insults you lay upon yourself.
Again, I dont care about your opinion, literally it holds zero value for me.
Same thing you said anytime someone attempted to teach you basic government?
Idc, how you feel. I'm just having a great time dunking on a lib.
Please, continue!
Yes same thing I said becuase I dont really read your comments because they are just poison that you want to spread to others.
Quite literally too close minded to learn. Classic, chef kiss, 5/5 stars.
Thank you!
<3
Oh shit, you're right. Russia doesn't want that, so I guess we should just let them have what they want.
What are you on about? This is a war in which Russia, unprovoked, invaded its neighbor to grab land, bodies, ports, and food. Russia is going to share multiple borders with NATO when this is over; the question is just whether the border is the Ukrainian border or the Polish border. If either of those scenarios results in World War 3, odds are pretty good both of them do. There's simply no universe in which NATO allows Russia to take over all of Eastern Europe (again). Even if the fascists take the US in November, Europe will pour everything it has into stopping Putin's advance.
Sure, Ukraine probably "loses" in the end, in one way or another. By many measures they've already lost. But it's not a binary proposition. The point of propping up Ukraine at this stage is as much about forcing Russia to spend its fighting ability on Ukraine now, instead of in WW3. This desire is part of the reason that capitulating, conceding some land, and letting Russia regroup for a decade before doing a better job next time is only palatable with Ukraine in NATO. The threat of a world war is the only thing that would stop Russia from repeating this bullshit every ten to twenty years for another five generations.
This is where it all breaks apart, the war was provoked and avoidable, if you dont understand that the me telling you anything is pointless.