dimitrig said:
cbbass1 said:
blungld said:
cbbass1 said:
He made clear, over many years, that bringing Ukraine into NATO, and having an armed / nuclear NATO Ukraine on its border was unacceptable and intolerable.
Why does Putin get to determine Ukraine's self-governance and with whom they align? That is an excuse. He did not for one moment believe that NATO or Ukraine would invade Russia. He wanted a puppet government in Ukraine and to exploit their resources and to control their oligarchs and offer profitable opportunities for his own oligarchs in Ukraine and the ego trip of rebuilding the USSR. This had NOTHING to do with real national security.
Essentially the above claim is, Putin can meddle in Ukraine's government and install cronies and even do land grabs and be an existential threat, but Ukraine can't do anything to self-govern, self-protect, or select to work towards democracy and being a free market west leaning country. Your statement makes it seem like Putin just wanted Ukraine to do its own thing as long as they were neutral. No, he wanted Ukraine to be an extension of Russia. Well boo hoo. He doesn't decide the fate of all eastern European nations.
Do you also think it was legit his claim that he needed to "rescue" Ukraine? Poor little Ukraine being over run by white supremacist Nazis so he sends in his troops of white supremacist nazis and criminals. I can't believe people fall for such simplistic propaganda. I've been to Ukraine. I have family that is Ukrainian. They DO NOT want to be Russian (unless you believe the rigged polling done by Russians). They take great pride in their independence. Yes, there are some white nationalists...probably no more than we have here. Yes, the nation has a strain of paramilitary...again just like here. But consider that it is one of the most fought over pieces of land on the planet and they are rightfully paranoid of being invaded--and they were.
Not to mention that all Putin has accomplished is to create LESS national security and to bring NATO closer to his borders. It's a failure and all a lie to begin with. Ukraine is an independent nation and that means Putin should get the F out and that they, not him, decide their future. The Putin apologists should be ashamed of themselves and stop listening to right wing sources who align with Putin for authoritarian and anti-democratic reasons. Or maybe you would likewise enjoy Russia to invade us? Welcome his regime with open arms to squash the white supremacists here and make sure he doesn't have a NATO nuclear threat so close in Alaska or with influence in Eastern Europe. I mean that is a logical extension of your position, correct?
> Why does Putin get to determine Ukraine's self-governance and with whom they align?
The same reason that the U.S. gets to determine the governance and alignment of any other nation in the Western Hemisphere. Look up the Monroe Doctrine. We (the U.S.) overthrow democratically-elected governments all the time, the "rules-based international order" be damned. Chile, Honduras, Guatemala, etc.
How do you think the NeoCons will react when China brings its Belt & Road infrastructure funding to the U.S. puppet failed states in Central America? What will we do when China invests $5 billion in a social media & propaganda campaign to 'sell' the citizens of Mexico on the obvious advantages of Chinese-style Communism -- and then engineer a coup to overthrow Mexico's democratically-elected government, pour $billions into arming & training Mexico's armed forces, and build a few Chinese military bases near the borders near Texas, Arizona & California.
And, as @movielover mentioned, the Cuban Missile Crisis. When the Soviets put their missiles in Cuba, the U.S. military & foreign policy establishment went apesh-t. Most of the war hawks & the Dulles faction of the State Dept & military were gearing up for a military / nuclear confrontation. Fortunately, JFK talked with Averell Harriman, who suggested negotiation & diplomacy. So JFK & his Soviet counterpart, Nikita Khrushchev, talked, and they made a secret agreement; they agreed that if the U.S. would remove its provocation -- the Jupiter missiles we set up in Turkey and Italy -- then Khrushchev would remove the Soviet missiles from Cuba.
The U.S. doesn't tolerate hostile military powers anywhere near its borders. Why would we expect Russia to tolerate NATO troops & missiles on its border? Hint: They don't.
What evidence is there that there were - or were going to be - NATO troops and missiles on Russia's border?
What is true now, though, is that with Finland joining NATO there definitely will be.
Does this mean Russia is now justified in invading Finland as well?
If you're willing to invest the few seconds it takes to search on "american missiles in poland and romania," you'll find ample information about our Aegis missile installations in Poland & Romania -- and that was
before Russia invaded in 2022.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/12/putin-russia-us-missile-defense-nato-ukraine/...and a more recent update from CFR:
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/nuclear-weapons-europe-mapping-us-and-russian-deploymentsThe U.S. claimed that these missile installations were "defensive only," and that Putin should "trust us."
IF I were Putin, I'd put that in the same trash bin as SoS James Baker's 1990 promise that NATO would go "not one inch Eastward."
This shows that the Dulles/NeoCon war hawks who dominate our "defense" have learned
nothing from the Cuban Missile Crisis, nor Vietnam, nor Iraq. Your lack of knowledge of the many U.S. provocations is understandable, because corporate media propaganda rarely talks about them. But they're there, and the threat to Russia is real.
For nearly two years now, U.S. propagandists desperately want you to believe that Putin's invasion of Ukraine was
unprovoked -- ignoring decades of provocations (NATO expansion, missile installations, coups, etc.) that foreign policy experts and U.S. diplomats warned would result in Russian military action. They want you to believe that the invasion was unprovoked, and blame it on Putin being "evil," because if they told us the truth, we could see for ourselves that 1) the invasion was provoked, and we provoked it; 2) Putin is doing what we would do if the situation were reversed, and; 3) Putin is no saint, but he's a much more rational actor than the U.S. NeoCons.
As a reference point for the term "rational," how rational is the U.S. objective of a Ukrainian victory and "regime change" in Moscow? How does that happen without Putin incinerating Ukraine and/or Europe with tactical nukes as the Kremlin is being overrun?
Still very doubtful that Putin/Russia would attack a NATO country like Finland, especially one with nuclear missiles capable of reaching Moscow. First -- as I made clear before -- NATO's rules of engagement declare that an attack on one is an attack on all, so any attack on Finland would require a direct confrontation with the U.S., with the very good chance that it could quickly escalate into an all-out nuclear confrontation. Given that the primary purpose of the Aegis missile systems is to defend against ballistic missiles, this would put Russia at a *huge* disadvantage.
Secondly, even if Putin were to attempt to take out any missile installations in Finland preemptively, then IF there were any nuclear warheads, they would essentially be a "dirty bomb," with all the contamination blowing toward Moscow. That would be stupid upon stupid.
Putin's goal has been consistent since late 2021: Ukrainian neutrality, and independence/protection for ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine. NATO wasn't willing to take Ukrainian neutrality off the table, so Putin carried out his threat to invade Ukraine.
