- 04 Oct 2024 06:09
#15326354
I am not trying to earn credibility - I am not a public figure. I am stating what I believe to be the truth semi-anonymously on the internet, and trying to have a debate, right... So, I am not actually concerned with being as persuasive as possible.
I am sure you already know that, but it may be useful to bring it back into this context.
The issue is that if you zoom out far enough, and understand it within the context not just of the 2014 Euromaidan and Yanukoyvich, but in the context of the entire region and a trend of NATO expansion since the end fo the Cold War that was supposed to not be occurring, the moves that were made in the Ukraine make Putin and the Russian people the victim on the regional & global geopolitical scale.
Of course, in the context of the Ukraine being forced into this position, they are the double victim.
They are the victims of the United States in addition to being the victims of the Russians because they set them up on this collision course and encouraged them to proceed resolution through violence on the Donbass issue...
Like, remember this coming to light?:
Responsible Statecraft
Not to mention, it seems likely that the Ukrainians would have handled issues prior to the actual conflict far more delicately had they not been encouraged otherwise by their NATO backers and the CIA disinformationists trying to influence them.
I think you are avoiding the elephant in the room: the Ukrainian leadership were corrupt clowns bought & paid for by the West, and the Ukrainian democracy was not really very functional.
Right now, regular Ukrainians are being pulled off the streets and sent to die on the frontline in a fight against the Russians largely because NATO wanted this fight.
It weakens Russia and, more importantly, the amount of money to be made by the Western oligarchs is absolutely fabulous.
I think stating this publicly is having a spine, especially considering that I have turned on my own neoconservative heritage in the process of coming to these conclusions.
August 8th, 2019
GandalfTheGrey wrote:Russia is right and sensible to be suspicious of US imperialistic ambitions. But apologising for blatant imperialistic actions by Russia itself as a round-about way of condemning US imperialism, won't earn you any credibility.
I am not trying to earn credibility - I am not a public figure. I am stating what I believe to be the truth semi-anonymously on the internet, and trying to have a debate, right... So, I am not actually concerned with being as persuasive as possible.
I am sure you already know that, but it may be useful to bring it back into this context.
You guys need to accept the fact that Putin is not the victim here. He is the aggressor. Regardless of how inconvenient or uncomfortable a US/NATO aligned Ukraine would be for Russia, it should never be use for justifying, or even apologising for the hell that Putin, and Putin alone, has unleashed via his invasion of Ukraine.
The issue is that if you zoom out far enough, and understand it within the context not just of the 2014 Euromaidan and Yanukoyvich, but in the context of the entire region and a trend of NATO expansion since the end fo the Cold War that was supposed to not be occurring, the moves that were made in the Ukraine make Putin and the Russian people the victim on the regional & global geopolitical scale.
Of course, in the context of the Ukraine being forced into this position, they are the double victim.
They are the victims of the United States in addition to being the victims of the Russians because they set them up on this collision course and encouraged them to proceed resolution through violence on the Donbass issue...
Like, remember this coming to light?:
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.
Responsible Statecraft
Not to mention, it seems likely that the Ukrainians would have handled issues prior to the actual conflict far more delicately had they not been encouraged otherwise by their NATO backers and the CIA disinformationists trying to influence them.
Respectfully Verv, grow a spine and stop being hypocritical about this. Willingly launching a full scale war against a nation that did not attack you, and poses zero real threat to your existence or way of life is never "debatable". It is an outrage, and should be condemned unconditionally.
I think you are avoiding the elephant in the room: the Ukrainian leadership were corrupt clowns bought & paid for by the West, and the Ukrainian democracy was not really very functional.
Right now, regular Ukrainians are being pulled off the streets and sent to die on the frontline in a fight against the Russians largely because NATO wanted this fight.
It weakens Russia and, more importantly, the amount of money to be made by the Western oligarchs is absolutely fabulous.
I think stating this publicly is having a spine, especially considering that I have turned on my own neoconservative heritage in the process of coming to these conclusions.
August 8th, 2019