You must log in or register to comment.
Was expecting a lot of ml / ca rage. Was not disappointet.
I’m from Eastern Europe and not even the hardcore communists here are in favour of Russia’s war of aggression. In fact, the only ones in support of closer ties with a nation that has consistently fucked us over are the neo-nazis who want communion with the Russian Orthodox Church.
It’s mental to see anyone on the left supporting Russia.
Its a bizarre quirk of Terminally online Leftists. Modern Russia is arguably an Organized Crime Ring that owns a country but also meets most if not all of the criteria for Fascism. State controlled media has even voiced support for return to the days of the pre-Soviet Russian Empire.
They believe a lot of what they hear about Russia is propaganda and not true. Oh boy would they get shocked if they actually got what they ask for. You would turn out that all of the propaganda was in fact reality, too often do those two things get confused.
Sometimes they will even go to Russia expecting a warm welcome and they get stuck on the front line and you never hear from them ever again.
Definitely happened to the conservative dude who moved his family to Russia for the bigotry towards Queer people and after signing up for the Army thinking he would be a welder got shipped to the front. Wife was getting increasingly desperate since there was no contact and he probably would have died before getting to talk to her again but the optics were getting too bad for the Russian government to ignore.
ml, stand for marxist leninist I guess. But what does ca mean ?
Perhaps it’s communist apologist? It’s hard to tell with these people they have so many weird in jokes and references, rather like Nazis and their special numbers
I don’t know, but saw a lot of tankie stuff from lemmy.ca lately.
???
Some people forget to spray against Russians under their bed every night, bam, they become Russian assets.
I believe Canada.
Its funny seeing solarpunk users ideologically 180 as soon as russia comes up.
The cognitive dissonace hits hard on this one, how dare you join a defensive pact!
They assert it is not a defensive pact, and that NATO will come for them as soon as they are powerful enough.
Sadly, that’s not really something that can be disproven, so it’s great propaganda.
The fact that NATO could have utterly destroyed the Russian military at any point since shortly after the end of the Soviet Union handily disproves it and the further fact that most NATO countries let their militaries atrophy after the break up of the Soviet Union also disproves it. Great propaganda doesn’t need to be rooted in truth, just establish an out-group who cause all the problems and hold the in-group blameless.
NATO is definitely taking its time then, it’s been around since 1949. Also the strategy of not ramping up military production until after your enemy attacks a neighbouring country, for the second time, seems like a risky one.
Lack of evidence isn’t evidence.
Well, NATO hasn’t carried out a single defensive operation in history, and has carried out (officially like in Libya or unofficially like in Iraq) several invasion wars.
NATO hasn’t carried out a single defensive operation in history
So you’re saying they were exceptionally effective as a deterrent to Soviet/Russian invasion
You need evidence to disprove something.
Not legally. That’s why you always hide the body.
that’s not really something that can be disproven
People treated Russia as a superpower. They fucked up so bad they got successfully counter invaded by the country they were invading. They don’t have 5th Gen fighters and they can’t produce modern tanks. They’re refitting older tanks and giving troops fucking golf carts. They’ve depleted a ton of soviet stock and their air defense can’t even keep their oil infrastructure from exploding once a week. Prigozin nearly marched directly to Moscow with no resistance.
If NATO was planning to invade, they now factually know that Russia is a paper tiger and could take Moscow in days.
Also if NATO somehow forced putin to annihilate his own armor stocks and troops, then they are doing 5,000 iq illuminati bullshit and there’s nothing to be done anyway. I tag those people as NATO propagandists because they’re bigger western chauvinists than they even wish I was lol.
To be fair, Russia has geological challenges to maintaining an effective air defense; especially in the age of drones. It’s one of the reasons they couldn’t bring their whole air force to bear in the invasion of Ukraine: they had a huge amount of country to maintain coverage over.
The irony of course being that NATO doesn’t particularly have any interest in vast expanses of undeveloped potato fields giving away to frozen tundra, so they never had any impetus to invade. But Putin is now giving them one and at the same time demonstrating why the invasion would most likely be successful.
Which, as I understand the Russian military relationship with the Kremlin, came as a surprise to even Putin and would certainly incite some panic, renewed propaganda efforts, and saber rattling like we’ve been seeing him do lately.
they now factually know that Russia is a paper tiger and could take Moscow in days.
And still: Europe is increasing it’s military capabilities. How does that fit together? Genuine question.
Paper Tiger is the wrong word. Russia has a dangerous military but is in no way the powerhouse it portrayed itself before invading Ukraine. They had built a small core of a modern professional military that they used a couple of times to great effect but they acted like they’d done that to the whole military. Also, some parts of the Russian military ARE excellent: their electronic warfare capabilities are top notch. They also maintain advanced espionage capabilities.
Because of decades of chronic underspending on the military, as governments convinced themselves that a land war in Europe was unthinkable.
To be fair, even most Russians in their Military and Intelligence thought a large land war in Europe was unthinkable.
Underspending because the US didn’t wanted a military strong Europe. Every time Europe has said anything about becoming a military power on its own the US has pushed against it. The US has wanted Europe as a place to put military bases and little more.
But “chronic underspending” doesn’t fit together with “could take Moscow in days”.
If you remove the US from NATO, the remaining Military Strength of the alliance would have struggled with the Russia Military prior to the Ukraine Invasion and absolutely would have been unable to launch a meaningful ground offensive into Russia.
Ok. That makes sense. But wouldn’t it have beenmore accurate to claim that the US (and it’s allies) “could take Moscowin days”?
Chronic under spending doesn’t mean no spending it just means that the size of the military has reduced, which if you don’t believe there is much chance of a land war makes financial sense. But it’s still got some pretty high-end tech. Meanwhile Russia has lost all there good military tech in a pointless war. So now Western tanks designed to fight other modern military vehicles are going up against stuff from the cold war. Multi-stage explosive shells designed to go up against metamaterial armour plating, are instead of being fired at pig iron, which is basically just rust held together with paint.
The assumption always was that if there was ever a war in Europe it would be a nuclear exchange, and therefore the size of your military wouldn’t really matter, it would be all about readiness and contingencies. They never assumed that a superpower would just sort of disintegrate on its own, and then lash out. That would be an absolutely ridiculous scenario, that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.
I still don’t really get why the spending has to increase if Russia’s military is so desolate. Why is there discussioneof mandatory military service in Germany if it’s simply to “defend” against an enemy that is too weak to actually be a threat?
that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.
Sorry, that is just motivated reasoning to frame Putin as an unstrategic maniac.
Indeed, it’s not something that can be disproven, as in it’s nonsense that shouldn’t be entertained in rational discourse.
Arguing in bad faith for the good guys is still arguing in bad faith.
Me reminding you that a hypothesis needs to be disprovable through observation in order to be valid and that the burden of proof is with the one making the claim, not the one trying to disprove it, is the exact opposite of arguing in bad faith.
and that the burden of proof is with the one making the claim
But the claim was that NATO is a defensive pact. They said it’s an un-disprovable claim.
No one needs to prove that NATO is a defence pact they need to prove that it isn’t.
If you’re accused of committing a crime it’s not your responsibility to demonstrate to the court that you didn’t commit the crime, it’s a police’s job to actually find some evidence. They can’t go into court and go “well I don’t have any evidence that he didn’t commit the crime”. That makes no sense.
Are you seriously comparing court rules of individuals with statements about treaty organisations? Thoes two things are completely different entities and not comparable at all.
Ask Libya how defensive NATO is.
Did those countries jointly attack Libya because the NATO charter demanded it or because those countries agreed it was a good idea? Did all NATO countries join in attacking Libyan forces or just some of them? Joining NATO doesn’t give the NATO alliance sole control over who you’re country goes to war with.
You mean the action taken under a UN mandate to implement a no fly zone and protect civilians?
The destruction of the Libyan airforce so Gaddafi couldn’t drop bombs on his civilian population like Assad did in Syria was a good thing that saved lives.
Unless you’re a tankie who jerks it the images of schools and hospitals ripped to shred by barrel bombs.
The destruction of the Libyan airforce so Gaddafi couldn’t drop bombs on his civilian population like Assad did in Syria
Brown leader inevitably bombs civilians if not for glorious white interference
good thing that saved lives.
Yeah, surely Libya wasnt catapulted into horrifying civil war that lasted decades after and killed hundreds of thousands of people in formerly the most developed country in Africa…
You’re accusing me of racism but I could just as easily accuse you of thinking the only way for Africans to be properous is if they are ruled over by a strongman dictator.
The people of Libya rose up against Gaddafi in thr arab spring. The civil war had already begun.
I’ve seen what a barrel full of explosives and metal shrapnel does to the inside of a school classroom when dropped from a helicopter. NATO prevented that from happening in Lybia and you’ll never forgive them for it.
the only way for Africans to be properous is if they are ruled over by a strongman dictator
That’s only if you believe the western propaganda. [Libya had a functioning representative democracy and the role of Gaddafi is overblown. Morocco today is a monarchy and so is Saudi Arabia and I dont see you calling for the bombing of either country.
One of the cornerstones of democracy is education for everyone, and Libya had an extremely successful education system that turned Libya into one of the countries with highest education level in Africa, hardly pointing to the decisions of a dictator wanting to keep the masses oppressed.
I understand you believe Gaddafi was a bloody, ruthless, corrupt dictator, but Libya was arguably more Democratic than any country in its surroundings and the source of most claims of horrible dictatorship come from western media apparatus of “eagle burger freedom institute”.
The General People’s Congress existed as a formal legislative body, but it did not make Libya a democracy because any opposition to Gaddafi got disappeared. The system was an authoritarian regime with a centralized power structure under Gaddafi himself, utilizing the GPC to maintain the appearance of popular involvement without true democratic governance.
Morocco today is a monarchy and so is Saudi Arabia and I dont see you calling for the bombing of either country.
If the people of Morocco or Saudi Arabia rose up like the Libyan people did in the arab spring, I would absolutely support using NATO to stop those dictators from bombing their own civilian populations.
Libia has been almost since Gaddafi’s death at war. Is that a better situation than with Gaddafi?
Almost what?
The people rose up against Gaddafi in the arab spring. He would’ve used his airforce to drop bombs on his civilian population the same was Assad did.
Gaddafi was bad, sure, but NATO reduced libya to a state where there’s now open air slave markets.
Gaddafi doesn’t seem as bad only because you have never seen published photographs of his atrocities. Extrajudicial killings, torture, public executions, political repression, and elimination of dissent. Lots of horrors that I guess are okay as long as the trains run on time.
We also don’t know what a Libya where NATO didn’t intervene looks like. It’s not unbelievable that the civil war would’ve resulted in the same result but with a much higher body count.
Gaddafi was bad, sure
By creating the country in Africa with highest Human Development Index instead of becoming your run off the mill slavery-sustained petrostate like Saudi Arabia?
You can rape and murder innocents. Kill anyone who questions your regime. Blow up airliners. All good as long as thr HDI number is high enough.
I bet you’re a huge fan of Israel. They have such a high HDI number compared to their neighbors. It excuses all atrocities.
Oh, which country did Libya invade? What was the civilian murder rate compared to neighboring countries? Give me numbers instead of vibes, please
Ask Yugoslavia how “defensive” Nato is.
NATO’s intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia’s bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region. Yugoslavia’s actions had already provoked condemnation by international organisations and agencies such as the UN, NATO, and various INGOs.
Are we talking about this?
I wonder why only 10 years after the dismantling of the Eastern Block Yugoslavia turned from a problem-less multi-ethnic state to a country riddled with racial violence… Surely the west has nothing to do with that!
Because it wasn’t problem-less. Those tensions always existed under the surface.
I thought mostly everyone blamed Serb nationalism that the socialist leaders kept in check
Where defense?
Defending people against ethnic cleansing seemed to be the goal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Goals
Cool motive, still interventionism. /s
Edit: That was also the official justification of Russia’s invasion. I don’t buy either justifications.
I don’t know what that is. NATO did an intervention on the ethnic cleansing, do you mean that?
NATO sure as shit didn’t defend any of their member nations. Interventionalism is when you invade a country claiming that it’s “for their own good”. See: Afganistan or the second Iraq war.
Yeah Russia was pissed we stopped little brother Serbia from ethnic cleansing the infidels and now makes a mockery of our altruism.
Only an idiot believes they’re sincere though.
The best understander of politics entered the chat. /s
You don’t need to buy anything, you just need information literacy and critical thinking. Which is not to say you shouldn’t be critical of US foreign policy - god knows there’s lots to criticize. But comparing the genocide in Yugoslavia to the War in Ukraine is a clear sign of acute mental darkness or you intentionally amplifying authoritarian propaganda.
You’re a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that’s not excuse
Its not critical thinking when you just parrot everything you’ve been told.
You’re a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that’s not excuse
So… it’s ok if I disengage after that rude comment, right? Spare me your speech on “information literacy” if you’re simply planning on insulting me anyways, please. Just insult me right away. That’d be at least more honest.
Do you mean Serbia, or are you just confused in general about things?
So what’s your problem here exactly?
This is a counterexample of NATO being a “defensive pact”.
NATO successfully deterred the Soviet Union from invading Western and Central Europe for the entire cold war. That’s a VERY successful defensive pact.
I’m not claiming that they’re not effective at defending. I’m arguing that they’re still a tool of imperialism.
I think that it’s still defensive if they stopped ethnic cleansing once.
Nope, that’s interventionism, not defense.
Also, whether or not ethnic cleansing actually happened is highly debatable. The death toll exploded after NATO started bombing.
On 21 December 1991, Boris Yeltsin, President of Russia, sent a letter to NATO asking it to consider accepting Russia as a member of the alliance sometime in the future. In the letter to NATO, Yeltsin stated, “This would contribute to an atmosphere of mutual understanding and trust and would strengthen stability and cooperation on the European continent. We regard this relationship as serious and wish to develop this dialog on all fronts, both on the political and military levels. Today we raise the issue of Russia’s membership in NATO, however, we see this as a long-term political goal”.
Then, a bunch of stuff happened and both sides realized it was advantageous to not have Russia in NATO. Turns out it’s easier to win elections when there’s a cold war going on. You can read about it here.
Russia wasn’t exactly a bastion of stability at that era, especially as Shock Therapy economics absolutely destroyed the country.
Additionally, all these other countries that wanted into NATO vehemently hated Russia for years of occupation. They’d probably have been far more hesitant to join if Russia was in there.
Not saying there wasn’t malice on the side of the West, but at no point in NATO’s existence had inviting Russia into the fold made any strategic sense.
at no point in NATO’s existence had inviting Russia into the fold made any strategic sense.
Nato after 1991 also didn’t make strategic sense with a crumbled Russia.
What about all other countries not being part of a strong military alliance? Why do only the most prosperous and strong countries feel threatened?
Either dissolving Nato or inviting Russia would have created the opportunity to fully implement the idea of the UN and leave conflicts behind.
The problem is that we also have Capitalism. The UN doesn’t limit the power of billionaires. That’s fine within the West but the Russians must have objected to being treated like any weak economy. This should be the actual reason why Russia is not part of Nato.
Nato after 1991 also didn’t make strategic sense with a crumbled Russia.
-
Russia still had plenty of leadership and factions that held animosity towards the West.
-
Russia still had nukes.
-
You act like all was clear and settled after the USSR collapsed. It wasn’t. It was an era of uncertainty, especially with the aforementioned unstable Russia.
Why abandon the military alliance when you don’t know if the enemy is truly gone?
What about all other countries not being part of a strong military alliance? Why do only the most prosperous and strong countries feel threatened?
Are you a child? You understand the geopolitical situation for North America and Europe isn’t gonna be exactly the same as, say, Ecuador, right?.
Either dissolving Nato or inviting Russia would have created the opportunity to fully implement the idea of the UN and leave conflicts behind.
That is a laughable fantasy.
Russia didn’t turn to fascism under Putin because NATO exists. Russia also doesn’t invade its neighbors just because NATO exists.
Russia does this shit because the Russian gov is imperialist and lead by a dictator. Placing Russia in NATO would most certainly created a greater clusterfuck when they inevitably turned fascist and started invading its neighbors.
The problem is that we also have Capitalism. The UN doesn’t limit the power of billionaires. That’s fine within the West
The west is actively facing a striking rise in fascism not dissimilar to how it happened in Russia because of capitalism and billionaires.
but the Russians must have objected to being treated like any weak economy. This should be the actual reason why Russia is not part of Nato.
Idk what you’re even trying to say here
Why abandon the military alliance when you don’t know if the enemy is truly gone?
To build trust.
Russia does this shit because the Russian gov is imperialist
Russia is also the prize. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
but the Russians must have objected to being treated like any weak economy. This should be the actual reason why Russia is not part of Nato.
Idk what you’re even trying to say here
Suggesting that they wouldn’t dismantle their power to the point that they get a regime change for independent politics like nationalizing the oil industry.
-
Right, once you have a global alliance that includes every nation there’s no reason for that alliance to exist. Or standing armies. Or nuclear submarines. You can’t ever let people get to the point where they start to question the need for mindless death instruments and the psychopaths who wield them.
Including Russia in the military alliance meant to safeguard others from Russian aggression seems wild. I know things were very different in 1991 and there were hopes that Russia would become like Western European countries, but it just feels like it would’ve made NATO pointless and not in the good sense of it not being needed anymore.
Well, off course. Its about trillions of dollars in weapons and arms selling to the allies. Peace is not that profitable. Who would be the bad guy now, if Russia had joined NATO?
Also in 1992 there was the Wolfowitz Doctrine, a U.S. defense policy document, which laid out America’s grand strategy post Soviet Union, describing how the U.S. will maintain global dominance. The CHINA, CHINA, CHINA (with Trumps voice), is now a “problem” to that Doctrine, and the U.S. is trying to control the damage.
I don’t say that Russia was the innocent victim, but this is how the game is played in that level. Were Russia in the place of the USA, they would have made the same move.
I’d imagine Russia would still act like the dickbags they always have but now they’d be inside the military alliance that was supposed to defend against Russian aggression.
Or they could be a totally normal and peaceful liberal democracy. But for me it’s jushard to imagine that being the likely outcome
I’d imagine Russia would still act like the dickbags
In your alternate reality Russia is still bad because you’re just Russophobe. The current proto-fascist Russian government is a direct consequence of western decisions, first by dismantling the Soviet Union and then by not allowing Russia to Europeify.
I think it’s strange how you don’t allow Russians or other Eastern European people agency of their own.
Russians wanted to join Europe, it simply wasn’t allowed, I don’t know what part of agency I’m removing from Russians. Funny how some countries are “democratically” allowed to join NATO (was there a referendum in Ukraine?), and some aren’t.
Russians are already part of Europe. Or like half of it is. And the members in EU and NATO always get to decide who to allow as members. Ukraine nor Russia is a member.
I was thinking agency in Eastern European people wanting to get away from under Soviet Union/Russia and join NATO and agency for Russians in some of their communist hardliners gave Soviet Union the final killing blow by destroying the New Union Treaty.
Nobody knows. It depends how much more profit would be for the Russian elite class to have a democracy (maybe they could had played along to joined EU). As you see USA is not particularly democratic now-days (she is in danger to become Russia).
Woke liberal gay propaganda, obviously.
Well, I see nothing gay in joining a military alliance. More like propaganda where the true benefactor is Aipac.
I’d say the true benefactor is whichever country now has the protection of the military alliance
The only one who benefitted from Ukraine trying to join Nato was Aipac. Surely not the ukrainians who live in an endless stalemate of war.
They should’ve been a member earlier so Russia wouldn’t have dared to attack. Unfortunately now they weren’t members and Russia invaded
Damn if only people in Moscow had considered joining NATO, oh wait they did, I’m sure Ukraine will join any day now don’t worry, ukraine uber alles and all that, how good is imperialism, heck yeh
The people in Moscow have other more pressing issues inside their country that needs fixing before concerning themselves with external alliances.
No other country was accepted into NATO while in the state that Russia is in right now.
Nice stroke you had there
If only they tried to join in good faith…
Assuming they were sincere about it, it probably wouldn’t have lasted. The way they maintain and assert authority over autonomous regions would’ve had to change from stamping out separatist movements to more diplomatic and democratic solutions.
Though it might’ve reduced the rampant corruption we saw after the dissolution of the Soviet Union that moved Russian military hardware into warzones at the time.
Removed by mod
Are you seriously suggesting it was the CIA’s fault that Yanukovych was removed from power?
Motherfucker stole billions, killed hundreds of protesters, and committed high treason by conspiring to use the Russian military to quell dissent.
If the CIA helped that’s fine, people like that should not be in power.
If the CIA helped that’s fine, people like that should not be in power.
Imperialism is good if it’s against the “bad guys”. /s
It sounds like the Ukrainian people wanted the dude removed from power
Ok, Imperialism is good if we think “the people” wanted it. Got it. /s
I think popular will winning is generally a good thing
Who defines the “popular will”?
The people probably
deleted by creator
Hey nice buzzwords. Do you happen to have ANY evidence of Cia intervention? Just one thanks.
We have lots of evidence of popular unrest and demand for Yanukovich to be ousted by the people of Ukraine
Hopefully you won’t categorize a 2014 BBC article transcribing a leaked call from Victoria Nuland as Russian Propaganda. She openly conspires as to who they wanna put as president of Ukraine, and propose Yatsenyuk, the guy who would go on to become prime minister after Yanukovich. From the transcribed call:
Nuland: Good. I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside.
Oh Lawd! I’ve never heard about the Nuland telephone call! Not a banal conversation between two diplomats discussing who their preferences are for the election that’s ongoing in the country they reside in. There it is, folks! The big gotcha that CIA was involved.
That’s the standard of evidence we’re working with here, folks.
Hey nice buzzwords. Do you happen to have ANY evidence of Cia intervention?
I was referencing the hypothetical.
Why “buzzwords”? Would you care to explain why you think that “imperialism” wouldn’t apply to that (hypothetical) scenario?
Are you implying he wasn’t a bad leader?
Helping people remove a corrupt president is generally good. If the KGB wanted to help us oust trump I wouldn’t cry about it. (Though let’s be real, they’re more likely to help him cling to power if anything)
You realize you’re advocating for covert, top down regime change, right?
Not very democratic of you, mate
I’m advocating for fascist and corrupt regimes to be overthrown.
Viktor Yanukovych was not taken out in a covert top down regime change, he was ousted by the Revolution of Dignity; there were over half a million people gathered in the capital demanding change and parliament voted to remove him without a single dissenting vote.
I’m advocating for fascist and corrupt regimes to be overthrown.
What if the fascists (AZOV) do the overthrowing?
Viktor Yanukovych was not taken out in a covert top down regime change
You’re changing the topic. You literally said that it’s ok to top-down regime change if someone’s a “bad leader”.
Ah yes, whataboutism to the rescue
I’m in no way on Russias side here but there have definitely been plans to provoke them: e.g. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
Provoke into what exactly? Joining NATO or EU? Polls before the Russian annexation of Crimea showed most Ukrainians want to join EU, not NATO. These two are separate and distinct entities. As expected with the Russians, they think EU and NATO are one and the same. Truth of the matter is that Russians are first and foremost nationalist and whatever second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism. For the Russians, it’s “either you’re with us, or against us” mentality.
The Russians have always been chauvinists who believe they deserve a piece of the pie as a global power, regardless of whoever rules in Kremlin. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the imprisoned dissident and the West’ poster boy of the brutality of Soviet regime, was also an ultranationalist who believe in Russian superiority despite being against Soviet rule. Alexei Navalny, who was Putin’s late main opponent, was also approving of annexing Crimea and hinted at being approving of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Navalny’s wife framed the war in Ukraine as akin to a civil war, the same framing that Putin used to say that Ukraine’s independence was illegal and always belonged to Russia.
It goes to show that despite internal factionalism among Russian elites, they all still agree that Russia is a country on its own and don’t need anyone but themselves. And any neighbouring country who tries to align away from them will be punished.
Alexei Navalny, who was Putin’s late main opponent, was also approving of annexing Crimea and hinted at being approving of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
That’s a series of misunderstandings and thesises by Russian propaganda. In the end, he didn’t approve of annexation and invasions. From what I remember he only hinted at the difficulty of solving the issue of Crimea in future. Even if you find specific posts or reactions from him that suggest supporting what Russia did, they are not explained enough to be sure and those interpretations have been denied by himself in later interviews and posts.
I’ve listened to him for years. I believe that it’s impossible for him to approve Russian expansion already because of what he consistently suggested: Russia needs to think of its problems within first, and when it comes to international relations it should be good friends with Europe. In no universe he could think that violent invasions or annexations or wars would contribute to that. And I don’t find him to be any kind of supremacist. He explained a lot of issues with Russia and wanted to solve them.
These two are separate and distinct entities. As expected with the Russians, they think EU and NATO are one and the same.
Umm… no, that’s not true.
You don’t have to like Russia and/or Putin. I certainly don’t. But these kinds of stupid accusations wont help you understand politics.
Putin said that the “green men” without insignia on their uniforms who took over government facilities in Crimea in 2015 are not Russians, until he admitted months later that they actually are. Days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin reiterated many times that he will not invade and that the Russian troops in separatist-occupied Donbas and Luhansk regions are only there for “peacekeeping”. He told the outside world that they are being paranoid over the potential Russian invasion.
Putin and Kremlin lied many times. I don’t know why you would still believe someone who has been proven to lie many times unless you have a battered partner syndrome.
Yeah the tactic is to lie as much as they can to benefit themselves; if you call them out on it they act all offended and blame you for being russophobic or whatever suits their means at the moment, and use it as propaganda to paint “the west” as an stupid, prejudiced enemy. If you just let it happen, they laught at what a weak moron you are to allow yourself be fooled like that, and use it as propaganda to paint “the west” as a stupid, weak enemy
The article you link quotes Putin claiming that he has never opposed Ukraine joining NATO. That is not only demonstrably false but also just a misuse of the article that muddies the water.
Putin has absolutely opposed Ukraine joining NATO (on the basis that he has always planned on annexing Ukraine in whole or in part) and has used his power to materially prohibit their membership. Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament was part of this plan.
The article you link quotes Putin claiming that he has never opposed Ukraine joining NATO. That is not only demonstrably false but also just a misuse of the article that muddies the water.
That’s not true:
“As for Ukraine’s membership of the EU, we have never objected to this,” Putin told Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico at talks in China. “As for NATO, this is another issue… Our position here is well known: we consider this unacceptable for ourselves.”
on the basis that he has always planned on annexing Ukraine in whole or in part
And that’s just pure speculation… And afaik hogwash.
Crimea and eastern Ukraine would like to have a word with you as of 4 years ago.
Removed by mod
If the current trajectory of russian aggression has not yet convinced you, if Georgia’s annexation has not yet convinced you, if Transnistria has not convinced you, if Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kherson have not convinced you (despite pro-russian separatists in the region serving as erstwhile justification for annexation) then I do not know what to tell you.
What Russia says and does is very much different. Russia has thus far supported every single EU-“skeptic” movement from Britain to Armenia. Hell, just two days ago an article was posted about how yet another Russian botnet attempts to prevent Armenia from deepening ties with the EU:
That’s a think tank research on what could be done and what the effects would be rather than a plan
I think the result is similar. If a well notorious think-tank of my opponent wrote a document about 10 ways to piss me off, I’d feel provoked.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t justify what’s Russia is doing in the least.
It would’ve been funny if one of the researched methods of provoking Russia was “have a think-tank do a report on ways to provoke Russia”
