You're viewing a single thread.
If they hand you a gun and tell you to march off to die in a foreign land, turn the gun around on your killer.
LOL, the support of Ukraine is happening exactly so we don't get WW3 and won't have to send our soldiers to fight.
Anyone who thinks Ukraine is Russia's ultimate goal is extremely naive.
It wasn't Crimea, it wasn't Georgia, it wasn't Chechnya. It won't stop until
Here's a quick summary of what it is about: https://youtu.be/M6tsp4mFix8
This is a book published in 1997 which Putin was following and largely until full invasion of Ukraine everything was going smoothly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
Ffs. Russia is not going to fight NATO. Why'd they attack Georgia in 2008? Answer: To prevent them from joining NATO. Why'd they attack Ukraine? Answer: to prevent them from joining NATO. Russia is not dumb enough to fight anything that can throw nukes, that's why they're preventing the NATO umbrella from covering (what they consider to be) their sphere of influence.
They didn't plan to join NATO. Ukraine had a single digit percentage interest in NATO before crimea.
Russia doesn't want Eastern European countries in NATO, because it makes it much harder to take them over.
NATO is a defensive alliance, and is no danger to Russia except for their imperialist goals. Best example of it is after Finland joined NATO Russia removed their troops from that border. That's right Russia now has less troops there than they had when they were imaging Ukraine.
And one last thing: even if it was true, since when Russia can decide for sovereign nation who they form alliances with? The excuse to invade looks exactly as the same bullshit Nazi Germany invented with Poland (both claiming to save German minorities and also that was actually planning to invade Germany). They are not even original.
As much as I agree with your overall arguement, I just want to point out that the main reason why russia now has fewer troops along the finnish and norwegian border is because they needed to reinforce the donbass leather factory. If they had the resources, the manpower on the border would probably remain the same.
They didn't plan to join NATO. Ukraine had a single digit percentage interest in NATO before crimea.
Moves were being made to join NATO back in 2008, but progress was shelved when pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych was elected. He was driven out of the country, Russia took Crimea, and then NATO seemed like a particularly good idea.
Russia doesn't want Eastern European countries in NATO, because it makes it much harder to take them over.
I would also add that it takes them out of the Russian sphere of influence, which is Russia's main concern. Why take over a country if they cooperate with you?
NATO is a defensive alliance, and is no danger to Russia except for their imperialist goals. Best example of it is after Finland joined NATO Russia removed their troops from that border. That's right Russia now has less troops there than they had when they were imaging Ukraine.
Well, yes it's defensive. No NATO country will attack Russia. However, I'd argue that Russia sees it as more than defensive. Each country that joins the alliance is one less country that Russia can dominate de facto. It's militarily defensive, but that comes after an economic amd political offensive that removes the country from Russia's influence. Now you might think, well, those countries entered that agreement voluntarily, and I'd say you're correct, but Russia doesn't care how it happened. They were taken from Russia as far as Russia is concerned.
I'd also argue that the troop removal from thr Finnish border may have more to do with needing troops in Ukraine than it would defending St Petersburg from Finland.
And one last thing: even if it was true, since when Russia can decide for sovereign nation who they form alliances with? The excuse to invade looks exactly as the same bullshit Nazi Germany invented with Poland (both claiming to save German minorities and also that was actually planning to invade Germany). They are not even original.
Well they did decide in 2008 in Georgia and they just did in Ukraine. Yes, their justification was mostly BS for domestic consumption, but that doesn't really matter in the end. Other imperialist countries do this, like the US, China, France, etc, but they're more subtle and you're in the West's media bubble, making it really hard to get an impartial source.
Their plan isn’t to fight NATO directly. It’s to instigate domestic political support in foreign countries against entities like NATO and the EU, and push nationalism and isolationism and defeatism into enough people’s heads so that the bigger countries think it isn’t worth fighting Russia to defend another smaller country that is not their own. It’s about killing the idea of article 5 and thus NATO’s reason to exist, so that Russia can confront each country on a bilateral basis where they have the military advantage if no one is coming to their defense.
This probably wont happen with an assault on a major urban area, but little chunks of unpopulated Finland or Norway. How willing would the American public be to send pilots to die for Lapland? If the major powers blink and don’t feel like committing, Russia continues to escalate, like they’ve been doing for the past 15 years
To be fair, Lapland contains Santa Clauses' workshop.
Imagine the support the West would give to save Christmas.
/S
That sounds like an extremely long-term plan, plus every action Russia would take in pursuit of this goal would be wildly counterproductive to the long-term, so I kind of doubt its true. For example, NATO just expanded in reaction to the Ukraine invasion.
I see you watch Anders Puck Nielsen on Youtube. Ryan McBeth is also interesting.
If so, those were magnificent own goals. Ukraine wasn't going to join nato until the little green men showed up, and Sweden and Finland didn't want to join nato until the full scale invasion. Nato was languishing before all this happened, now they're re-arming.
You're mostly right, but in the interest of accuracy: Ukraine was making moves to join NATO way back in 2008, (possibly because of Russia's invasion of Georgia) but plans were put on hold when pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was president. Once a coup kicked him out of office and Russia seized Crimea, NATO membership became a high priority.
It wasn't a coup. It was a revolution.
That really depends who you ask.
Ask Russians or their braindead boot lickers and it's a coup - ask the people there fighting for their own country and against russification and it's a revolution ;)
It was an overthrow of a democratically elected president. Not every Ukrainian was happy about it, obviously, since some Ukrainians were/are fighting the revolutionaries.
No, it depends on Definition and Wikipedia is a good start.
Horse Poo doesn't get Chocolate Cream just because you ask someone else.
Uh huh. If Trump's people succeed on Jan 6th would it be a revolution or a coup? I'll go with whichever you answer.
Russia is not dumb enough
I hope you're right, they've been huffing the "NATO will be easy to defeat" propaganda for as long as NATO has existed
To prevent them from joining NATO.
This is exactly why those countries should join NATO.
Unfortunately it's much easier and faster for Russia to start a war than it is to join NATO. A country can't join NATO if they're at war or have border disputes.
Good point. But fortunately Russia won't invade another country as long as it is still occupied in Ukraine, so all neighbouring countries that wish to remain independent should have applied to NATO by now.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were smart to do this years ago, otherwise they would've been puppet states like Belarus already, since Putin would love to have a better connection between Kaliningrad and the mainland.
And in the process, more of their neighbors have now joined NATO or are supporting NATO with newfound effort.
If Russia is dumb enough to do that, they're dumb enough to fight NATO.
Those countries were already well outside their sphere of influence. I don't think they care.
And Ukraine wasn't after they seized Crimea?
That seemed more like a reminder to Ukraine that they still were. Or perhaps it was something like, if you're going to choose the EU over us, then we're taking our naval base.
If the former, that should be something every anti imperialist gets outraged about.
Yeah it's totally immoral imo.
You are wrong because you don't know what war they want to fight:
Anders Puck Nielsen - NATO-Russia war: Can it really happen?
lol, no.
I think at first it was the only goal, at least, for some years. They now have established war production that they aren't just going to stop. The Russians have been sharpening their teeth in Ukraine. If Trump somehow wins the election NATO countries will be on the menu.
Seeing downvotes to obvious statements shows how this platform is being dominated by Russian trolls.
Even this post, you think about it, looks like part of a disinformation campaign, trying to imply that Russian aggression on Ukraine is somehow the West's fault. Like if they drove their tanks there to just say hello, and Ukraine only waited for it to trap them inside.
They didn't say anything about Ukraine, nor is that relevant to this discussion.
Where do you think the "WW3" in this meme came from?
The only thing you hear about WW3 is from Russian propaganda. Because I guess we will have Russia, Iran and North Korea vs rest of the world war.
That's when they implement meat grinder tactics. You get trained, but no weapons. The weapons are deployed ahead of you on the front line; better get one quick before you die! Turn around and your own side shoots you first. People go in, meat comes out, and so the handle turns.
This is why you should arm yourselves.
Lol. they don't actually give you the gun till you get there.
There's always the gun range.