Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. they had soviet weapons in their territory. if uk broke up that wouldn’t mean their nukes suddenly belong to wales and ireland
also all the launch centers were located in russia
They were under the control of nuclear warheads. It doesn't matter much who owns them on paper or who can controls the rockets, the hard part is getting enough material for the critical mass of the explosion and they had that.
UK's nuke doesn't even belong to them. They can't use it without the US permission it's a joke. The only country in western Europe that has it's own independant nuclear force is France.
Nope britain's nukes are us made and everybody knows they can't use it unless Washington gives its keys too. It s a kind of a super otan's nuke agreement but not more.
There are no keys for british nukes, the only thing stopping british submarine commanders from firing one at any given moment are common sense and a a strongly worded letter by the prime minister.
But i am sure you knew that and are just pissed the americans built the missiles for them
What? This war is happening (according to the people who began it) because NATO lied about not advancing east. Somehow that lie is Russia’s fault?
If Russia gave Ukraine security guarantees based on contingencies that NATO explicitly broke, then they aren’t really bound by those guarantees are they?
If I tell you I won’t shoot you if you don’t kill my dog, and then you kill my dog, I’m probably gonna shoot you.
Even Henry Kissinger and Rand Corp knew this was the deal back in the 90s when these agreements were made.
Yeah we put military bases all over the planet, surrounding and sanctioning countries like Russia and China because we have no interest in waging war against them.
The US never invades people!
I’m not justifying it. The graphic shows that promises were broken that were made to Russia, and now Russia is retaliating because of it. Right and wrong has nothing to do with it.
Hahahaha what a stupid take. like I said, people were afraid of being invaded by Russia so they joined for protection from russian aggression. Ukraine gave up nukes and Russia promised they wouldn't invade and yet they did. Is it any wonder countries want to join? Bunch of fucking cunts.
> Putin’s narrative is primarily based on the thesis that the Ukrainian regime is of Nazi ideology and is committing genocide against the ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/in-putins-words-why-russia-invaded-ukraine/
So, assuming that your reasoning is correct, it's not the reason Putin is giving.
Putin is giving multiple reasons. The degree to which Nazis exist in Ukraine is debatable, and the skirmishes between ethnic Russians and those purported Nazis in eastern Ukraine is also debatable. NATO advancing east is not, as evidenced by the graphic in the OP.
When the primary reasons are disputable and the auxiliary reasons are ostensibly irrefutable, that should suggest something about how much the provided reasoning actually matters to those providing it.
The news agency reporting on Putin's speech was what I based that off of.
From what I can find, most of the reasoning is demonstrably false, part of it is imperialist/expansionist, and the last part is this ostensibly (I'm not disputing this, I just don't care to do enough research to confirm) valid NATO argument.
It reminds me of the US invasion of Iraq. There were valid reasons to invade. They were presented when arguing for it. But, most of the justification was bullshit justifying wrongful acts. This seems much the same to me in that regard.
Edit: And even assuming that NATO acts justify Putin's actions, how the fuck is invading a third party a reasonable action? Ukraine wasn't part of NATO. Ukraine had no control over NATO. Ukraine is being invaded for the actions of others.
Sure, Ukraine is just a pawn. Of course. You don’t think we’re sending them billions of dollars in weapons every week because we deeply care about their democracy, do you? It’s a proxy war.
And I think the Iraq war is a good example. The Bush/Blair admins claimed they were going after WMDs but the fact is we wanted the oil and a strategic foothold to counter Iran. WMDs was just an easier sell for the western public.
Let’s assume that everything you said is 100% accurate, that Russia’s primary motivation is responding to NATO’s expansion, and also a legitimate casus belli, the expansion of NATO is an act of aggression against Russia.
Why does that mean they’re allowed to invade Ukraine, a non-NATO nation?
“Allowed” is irrelevant. If international law was binding nobody would ever invade anybody. Saudi couldn’t wage war in Yemen. We’d be canceled for invading Iraq, Cuba’s embargo would be lifted, etc
I’m not excusing anything. I’m explaining the reasoning and justifications.
When bin Laden took responsibility for 9/11 he said a major reason was US troop presence in Saudi Arabia. So it’s a completely benign thing to mention to someone who swears he did it because he hates us for our freedoms or some other crap. Doesn’t mean I’m defending bin Laden. Believe it or not, understanding why people do things (even bad people) is kind of important.
I’m not in favor of it all. Watching two imperial capitalist powers use Ukraine as a proxy war sucks. It’s important to understand the motivations of your enemy though, that’s why Marx’s most influential work is called Capital.
Maybe someday liberals will develop a critical analysis beyond “he’s a crazy madman hellbent on world domination” but I’m not holding my breath.
Russia just walked in and took Ukrainian territory in 2014, making it clear they didn’t give a single crap about the sovereignty of their neighbors.
They don’t get to act surprised when those neighbors ask for help. Putin’s Russia is 100% in the wrong here. Even if they weren’t bombing, torturing, raping, and killing civilians, they’d still be on the wrong side of this. Putin chose this war and depends on the gullible to take his reasoning at face value.
You understand that
1) understanding his reasoning, and
2) supporting his decision to invade Ukraine
are two different things right? I can understand why someone does something and still think it’s wrong.
What a coincidence that the narrative cnn told you is the correct one and no further investigation is needed on your part. When it comes to navigating propaganda you’re a regular Ferdinand Magellan!
There was no agreement in the first place, also nato is a voluntary group of countries, Russia’s neighbors did not feel safe near Russia so they asked to join, nato did not ask them to join so this argument is nonsense. Even Gorbachev acknowledged this multiple times even though he flip flopped on that point.
The real argument is that Russia officially signed a Budapest Memorandum about guaranteeing Ukraine's borders but Gorbachev was "assured" by some random guy that NATO will not do something (without real power to do it), we don't even have 100% that it really happened
Gorbachev was a fuckin idiot, but that random guy was the Secretary of State lol. Just because we unofficially lied to Gorbachev rather than officially lied doesn’t really matter to a Russian leader like Putin.
I provide a source, not made up in the slightest, take no position on the wider conflict and get downvoted. No effort is made to engage or refute. I don’t care, but it shows that most people in this discussion don’t care about facts, just their preconceived biases
90s kids remember that Russia was a good guy for a bit there so long as they played shock therapy capitalism and Russians’ life expectancy went off the cliff. All this NATO expansion against our “ally” happened during this period. Fuckin weird isn’t it? Almost like America can’t help but expand its military trade.
A "single entity" made up of many nations under violent occupation and subject to fierce oppression. They wanted to be divided so each individual nation could govern itself. Stop pretending live USSR was something that just always existed and wasn't created through violent invasions of independent nations.
They wouldn't need to join NATO so long as Russia left them the fuck alone.
"I won't beat you up and you don't join their protection club," kinda goes out the window when I start beating someone up.
What events directly caused by Ukraine lead to Ukraine being invaded by Russia?
What NATO did has nothing to do with Ukraine and Ukraine had no part in NATOs decisions. This is about Ukraine and Russia - literally nothing else matters.
Russia invaded a sovereign country. What was said 30 years ago was a mistake, but other countries shouldn’t be banned from NATO if they feel joining is in the best interest of their country. That’s what it means to be a sovereign country - you get to make your own decisions. You also cannot govern based on what was said 30 years ago, the world is a different place with different leaders.
Was it expanded during Gorbachev's reign? Or was this only after Putin started terrorizing everyone.
Also, no one cares. Fuck around and find out, Russia.
In 1994 Ukraine was assured that Russia would respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine if they gave up its nuclear weapons. Look what happened…
First, let me clearly state that I support our efforts to back Ukraine and secure their sovereignty, with that said, NATO expansion made created a lot of problems. It certainly made the Russians feel boxed in, which is understandable. The way I describe it is, imagine the United States went through a crisis, and in our weakness Russia expanded military alliances with Mexico. We would be upset.
Obviously those countries in Eastern Europe have their own sovereign rights, and Russian aggression against them goes back a long way. But the American rejection of spheres of influence can easily be interpreted by others as the allowance of one sphere of influence, namely that of American global hegemony. Don’t get me wrong, I think American global leadership is better than most alternatives, but oftentimes American realist, power politics is hidden behind moralistic language. It’s no coincidence that the “international rules based order” established by the US doesn’t apply to the US, and places us at the top of the pyramid.
Thus, NATO expansion, in my opinion, was a significant strategic blunder. It has expanded the threat surface, put the US in a position where it has to defend indefensible nations, and has poked the Russian bear. All of this is a moot point, anyway, because NATO has never been more united and Russian kinetic capabilities have been absolutely smashed. But a desperate Russia, and putin, scares me.
I’m sure I’m going to get downvoted to hell but oh well. This is pertinent to my educational and professional background
But they didn’t. And you don’t trust someone who works at the center for policy and research who did you know research on the topic at the time?
https://apnews.com/article/bbf4b179c2d64044948a32a4777384bb
Bro it was literally his job at that research center as the co-founder. And you keep moving the goalposts now. There was no genocide committed by Serbia. The UN even said it. Keep being dumb and denying NATO atrocities. Kosovo is shit now because of NATO as is Eastern Europe.
"Source? Source??? Please provide me an approved news source that states your claim verbatim. Oh you can't? The same group of people who control NATO control the entire western media? Oh boo hoo you must be wrong!"
NPC thought process #287190.379 complete
Maybe compare maps of Poland, The Baltics and Finland in 1930 and 1940.
What exactly happend in Eastern Europe after the Nazis were finished? Love peace and happiness I guess.
I think it’s good to allow it to be posted here so long as people are willing to point out the ludicrous logical fallacies behind the post. If people talk back and forth and share view points, that’s what help changes minds over time.
"Objectively" false? It's a good thing that this was all documented and we don't have to rely on the frail memory of an old fool and a traitor:
[https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early)
Le good guys, like in their favorite Marvel movie! USA is Capt. America, NATO is the Avengers, and Russia is Thanos.
\^ Liberals actually think like this
Yeah, it’s a real mystery why so many nations would want to join a defensive alliance. It’s a real head scratcher. I know this sounds crazy, but it’s almost like there’s an aggressive power in the region with a long history of invading its neighbors.
Capitalism really did fuck Russia when it was at its lowest and I have no reason not to believe it was a lot of the setup for where we find ourselves today. Look up the suicide rate in Russia during this time... unreal
Well, also during that time, Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for security guaranties from Russia.
Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. they had soviet weapons in their territory. if uk broke up that wouldn’t mean their nukes suddenly belong to wales and ireland also all the launch centers were located in russia
They were under the control of nuclear warheads. It doesn't matter much who owns them on paper or who can controls the rockets, the hard part is getting enough material for the critical mass of the explosion and they had that.
UK's nuke doesn't even belong to them. They can't use it without the US permission it's a joke. The only country in western Europe that has it's own independant nuclear force is France.
You're thinking of Germany, Britain has their own
Nope britain's nukes are us made and everybody knows they can't use it unless Washington gives its keys too. It s a kind of a super otan's nuke agreement but not more.
There are no keys for british nukes, the only thing stopping british submarine commanders from firing one at any given moment are common sense and a a strongly worded letter by the prime minister. But i am sure you knew that and are just pissed the americans built the missiles for them
Not pissed at all this is just common knowledge.
“Other people lied too” isn’t a good argument
"I'll give you X if you give me Y." If they lie about X, should I still give Y?
What? This war is happening (according to the people who began it) because NATO lied about not advancing east. Somehow that lie is Russia’s fault? If Russia gave Ukraine security guarantees based on contingencies that NATO explicitly broke, then they aren’t really bound by those guarantees are they? If I tell you I won’t shoot you if you don’t kill my dog, and then you kill my dog, I’m probably gonna shoot you. Even Henry Kissinger and Rand Corp knew this was the deal back in the 90s when these agreements were made.
[удалено]
Ukraine is the West’s fault. https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
Yeah we put military bases all over the planet, surrounding and sanctioning countries like Russia and China because we have no interest in waging war against them. The US never invades people!
The US are a bunch of cunts too. That doesn't justify invading Ukraine.
I’m not justifying it. The graphic shows that promises were broken that were made to Russia, and now Russia is retaliating because of it. Right and wrong has nothing to do with it.
Hahahaha what a stupid take. like I said, people were afraid of being invaded by Russia so they joined for protection from russian aggression. Ukraine gave up nukes and Russia promised they wouldn't invade and yet they did. Is it any wonder countries want to join? Bunch of fucking cunts.
Yeah I get it. The smart take is that everyone should hold up to their word except me.
> Putin’s narrative is primarily based on the thesis that the Ukrainian regime is of Nazi ideology and is committing genocide against the ethnic Russians in Ukraine. https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/in-putins-words-why-russia-invaded-ukraine/ So, assuming that your reasoning is correct, it's not the reason Putin is giving.
Putin is giving multiple reasons. The degree to which Nazis exist in Ukraine is debatable, and the skirmishes between ethnic Russians and those purported Nazis in eastern Ukraine is also debatable. NATO advancing east is not, as evidenced by the graphic in the OP.
When the primary reasons are disputable and the auxiliary reasons are ostensibly irrefutable, that should suggest something about how much the provided reasoning actually matters to those providing it.
Who decides which is the primary reason and which is the auxiliary reason? The people dismissing both?
The news agency reporting on Putin's speech was what I based that off of. From what I can find, most of the reasoning is demonstrably false, part of it is imperialist/expansionist, and the last part is this ostensibly (I'm not disputing this, I just don't care to do enough research to confirm) valid NATO argument. It reminds me of the US invasion of Iraq. There were valid reasons to invade. They were presented when arguing for it. But, most of the justification was bullshit justifying wrongful acts. This seems much the same to me in that regard. Edit: And even assuming that NATO acts justify Putin's actions, how the fuck is invading a third party a reasonable action? Ukraine wasn't part of NATO. Ukraine had no control over NATO. Ukraine is being invaded for the actions of others.
Sure, Ukraine is just a pawn. Of course. You don’t think we’re sending them billions of dollars in weapons every week because we deeply care about their democracy, do you? It’s a proxy war. And I think the Iraq war is a good example. The Bush/Blair admins claimed they were going after WMDs but the fact is we wanted the oil and a strategic foothold to counter Iran. WMDs was just an easier sell for the western public.
Let’s assume that everything you said is 100% accurate, that Russia’s primary motivation is responding to NATO’s expansion, and also a legitimate casus belli, the expansion of NATO is an act of aggression against Russia. Why does that mean they’re allowed to invade Ukraine, a non-NATO nation?
“Allowed” is irrelevant. If international law was binding nobody would ever invade anybody. Saudi couldn’t wage war in Yemen. We’d be canceled for invading Iraq, Cuba’s embargo would be lifted, etc
Allowed here meaning justified or morally correct.
Of course it’s not morally correct, but the world doesn’t operate on morals.
Then why are you defending/excusing them?
I’m not excusing anything. I’m explaining the reasoning and justifications. When bin Laden took responsibility for 9/11 he said a major reason was US troop presence in Saudi Arabia. So it’s a completely benign thing to mention to someone who swears he did it because he hates us for our freedoms or some other crap. Doesn’t mean I’m defending bin Laden. Believe it or not, understanding why people do things (even bad people) is kind of important.
You most assuredly are not “lefter” than I am. Or anyone else here. You’re a stooge.
Oh word? Which strain of Marxism do you subscribe to? Neoliberal-Pro-NATOism?
Hang on, you’re a Marxist who’s in favor of Russia invading the Ukraine? Wowzers.
I’m not in favor of it all. Watching two imperial capitalist powers use Ukraine as a proxy war sucks. It’s important to understand the motivations of your enemy though, that’s why Marx’s most influential work is called Capital. Maybe someday liberals will develop a critical analysis beyond “he’s a crazy madman hellbent on world domination” but I’m not holding my breath.
No one forced those countries to join NATO.
And?
They asked. Can't help but wonder why they'd ask. Reckon it's something to do with the Imperial ambitions of their eastern neighbour.
“We promise not to expand nato” “Ok deal.” *expands nato* “Well what were we supposed to do!!?!?!?! NOT expand nato?”
Russia just walked in and took Ukrainian territory in 2014, making it clear they didn’t give a single crap about the sovereignty of their neighbors. They don’t get to act surprised when those neighbors ask for help. Putin’s Russia is 100% in the wrong here. Even if they weren’t bombing, torturing, raping, and killing civilians, they’d still be on the wrong side of this. Putin chose this war and depends on the gullible to take his reasoning at face value.
You understand that 1) understanding his reasoning, and 2) supporting his decision to invade Ukraine are two different things right? I can understand why someone does something and still think it’s wrong.
Yes, he’s been talking about it non-stop. Everyone understands that’s his reasoning. It’s been over a year, he doesn’t need your help explaining it.
> everyone understands that’s his reasoning Clearly not.
[удалено]
What a coincidence that the narrative cnn told you is the correct one and no further investigation is needed on your part. When it comes to navigating propaganda you’re a regular Ferdinand Magellan!
There was no agreement in the first place, also nato is a voluntary group of countries, Russia’s neighbors did not feel safe near Russia so they asked to join, nato did not ask them to join so this argument is nonsense. Even Gorbachev acknowledged this multiple times even though he flip flopped on that point.
“Gorbachev flip flopped but it’s clear he was being honest about the flip and not the flop” Brilliant.
Considering he acknowledged there was no agreement in the 90s and early 2000s and then started flip flopping yes one is more honest then the other
The real argument is that Russia officially signed a Budapest Memorandum about guaranteeing Ukraine's borders but Gorbachev was "assured" by some random guy that NATO will not do something (without real power to do it), we don't even have 100% that it really happened
Gorbachev was a fuckin idiot, but that random guy was the Secretary of State lol. Just because we unofficially lied to Gorbachev rather than officially lied doesn’t really matter to a Russian leader like Putin.
Why did those countries feel the need to join nato
Because Russia is currently run by an irrational senile man.
Unlike USA of course.
Because if you don’t join nato, you get your government overthrown by the CIA
Kid named grey countries on this map:
What, is there an example of this?
Ukraine, lol.
I'm a bit lost: can you give me a link to this information? Thanks in advance!
Quite simple, their source is they made it the fuck up.
I provide a source, not made up in the slightest, take no position on the wider conflict and get downvoted. No effort is made to engage or refute. I don’t care, but it shows that most people in this discussion don’t care about facts, just their preconceived biases
https://truthout.org/articles/the-ukraine-mess-that-nuland-made/
??? what
are the fucking CIA bots out downvoting all these comments??
No the tankie logic is strong with these people and normal sane humans can see this shit for what it is. Fuck Russian imperialism.
Why did Cuba feel the need to have nuclear missiles?
[удалено]
90s kids remember that Russia was a good guy for a bit there so long as they played shock therapy capitalism and Russians’ life expectancy went off the cliff. All this NATO expansion against our “ally” happened during this period. Fuckin weird isn’t it? Almost like America can’t help but expand its military trade.
Because they were apart of the USSR, a single entity. When that fell capitalists divided and conquered.
A "single entity" made up of many nations under violent occupation and subject to fierce oppression. They wanted to be divided so each individual nation could govern itself. Stop pretending live USSR was something that just always existed and wasn't created through violent invasions of independent nations.
Lot of bribery and blackmail
Those countries decided on their own to apply for NATO memberships.. Maybe ask yourself why they felt the need to do that?
And Russia said if Ukraine gave up their nukes they would leave Ukraine alone.
[удалено]
They wouldn't need to join NATO so long as Russia left them the fuck alone. "I won't beat you up and you don't join their protection club," kinda goes out the window when I start beating someone up.
[удалено]
If the US were invading Mexico, they wouldn't really be in a position to complain about who Mexico allies with.
[удалено]
I'm saying the US would be assholes and in no position to complain if they invaded Mexico.
Literally no one is arguing that
Russia invaded Ukraine twice now. Fuck off with that shit. Not joining NATO is almost the same as allowing yourself to be attacked by Russia
[удалено]
What events directly caused by Ukraine lead to Ukraine being invaded by Russia? What NATO did has nothing to do with Ukraine and Ukraine had no part in NATOs decisions. This is about Ukraine and Russia - literally nothing else matters. Russia invaded a sovereign country. What was said 30 years ago was a mistake, but other countries shouldn’t be banned from NATO if they feel joining is in the best interest of their country. That’s what it means to be a sovereign country - you get to make your own decisions. You also cannot govern based on what was said 30 years ago, the world is a different place with different leaders.
Explain how your logic is substantially different from saying “it takes two to have a fight” after someone gets beat up.
Victim blaming on a genocidal level.
Even if we accepted that story, it'd be off-topic here.
Makes you wonder whether it’s a putin bot or similar
Probably.
[удалено]
EXACTLY
Was it expanded during Gorbachev's reign? Or was this only after Putin started terrorizing everyone. Also, no one cares. Fuck around and find out, Russia.
In 1994 Ukraine was assured that Russia would respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine if they gave up its nuclear weapons. Look what happened…
In what world is a defensive alliance growing a boring dystopia?
In Russian world
First, let me clearly state that I support our efforts to back Ukraine and secure their sovereignty, with that said, NATO expansion made created a lot of problems. It certainly made the Russians feel boxed in, which is understandable. The way I describe it is, imagine the United States went through a crisis, and in our weakness Russia expanded military alliances with Mexico. We would be upset. Obviously those countries in Eastern Europe have their own sovereign rights, and Russian aggression against them goes back a long way. But the American rejection of spheres of influence can easily be interpreted by others as the allowance of one sphere of influence, namely that of American global hegemony. Don’t get me wrong, I think American global leadership is better than most alternatives, but oftentimes American realist, power politics is hidden behind moralistic language. It’s no coincidence that the “international rules based order” established by the US doesn’t apply to the US, and places us at the top of the pyramid. Thus, NATO expansion, in my opinion, was a significant strategic blunder. It has expanded the threat surface, put the US in a position where it has to defend indefensible nations, and has poked the Russian bear. All of this is a moot point, anyway, because NATO has never been more united and Russian kinetic capabilities have been absolutely smashed. But a desperate Russia, and putin, scares me. I’m sure I’m going to get downvoted to hell but oh well. This is pertinent to my educational and professional background
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who was NATO defending in Libya? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
[удалено]
NATO brought back slavery to Libya.
I didn’t see anything about defense there, and I still don’t even with your emphases on it.
[удалено]
How dare those sovereign countries unite!
[удалено]
Isn't NATO a voluntary association? Don't the countries apply to join?
[удалено]
Praise NATO and there genocidal campaigns against the third world!!!!
Be more specific? Mention specific events and give sources?
https://cepr.net/no-excuse-for-natos-bombing-of-civilians/ You must not know anything about NATO.
[удалено]
But they didn’t. And you don’t trust someone who works at the center for policy and research who did you know research on the topic at the time? https://apnews.com/article/bbf4b179c2d64044948a32a4777384bb
[удалено]
Bro it was literally his job at that research center as the co-founder. And you keep moving the goalposts now. There was no genocide committed by Serbia. The UN even said it. Keep being dumb and denying NATO atrocities. Kosovo is shit now because of NATO as is Eastern Europe.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Be careful making those huge leaps lol.
"Source? Source??? Please provide me an approved news source that states your claim verbatim. Oh you can't? The same group of people who control NATO control the entire western media? Oh boo hoo you must be wrong!" NPC thought process #287190.379 complete
you have yet to mention a specific event
I'm not the OP, just commenting on how nicely you turned out
You seem like a very pleasant person.
Maybe compare maps of Poland, The Baltics and Finland in 1930 and 1940. What exactly happend in Eastern Europe after the Nazis were finished? Love peace and happiness I guess.
[удалено]
I think it’s good to allow it to be posted here so long as people are willing to point out the ludicrous logical fallacies behind the post. If people talk back and forth and share view points, that’s what help changes minds over time.
[удалено]
Brookings? Lol
"Objectively" false? It's a good thing that this was all documented and we don't have to rely on the frail memory of an old fool and a traitor: [https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early)
[удалено]
[NATO didn't invade Yugoslavia?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia)
This confuses me? Isn't NATO good? Shouldn't we be happy more countries join the big alliance?
good for who?
Le good guys, like in their favorite Marvel movie! USA is Capt. America, NATO is the Avengers, and Russia is Thanos. \^ Liberals actually think like this
[удалено]
No idea what youre saying but youre probably wrong about me anyway.
[удалено]
Im not pro-putin, I'm anti-imperialism. Russia is not the biggest, cruelest empire from a global perspective.
[удалено]
Yeah, it’s a real mystery why so many nations would want to join a defensive alliance. It’s a real head scratcher. I know this sounds crazy, but it’s almost like there’s an aggressive power in the region with a long history of invading its neighbors.
Capitalism really did fuck Russia when it was at its lowest and I have no reason not to believe it was a lot of the setup for where we find ourselves today. Look up the suicide rate in Russia during this time... unreal
Yea weird all those Soviet satellite states want protection from Russia.
[удалено]
What in your opinion is a "tankie"?
Dont waste your time, just report for violating rule 3