• LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    81
    ·
    8 months ago

    Not a single paragraph about the actual demands of Russia. Which they have stated often enough. Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep. This is what this whole war was about. But somehow this is never seriously discussed in western media.

    • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Then turning Ukraine into Russian territory is a bit counter productive no? That would literally bring NATO to Russias doorstep.

    • FatLegTed@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      But NATO already is on their doorstep. Norway, Estonia, Poland etc. Even USA is only a few mils away across the Bering Strait.

      This is not about Ukraine joining NATO, that’s a convenience.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      It is discussed, it doesn’t stand up to any reasoning as to why they captured the Crimean peninsula. They also stated that it was because Ukraine couldn’t stop the rise of Nazism. So which is it? NATO or Nazis?

      Ukraine is an independent country and if they want to join NATO they can, having a legitimate grievance doesn’t excuse an invasion.

      And even if it was true and was accepted, what a disaster it was because it bolstered a floundering NATO, grew membership and increased military spending across the continent. Truly a genius move.

    • randy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep.

      NATO is not the anti-Russia club. They’re a defensive pact. Why would you be concerned about your neighbours agreeing to defend each other? Like a neighbourhood watch, perhaps. Maybe you’d be upset if you’re planning to do the thing they’re defending against. Which is all the more reason for those neighbours to band together.

        • randy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s how Putin claims to perceive it, but that’s also what he would claim if his actual goal was to control his neighbours by force. And don’t forget Finland and Sweden responded to the invasion of Ukraine by joining NATO. If Russia perceived NATO as a threat, then Finland joining would make them more likely to be attacked. Clearly Finland feels NATO is making them safer or they wouldn’t have joined. And since then, Russia has moved tons of their military away from NATO borders and into Ukraine.

          In other words, I trust the actions of Finland and Russia more than I trust the words of Russia.

        • randy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          You know, you have a point. But I’ll note both instances had the UN request NATO intervention. Russia could have blocked either with their veto in the UN Security Council, but they didn’t.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I mean, no, the UN security council doesn’t have any power, they would have still gone through with the invasion.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Not to mention the actual voting on intervention was in the start of 1992, when the comprador Russian government (the same one btw that got promised by USA they won’t add former socialist countries to NATO) was choking on USA boot.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I think you’re missing a paragraph that tells how the border between Russia and NATO increased twofold since (and as the result of) the invasion.

      “Hey it’s all about NATO. We always wanted less NATO at our doorsteps, and you can see we tried our best to achieve this. That backfired, yes, but we ask you once again to… Ask all those countries nicely to withdraw from NATO. Having NATO at our borders is not healthy for our people, you see… With all those bio laboratories… And parent№1+parent№2 policy that you force on everyone…”

    • Z3k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      While that may or may not be the case this does not permit interference of sovereign state from acting in its own best in own best interest.

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Agreed - but it does make it somewhat of an “own goal”. The invasion was predictable. Western PR says it was totally surprising but it wasn’t.

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      My friend it was never about NATO. There is no prospective out there based in fact where NATO has anything to do with it.

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        Russia said since 2014 this was about NATO. Even before they protested strongly the NATO expansion. So how can it not be about NATO? You’re either completely uninformed or lying.

        • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          You have the media literacy of a fly. Not even Russia supporters believe this is about NATO.

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Uh… yes, we do? I mean not only about NATO, but definitely also about NATO. Even liberals like Jeffrey Sachs and radlibs like Noam Chomsky and undead ghouls like Henry Kissinger agree.

            • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              It’s an element but anyone saying the war was started because of NATO is clearly bullshitting. Now if you were to ask why the war is still going on despite both sides wanting peace, NATO is a pretty succinct and accurate explanation.

        • mashbooq@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          and US fascists say banning trans people is about protecting children. only a fool believes the narrative of a fascist

          • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Well if you insist on not taking Russia seriously - then you must be very pleased with the result. Maybe you should call Putin a Hitler a few more times, that will solve everything :D

          • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I’m a Lemmygrad Andy, if there’s any tankie in this conversation, it’s me. Person’s on ee they’re probably only parroting outdated propaganda because they’re a neo-reactionary, (or an outright fascist) not because they’re communist.

            Putin’s agenda of steering the American right into self-destruction to neutralize their geopolitical opponent is going to result in a lot of lot of neo-fascists hitting themselves out of confusion, so keep your eyes open for that.

    • LittleBorat2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t want people like you in my comments but no one acknowledges that. So weird.

    • Holyginz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because they don’t get the option to choose. It’s not that difficult. Those countries weren’t clamoring to join NATO until Russia invaded, so its their own fault.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep.

      Have you looked at a map of Europe lately?

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because it’s invaders demanding unprotected targets. It’s the dumbest propaganda imaginable. What is it doing in your mouth?

      “We want the Stop Russia Invading Shit Alliance to be further away from Russia! To prove we’re serious, Russia will invade countries that aren’t yet part of the alliance.”

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I wonder if you guys realize that Russia is achieving it’s war objectives? West-Ukraine won’t join NATO anytime soon, because they know what will happen. This war also has seriously long term destabilizing effects on Europe - at least on their democracies (refugees, tax burden / austerity).

        It’s ludicrous to say that Russia’s protests about NATO are bogus - because they protested about it for decades, ever since the US broke their agreement with Gorbachev to not expand NATO eastwards. It’s just a historical fact that you want to alter in order to justify not negotiating. I’m used to these “alternative facts” level of brainwashing from trumpists but not from liberals.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          More countries joined NATO, Russia’s slaughtering a generation of Russians, their money is gone, their equipment is gone, and their big scary mercenary force openly tried to overthrow the government. Wow. What victorious progress.

          At this rate NATO’s gonna disband because there won’t be a Russia.

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      If this war was about having NATO on their doorstep, why is it an invasion of a non-NATO country twenty years after the first neighbours of Russia joined NATO? It’s never seriously discussed because it’s either a lie or unfathomably stupid, and whichever of those two it is doesn’t much matter.

      Just for a second, imagine you’re a neutral country in eastern Europe. Russia has been fucking with Georgia and Moldova since the fall of the Soviet Union, and now it invades Ukraine for the second time within a decade. Russia has never touched a NATO country despite bordering several of them for literally decades. And then Russia acts all shocked when you say you want into NATO

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah and Russia protested strongly every time. But Ukraine was their red line. Just because you didn’t read it in western media doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

        I don’t condone the invasion but it was predictable and a colossal “failure” of diplomacy if you look at it charitably. At worst it was a long term plan to force Russia into a conflict with the aid of western media to obscure the reason why this war was happening. Russia is acting just like the US would.

        • rdri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          plan to force Russia into a conflict

          Please explain how exactly do you force someone (who suggests to be reasonable) into conflict, basically force them to invade anyone.

          Did the Poland “forced” Hitler to start the WW2 the same way?

          • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Please explain how exactly do you force someone (who suggests to be reasonable) into conflict, basically force them to invade anyone.

            Well imagine if China were to make a military pact with Mexico and started delivering “defensive” weapon systems to them. There would be protests, sanctions, meddling and attempts for regime change, and if those didn’t work there would be invasion.

            For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.

            • rdri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Imagine justifying real war by imagining things.

              For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.

              These sentences don’t make sense as the response for the quotation.

              • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Do you live in some alternative reality where the US didn’t invade Irak and Afghanistan? And is bombing countries all over the world for whatever reason? Oh let me guess that is TOTALLY different!

                • rdri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  We all live in a reality where the US did invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And here is the thought process of me trying to understand your reasoning behind mentioning these events in current context:

                  • The US asked many times for Iraq and Afghanistan to not try to oppose them. According to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan bombed its own citizens (who call themselves the people of the US) for several (at least 8) years and finally the US decided to intervene.

                  • But in fact it must have been caused by someone else, like China or Russia. They provided Iraq and Afghanistan with weapons and/or proposed them the place in alliance against the US, which is why the US didn’t have a choice.

                  • From the very start of those invasions, the whole world decided to stand against the US and provided Iraq and Afghanistan with all the weapons and resources they could need in order to protect themselves. Massive sanctions were applied against the US to stop its war machine.

                  • The US massively increased pressure on free speech and started to jail its own citizens who speak against the war. This also caused at least 1 percent of the US population to migrate elsewhere.

                  • Because this all (or at least some of it) happened with the US, there is no problem in assuming that it would be fine to happen with other country (like Russia) and nobody should say a word against that country’s right for protecting its interests.

                  If this is what really happened then you are correct and this not “totally different” but exactly the same.

                  But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of “injustice” towards Russia.

                  • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of “injustice” towards Russia.

                    Geography? Hey wait, you’re trying to trick me! If I explain the differences I loose the debate!

                    My point is that from Russia’s point of view (true or not) NATO is a hostile military alliance that has slowly been encircling Russia for the past decades. Russia’s protests were ignored so after the 2014 coup supported by literal Nazis (from their point of view) they started to use military interventions. US / EU / NATO did double down on arming Ukraine with weapons so they saw themselves “forced” to invade.

                    I’m not excusing any of this - but these choices and events made this war predictable and inevitable. I’d go so far and say that if Putin hadn’t invaded Ukraine he would have been deposed by the militaristic powers he cultivated. It’s like poking a bear and then crying foul when he eats your face.

                    Thus my example about China arming Mexico. The US would react in the exact same way, and we have ample historical evidence for that. And it’s not my point that this excuses anything, it’s that these things are predictable so we do carry a responsibility to deescalate, demand negotiations so Ukraine gets their land back while Russia gets security guarantees. But judging by the complete troll answer in Tuckers Putin interview that isn’t in the cards right now.

                    But there was no resistance to this geopolitical “gambit”. And now everyone is presenting a completely false version of history.

          • trebuchet@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s hardly unprecedented. The USA felt forced into an aggressive response to the Soviets putting missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

            • rdri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              So it was Soviet plan to start the aggression? Is it the same with Finland? When can we expect Putin to invade it?

                • rdri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Read the message you were replying to. I asked specifically how do you force a country to invade a other country (that is not yours). You told about Cuba, so naturally I wanted to confirm if you mean the situation was caused by desire of Soviets to start the aggression.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Their demands are irrelevant while on the soil of a sovereign nation without authorization or sufficient leverage. Both of which are not only lacking but severely so.

    • CultHero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      This whole shit storm has been about one thing. Putins legacy as the czar that reformed the USSR. That’s it. He wants to lift the iron curtain high once more. It’s all dick stroking by a madman.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      which is a perfectly reasonable demand.

      but since the US wants blood…