If that’s your take away from the article what else is there to tell you. Meanwhile, it was absolutely not the goal of Russia to invade Ukraine, and they spent eight years trying to get the west to see sense. But of course, if you ignore all the history and reality then you end up with an idiotic narrative.
No, it was the goal of Russia to conduct a “military exercise” all within Russia’s borders… And then they invaded a foreign nation. You are defending liars.
No, I’m telling you basic facts of the situation which are well documented and plenty of western experts such as Chomsky, Sachs, and Mearsheimer agree on. You are either horribly misinformed about the subject you’re discussing or just trolling.
The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict.
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people such as yourself are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?
It sounds like you’re basically saying that, if someone threatens you with violence unless you adhere to their demands, not adhering to those demands is justification for that violence. So you should give up your lunch money under the threat of a bully, and the bully is right either way - in taking your lunch money, or beating you up for not giving it up willingly.
My argument is that all violent thugs are cunts. Plain and simple. There is no valid justification for violence, unless it is to prevent a direct threat of violence against yourself.
That is to say, if someone comes at you with a weapon and clearly indicates they’re going to kill you, it is reasonable to kill them first. “Expansion of NATO” does not, in any way, meet this bar.
To take the analogy further, NATO is merely a group of countries banding together and saying they won’t let bullies get away with being violent cunts. If the bully wants to attack one of them, they will all respond together and overwhelm the bully. The bully is now just cowering and crying fowl merely because they’re now the smaller, more vulnerable one. When the group is actually making no threats whatsoever, other than to rightfully defend themselves and prevent harm against themselves.
So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?
No, the argument is that NATO is an aggressive alliance that has been invading and pillaging countries for decades that continues to expand and encircle Russia. This isn’t my argument, this is the argument from countless scholars, historians, and politicians.
My argument is that all violent thugs are cunts. Plain and simple. There is no valid justification for violence, unless it is to prevent a direct threat of violence against yourself.
Oh you mean the way NATO invaded Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan?
To take the analogy further, NATO is merely a group of countries banding together and saying they won’t let bullies get away with being violent cunts. I
Given the actual history of NATO, it’s a group of countries that have been invading other countries for decades and destroying them. The fact that you ignore this fact clearly demonstrates that you are not arguing in good faith here. I have nothing more to say to you.
No, the argument is that NATO is an aggressive alliance that has been invading and pillaging countries for decades that continues to expand and encircle Russia. This isn’t my argument, this is the argument from countless scholars, historians, and politicians.
That is not what you have presented, neither in your comments nor the sources you have linked.
I have nothing more to say to you.
You haven’t said anything of significance here, just useless regurgitated rhetoric. You may as well be spitting out ejaculations from the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
I asked you to present reasons why the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was justified. All you have said is “people in the West said Russia would do it” as if that justifies literal genocide.
I do not endorse NATO, nor any military organisation. You endorse Russian military. Yet, you have shown no reasonable grounds to endorse their hostile invasion of a foreign country.
That is not what you have presented, neither in your comments nor the sources you have linked.
This is a well known fact that’s beyond dispute.
You haven’t said anything of significance here, just useless regurgitated rhetoric.
I’ve provided you with history and the context, as well as numerous resources from respected scholars. Meanwhile, you’re the one who’s been regurgitating useless rhetoric here.
I asked you to present reasons why the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was justified. All you have said is “people in the West said Russia would do it” as if that justifies literal genocide.
I’m sorry to see that you lack reading in the reading comprehension department.
You endorse Russian military.
Where?
Yet, you have shown no reasonable grounds to endorse their hostile invasion of a foreign country.
No, I’ve explained to you in detail how NATO created the situation for the war. Yet, it’s plainly clear that you don’t care about facts and just keep regurgitating nonsense here. I’m sure you’ll leave another content free reply so enjoy having the last word.
If that’s your take away from the article what else is there to tell you. Meanwhile, it was absolutely not the goal of Russia to invade Ukraine, and they spent eight years trying to get the west to see sense. But of course, if you ignore all the history and reality then you end up with an idiotic narrative.
No, it was the goal of Russia to conduct a “military exercise” all within Russia’s borders… And then they invaded a foreign nation. You are defending liars.
No, I’m telling you basic facts of the situation which are well documented and plenty of western experts such as Chomsky, Sachs, and Mearsheimer agree on. You are either horribly misinformed about the subject you’re discussing or just trolling.
So why did Russia invade Ukraine?
The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict.
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people such as yourself are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?
It sounds like you’re basically saying that, if someone threatens you with violence unless you adhere to their demands, not adhering to those demands is justification for that violence. So you should give up your lunch money under the threat of a bully, and the bully is right either way - in taking your lunch money, or beating you up for not giving it up willingly.
My argument is that all violent thugs are cunts. Plain and simple. There is no valid justification for violence, unless it is to prevent a direct threat of violence against yourself.
That is to say, if someone comes at you with a weapon and clearly indicates they’re going to kill you, it is reasonable to kill them first. “Expansion of NATO” does not, in any way, meet this bar.
To take the analogy further, NATO is merely a group of countries banding together and saying they won’t let bullies get away with being violent cunts. If the bully wants to attack one of them, they will all respond together and overwhelm the bully. The bully is now just cowering and crying fowl merely because they’re now the smaller, more vulnerable one. When the group is actually making no threats whatsoever, other than to rightfully defend themselves and prevent harm against themselves.
No, the argument is that NATO is an aggressive alliance that has been invading and pillaging countries for decades that continues to expand and encircle Russia. This isn’t my argument, this is the argument from countless scholars, historians, and politicians.
Oh you mean the way NATO invaded Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan?
Given the actual history of NATO, it’s a group of countries that have been invading other countries for decades and destroying them. The fact that you ignore this fact clearly demonstrates that you are not arguing in good faith here. I have nothing more to say to you.
That is not what you have presented, neither in your comments nor the sources you have linked.
You haven’t said anything of significance here, just useless regurgitated rhetoric. You may as well be spitting out ejaculations from the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
I asked you to present reasons why the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was justified. All you have said is “people in the West said Russia would do it” as if that justifies literal genocide.
I do not endorse NATO, nor any military organisation. You endorse Russian military. Yet, you have shown no reasonable grounds to endorse their hostile invasion of a foreign country.
This is a well known fact that’s beyond dispute.
I’ve provided you with history and the context, as well as numerous resources from respected scholars. Meanwhile, you’re the one who’s been regurgitating useless rhetoric here.
I’m sorry to see that you lack reading in the reading comprehension department.
Where?
No, I’ve explained to you in detail how NATO created the situation for the war. Yet, it’s plainly clear that you don’t care about facts and just keep regurgitating nonsense here. I’m sure you’ll leave another content free reply so enjoy having the last word.