For Those Who Might Be Wondering Why We Might Be In Ukraine

[Lazaran]

•
This is Putin and Russia caught red-handed killing their own people to justify attacking Chechnya:

From wiki:

“A suspicious device resembling those used in the bombings was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September.[3][4] On 23 September, Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War.[5] Three FSB agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police.[6]The next day, FSB director Nikolay Patrushev announced that the incident in Ryazan had been an anti-terror drill and the device found there contained only sugar, and freed the FSB agents involved.[7]”

Yvegrny Prigozhin has openly admitted that the justification for the invasion of Ukraine was bullshit.

And Ukraine did fight to RECLAIM its land in the Donbas after Russia facilitated/ fostered an insurrection there. Thousands died on BOTH sides. (Russian separatists even shot down a neutral passenger jet).

Crimea, the Donbas, and all other areas “annexed” by Russia need to be returned to Ukrainian rule before I would recommend a reduction in lethal military assistance from NATO members to Ukraine.

Ukraine has earned the right to access even more advanced western weapons systems (longer ranged missiles, F-16s, etc) by demonstrating a willingness to MORE THAN carry its weight in this battle for freedom and Democracy.



Slava Ukraini!!!





USA!!! USA!!!

 

[jomar]

NATO is NOT defensive. Read my previous post about 1949-1955. I'll say it again:

NATO came into being in 1949 as an aggressive anti-Russian, and above all an anti-socialist, bloc. They rejected Soviet attempts to join NATO in 1954, and then invited West Germany to join NATO just 10 years after the end of WW2, a war which devastated the infrastructure of countries across the European continent, and where the Soviet Union lost 27 million people (compared to 600,000 for the US and 650,000 for Britain). Only after all this did the Soviet Union and their Eastern European allies then form the Warsaw Pact in 1955, in response to NATO.

The above paragraph proves that NATO is emphatically not "defensive".

I honestly wonder if some people actually read the posts! They only seem to be interested in trolling, distraction tactics, culture wars and smears than in serious political debate. If I'm talking about 1949-1955 and how NATO is not defensive, any response of smearing me as a "Putin sympathizer" is a distraction tactic that has nothing to do with the period in question.

Conclusion, NATO is an aggressive anti-Russian and anti-socialist force that aimed at imposing US imperialist hegemony on the continent of Europe, and now beyond when NATO has "partners" like Colombia, Australia, Japan and South Korea. To call NATO "defensive" is basically a laughable joke, as much of a joke as calling the Russian invasion of Ukraine "unprovoked" after Ukrainian forces killed over 13,000 people in the Donbass from 2014-2022 before the invasion while NATO carried out "war games" near Russia's borders during that time. Don't insult my intelligence.

You have not come at all close to proving NATO is not defensive. What your post is really saying is that NATO is anti-communism/authoritarian regimes and founded to deter communist EXPANSION. So what? So NATO picks who it likes and doesn’t like. Has NATO invaded or attacked other nations without provocation like 9/11? No.

So NATO is a defensive force whose mission is to defend against enemy attacks as a unified force. It dissuades, not provokes.

It's simple enough. They know that the Russian invasion was NOT "unprovoked", yet they think that the general public that they are talking to are too stupid to see through the lies. The funny thing is, more Democrats fall for this (or deliberately play into it) than Republicans.

How was Russia provoked into attacking Ukraine? Your Donbass ongoing conflict and war games setting are very weak reasons for Russia to engage in a full on invasion and destruction of Ukraine.

So:
NATO on its doorstep? Nothing new.
Putin grabbing Ukraine's minerals? Hmm
Putin megalomania recreating Soviet Union? Seems plausible

What disinformation does your Russian handler want you to spread next?

 

[VinnyVeritas]

If Russia lay down their arms right now and kowtowed, their borders would still be completely surrounded by NATO and it would be a disaster for the Russian establishment domestically, returning to 1990s Yeltsin style chaos. NATO would like Russia broken up into little pieces, like what was done to Yugoslavia. The so-called "journalists" know all this, yet play dumb, thinking that we the viewers are that stupid.

Conspiracy much?

What's to break up? Most of Russia is as deserted as Canada once you get 50 miles away from the US border...

 

[Bray123]

NATO is NOT defensive. Read my previous post about 1949-1955. I'll say it again:

NATO came into being in 1949 as an aggressive anti-Russian, and above all an anti-socialist, bloc. They rejected Soviet attempts to join NATO in 1954, and then invited West Germany to join NATO just 10 years after the end of WW2, a war which devastated the infrastructure of countries across the European continent, and where the Soviet Union lost 27 million people (compared to 600,000 for the US and 650,000 for Britain). Only after all this did the Soviet Union and their Eastern European allies then form the Warsaw Pact in 1955, in response to NATO.

.....

NATO was formed in April 1949 as you say.
By that time Russia had already occupied Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland and Romania. Plus, a friendly Communist government created in Yugoslavia.

So NATO wasn't a mutual defense organisation at all..

 

[ll74]

Removing remnants of the past.

https://www.threads.net/@nafo_fella_woopinx/post/CvKRyG9P4pf/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

 

[RandyRebecca]

You have not come at all close to proving NATO is not defensive. What your post is really saying is that NATO is anti-communism/authoritarian regimes and founded to deter communist EXPANSION. So what? So NATO picks who it likes and doesn’t like. Has NATO invaded or attacked other nations without provocation like 9/11? No.

You've just confirmed that NATO was formed as an anti-communist, anti-socialist bloc. Also, Stalin believed in "socialism in one country" since late 1924. And yes, NATO has attacked other nations, involved in Korea, Yugoslavia. Even the UN was involved in Korea, where 20% of North Korea's population was killed and every single building flattened.

How was Russia provoked into attacking Ukraine?

Imagine if the US was surrounded by Russian and Chinese troops on the US-Canada border, the US-Mexico border, in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Colombia, in Nicaragua, and with war ships patrolling the east and west coasts. The Russians then say that the US attacked them "unprovoked". Is that not absurd?

Well, that's how the Russians and Chinese feel. NATO and US military bases surround them from every direction, hemming them in militarily. That is the exact opposite of "unprovoked".

Your Donbass ongoing conflict and war games setting are very weak reasons for Russia to engage in a full on invasion and destruction of Ukraine.

Not really, when NATO was arming Ukraine to take the Donbass by force and threatening massacres in the region on a greater scale. Putin's regime had also refused to officially recognize the two Donbass republics (Lugansk and Donetsk) until days before the February 2022 invasion.

So:
NATO on its doorstep? Nothing new.

That's okay then.

Putin grabbing Ukraine's minerals? Hmm

Putin is an oligarchic capitalist. That's what they do.

Putin megalomania recreating Soviet Union? Seems plausible

No, it doesn't. Putin is a capitalist and attacks Lenin and the Bolsheviks regularly. Putin considers it a tragedy that the Bolsheviks pulled Russia out of WW1 in 1918. Putin sides with Tsarism and the Provisional Government from that time, i.e. the counter-revolutionaries opposed to the Soviets.

If you said that Putin was trying to recreate the Tsarist Russian Empire, you'd be more to the point, but it still wouldn't be accurate in the territorial sense.

What disinformation does your Russian handler want you to spread next?

LOL. Mass paranoia, typical of the McCarthy period, who was a hopeless drunk.

Conspiracy much?

What's to break up? Most of Russia is as deserted as Canada once you get 50 miles away from the US border...

Divide Moscow and St. Petersburg, for example, like dividing Belgrade and Zagreb in Yugoslavia. Start sectarian wars on a greater level in Russia between Christians and Chechynas/Tatars, as a pretext for a sectarian split of the country. That is what NATO would do if they had the power. The US corporate establishment in the military industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned about) is determined to hold on to global hegemony at all costs, and balkanizing Russia and drawing China into a similar sectarian conflict in Xinjiang/Tajikistan/Afghanistan and a war with Taiwan, is another.

And they would spend our taxpayer dollars on all this madness while keeping people in poverty over here.

NATO was formed in April 1949 as you say.
By that time Russia had already occupied Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland and Romania. Plus, a friendly Communist government created in Yugoslavia.

So NATO wasn't a mutual defense organisation at all..

You mean liberated all those countries from Nazi occupation, just as Tito's Partisans in Yugoslavia did the same there. That you call this Soviet liberation of Europe from Nazism an "occupation" is very telling indeed. Franklin D. Roosevelt was pushing for an early second front in Western Europe too, while Churchill kept stalling it with nonsense around the Mediterranean.

It's interesting because Democrats would claim to be against white supremacists, yet in the past they were the party of Jim Crow and today they support neonazis in Ukraine, i.e. the heirs of Bandera and Petliura. It seems supporting white supremacists in Ukraine is fine by them. One of Zelensky's predecessors, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, also claimed that Russia invaded Germany in WW2, again showing the sickening sympathization and support of Nazism. The Red Army, our allies in WW2, killed fascist Nazi filth like that.

 

[Chernosoth]

Ukraine is frequently invaded from all sides, the usual fate of fertile lands without defensible borders. The baseline distrust of foreigners is sometimes amped up to more overt racism and xenophobia, such as support for nazism.

 

[ll74]

Ukraine is frequently invaded from all sides, the usual fate of fertile lands without defensible borders. The baseline distrust of foreigners is sometimes amped up to more overt racism and xenophobia, such as support for nazism.

aah yes....the "everybody's doing it" excuse

 

[jomar]

You've just confirmed that NATO was formed as an anti-communist, anti-socialist bloc.

So? That doesn’t make them aggressors who initiate conflict as you implied.

Also, Stalin believed in "socialism in one country" since late 1924.

Okay

And yes, NATO has attacked other nations, involved in Korea, Yugoslavia. Even the UN was involved in Korea, where 20% of North Korea's population was killed and every single building flattened.

So link it up that NATO started conflicts as opposed to stepping up when USA and NATO friendly countries were invaded. You can start with Korea.

Imagine if the US was surrounded by Russian and Chinese troops on the US-Canada border, the US-Mexico border, in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Colombia, in Nicaragua, and with war ships patrolling the east and west coasts. The Russians then say that the US attacked them "unprovoked". Is that not absurd?

Yes, I get that you’re parroting the line. Though I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a problem since in some meaningful ways that seems an apples to oranges comparison. And nice touch with the imaginary war ships.

Well, that's how the Russians and Chinese feel. NATO and US military bases surround them from every direction, hemming them in militarily. That is the exact opposite of "unprovoked".

On the other hand, I can see where such a circumstance could be a provocation if a megalomaniac was intent on invading bordering countries with the intent of expanding the empire. But let’s say putin conquers Ukraine, then what? He’s still bordered by NATO countries. Is he going to attack them?

Not really, when NATO was arming Ukraine to take the Donbass by force and threatening massacres in the region on a greater scale. Putin's regime had also refused to officially recognize the two Donbass republics (Lugansk and Donetsk) until days before the February 2022 invasion.

You mean after Russian backed separatists started shit there? Putin refusing to recognize a done deal, honorable of him.

Putin is an oligarchic capitalist. That's what they do.

There ya go, comrade. You’re ok with Putin invading Ukraine. By the way, invading for minerals has nothing to do with NATO.

 

[ll74]

Imagine if the US was surrounded by Russian and Chinese troops on the US-Canada border, the US-Mexico border, in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Colombia, in Nicaragua, and with war ships patrolling the east and west coasts. The Russians then say that the US attacked them "unprovoked". Is that not absurd?

There's no possibility of this ever happening. There's no countries with strategic border advantages for doing so. That being said, for your hypothetical, the US still would not invade Canada or Cuba or Mexico or....etc..etc and instead would take a defensive posture and work for negotiation of a diplomatic solution.

Although technically, we would defend Canada as part of NATO.

Because that's what the US does because we're not assholes like Russia.

 

[Rightguide]

No. I'm pro-socialist, that means supporting the Soviet Union against capitalist attacks and certainly means opposing someone who criticizes Lenin and the Bolsheviks at every opportunity and supports WW1 (i.e. Putin).

Your post was a deliberate distraction from the points I was raising about 1949-1955, which shows that NATO came into being as an aggressive anti-Russian, and above all an anti-socialist, bloc. They rejected Soviet attempts to join NATO in 1954, and then invited West Germany to join NATO just 10 years after the end of WW2, a war which devastated the infrastructure of countries across the European continent, and where the Soviet Union lost 27 million people (compared to 600,000 for the US and 650,000 for Britain). Only after all this did the Soviet Union and their Eastern European allies then form the Warsaw Pact in 1955, in response to NATO.

You responded to these points by making smears against me regarding Putin. Stick to the points raised. Even RFK Jr. is pointing a lot of them out.

Any attempt to point out the truth about the war in Ukraine will be met with personal smears about being pro-Russian, pro-Putin, or worse, by uninformed dupes here who cannot put two and two together or understand the simple fact that Joe Biden's involvement in Ukraine is based on personal interests, not American national security interests or the security interests of Nato.

It was quite clear from the Nato meeting in Vilnius where despite Zelensky showing up in costume and looking lost and in need of a friend, that Europe is looking for a way out of this war in Ukraine. Nobody there wants a ground war with the Russians except apparently those in the Biden State Department who are totally divorced from reality and some elements in the British government, who by the way have very little to offer militarily.

 

[ll74]

Any attempt to point out the truth about the war in Ukraine will be met with personal smears about being pro-Russian, pro-Putin, or worse, by uninformed dupes here who cannot put two and two together or understand the simple fact that Joe Biden's involvement in Ukraine is based on personal interests, not American national security interests or the security interests of Nato.

It was quite clear from the Nato meeting in Vilnius where despite Zelensky showing up in costume and looking lost and in need of a friend, that Europe is looking for a way out of this war in Ukraine. Nobody there wants a ground war with the Russians except apparently those in the Biden State Department who are totally divorced from reality and some elements in the British government, who by the way have very little to offer militarily.

The "truth" is obviously subjective. You don't care about any effort by Ukraine and have declared Ukraine the loser. You did that on day one and have yet to even consider an alternative outcome.

Many of us look at current events and see many possibilities outside of that narrative. And we do so with all information rather than just those that are biased to the outcome you have already determined.

Others, like Rebecca, are sold on the "I don't care what happens, it's NATO and the US s fault that this invasion occurred. So nothing else but information that supports their bias is.considered.

 

[Rightguide]

See post 394

 

[ll74]

All of the above is BS for the sake of not having anything except BS.

It's the truth that you think you're above apparently. You called it for a Russian victory before anything had even happened.

The Russians are ceding their previously gained territory and are being pushed back.

 

[Chernosoth]

aah yes....the "everybody's doing it" excuse

History doesn't wait for excuses.

 

[ll74]

History doesn't wait for excuses.

Then why did you provide one?

 

[Rightguide]

So? That doesn’t make them aggressors who initiate conflict as you implied.


Okay


So link it up that NATO started conflicts as opposed to stepping up when USA and NATO friendly countries were invaded. You can start with Korea.


Yes, I get that you’re parroting the line. Though I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a problem since in some meaningful ways that seems an apples to oranges comparison. And nice touch with the imaginary war ships.


On the other hand, I can see where such a circumstance could be a provocation if a megalomaniac was intent on invading bordering countries with the intent of expanding the empire. But let’s say putin conquers Ukraine, then what? He’s still bordered by NATO countries. Is he going to attack them?


You mean after Russian backed separatists started shit there? Putin refusing to recognize a done deal, honorable of him.


There ya go, comrade. You’re ok with Putin invading Ukraine. By the way, invading for minerals has nothing to do with NATO.

All of the above is BS for the sake of not having anything except BS.

 

[jomar]

All of the above is BS for the sake of not having anything except BS.

I call BS on your BS post as all you EVER have is BS.

 

[rainsol]

Anything to shift public attention away from what our foreign-owned President is doing to bring harm to America.

Joe s hands are tied, the CCP has pictures of Hunter and sex workers and they have the deals made by China Joe through his halfwit son. They own Joe. Explain how the 14 billion put up by Taiwan for armaments back to 2019 still are not delivered. How did you like the get out of jail free card played to the Judge who was presiding over his make believe trial. The really big reason the war is going on right now is Ukraine went rogue and fought back with help from Nato. Joe was content thinking his dishonorable actions and dealings Berusma were gong to go away when the Russians took over the Ukraine. Tsk tsk

 

[Rightguide]

It's the truth that you think you're above apparently. You called it for a Russian victory before anything had even happened.

The Russians are ceding their previously gained territory and are being pushed back.

People who study this kind of thing knew from the beginning that Ukraine never had a chance to defeat Russia. Only the incompetent Democrats and neo-cons thought they could bullshit their way into overthrowing Putin and obtain a victory in the Donbas. I know a thing or two about how all of this works and I knew that Joe Biden would fail, as he has for 50 years in the field of foreign policy. I also knew the political Generals surrounding Biden were writing checks they couldn't cash. Just look back at some of the bloviating of Generals Ben Hodges, David Petraeus,
who both gave a master class on gaslighting.

 

[ll74]

People who study this kind of thing knew from the beginning that Ukraine never had a chance to defeat Russia. Only the incompetent Democrats and neo-cons thought they could bullshit their way into overthrowing Putin and obtain a victory in the Donbas. I know a thing or two about how all of this works and I knew that Joe Biden would fail, as he has for 50 years in the field of foreign policy. I also knew the political Generals surrounding Biden were writing checks they couldn't cash. Just look back at some of the bloviating of Generals Ben Hodges, David Petraeus,
who both gave a master class on gaslighting.

As I said, you have never cared because you decided they would be destroyed from the get go. So any news contrary to that is something you dismiss.

You don't know shit except for the biased news source that tell you what you want to hear.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Ukraine seems to still be there. I don't think anybody thought Putin was going anywhere. I honestly expected this war to be over in six weeks or less. The fact that almost a year and a half in they are still fighting. That is something I would expect Americans, especially the Right to applaud. How is it the same people who scream about the 2nd Amendment encase Biden wants to give you free health care or something are the ones who aren't cheering the underdog.

At least I'm consistent.

 

[Rightguide]

Ukraine seems to still be there. I don't think anybody thought Putin was going anywhere. I honestly expected this war to be over in six weeks or less. The fact that almost a year and a half in they are still fighting. That is something I would expect Americans, especially the Right to applaud. How is it the same people who scream about the 2nd Amendment encase Biden wants to give you free health care or something are the ones who aren't cheering the underdog.

At least I'm consistent.

Neo-Cons, who are constantly calling for war, like Lindsey Graham, are not the true "right." Look up the word "neo."

 

[ll74]

Neo-Cons, who are constantly calling for war, like Lindsey Graham, are not the true "right." Look up the word "neo."

Graham isn't a neocon.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Neo-Cons, who are constantly calling for war, like Lindsey Graham, are not the true "right." Look up the word "neo."

I know what Neo is. Who on the "True Right" has been vocally against wars in general. Not Ukraine specifically. We've been at war basically my entire adult life. Surely someone on the Right should have been screaming at Obama for wasting tax dollars and young American live and for what? No oil, no WMDs nothing. Where were they praising Obama for basically ending one of the wars and lowering the other? Why not pressure Trump get us out? Why was it more important that 12 men died than than that Biden ended the war? Where are they? I watch enough fox, spend enough time on Twitter, Facebook and various forums. I follow MGT, Rand Paul, and Bongino. No word on any of this stuff. So where is this so called "True Right?"

Or is it like the True Left where the closest we have are AOC and Bernie. You guys call them commies when both are pro capitalists.