Ukraine / Russia

I listened to a fascinating podcast this morning. The suggestion was that the US has been escalating since the end of the cold war and have backed Putin into a corner.

My very basic summary of the situation is that at the dissolution of the soviet union, we agreed to not advance NATO alliances east into former soviet states. We did not follow that from the start and have been steadily gaining ground in former soviet nations. In 2014 a democratically elected Ukrainian government that was sympathetic with russia was overthrown by a US sponsored Coup, partnering with some shady characters (actual neo-nazis) to do some of the dirty work.


While it's easy to agree that Putin's treatment of his own people and Ukrainians is not a-ok, there appears to be a whole lot of info pointing to US as the aggressor forcing Putin into a corner. How would you expect to US to react to a Russian sponsored Coup overthrowing the canadian or mexican government?

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons
 
we agreed to not advance NATO alliances east into former soviet states.
There are several other sources provided in this thread that indicate we never actually said that. Expansion was always on the table. I'm not sure we'll ever know everything that was said.
 
The commodities that were being discussed aren't in containers. As for goods made in china that are amenable to container shipping, these goods aren't just tossed loosely onto railcars either.

View attachment 215857
You are trying to separate the two and it doesn’t work like that. ocean freight is up over 6x what is was prepandemic. It’s doesn’t matter how or what is used to secure the freight on the ship. I was using containers as an example of costs. Anyway, I don’t really care because disagreeing with an attorney on the internet is well.. least of my concerns 😂. Carry on. I need to keep my post down to .00001 per day. Cheers
 
I listened to a fascinating podcast this morning. The suggestion was that the US has been escalating since the end of the cold war and have backed Putin into a corner.

My very basic summary of the situation is that at the dissolution of the soviet union, we agreed to not advance NATO alliances east into former soviet states. We did not follow that from the start and have been steadily gaining ground in former soviet nations. In 2014 a democratically elected Ukrainian government that was sympathetic with russia was overthrown by a US sponsored Coup, partnering with some shady characters (actual neo-nazis) to do some of the dirty work.


While it's easy to agree that Putin's treatment of his own people and Ukrainians is not a-ok, there appears to be a whole lot of info pointing to US as the aggressor forcing Putin into a corner. How would you expect to US to react to a Russian sponsored Coup overthrowing the canadian or mexican government?
We are only the aggressor IF and only IF one accepts the premise that Poland, the Baltic States, the countries formerly consolidated as Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Moldova are forever serf puppet states to mother Russia. That their nations do not have the sovereignty to partner and treaty with other nations as they see fit from time to time, and that the people of those nations cannot freely choose their governments without military intervention by their neighbors. I reject this premise entirely.

While western European nations embodied imperialism by claiming distant lands, the Russian czars, and later communists, embodied imperialism by enslaving neighboring peoples spanning two continents - either way, it was wrong and while the rest of the world has moved beyond such direct and blatant imperialism, too many in Russia still see it as their rightful destiny. I oppose this anachronistic perspective on global affairs and am underwhelmed by arguments that if we don't agree with Russian imperialist goals we may hurt their feelers.

The question cannot be IF we should blunt Russia's desire to reclaim vast free peoples under its authority, but rather HOW we can do it without lighting the world on fire.
 
There are several other sources provided in this thread that indicate we never actually said that. Expansion was always on the table. I'm not sure we'll ever know everything that was said.
In fact, at one point the vision was for Russia itself to join - something pre-Putin leaders actually aspired to for a while.
 
We are only the aggressor IF and only IF one accepts the premise that Poland, the Baltic States, the countries formerly consolidated as Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Moldova are forever serf puppet states to mother Russia. That their nations do not have the sovereignty to partner and treaty with other nations as they see fit from time to time, and that the people of those nations cannot freely choose their governments without military intervention by their neighbors. I reject this premise entirely.

While western European nations embodied imperialism by claiming distant lands, the Russian czars, and later communists, embodied imperialism by enslaving neighboring peoples spanning two continents - either way, it was wrong and while the rest of the world has moved beyond such direct and blatant imperialism, too many in Russia still see it as their rightful destiny. I oppose this anachronistic perspective on global affairs and am underwhelmed by arguments that if we don't agree with Russian imperialist goals we may hurt their feelers.

The question cannot be IF we should blunt Russia's desire to reclaim vast free peoples under its authority, but rather HOW we can do it without lighting the world on fire.
Check that little blue vein in your temple my friend...I'm a little concerned.
 
We are only the aggressor IF and only IF one accepts the premise that Poland, the Baltic States, the countries formerly consolidated as Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Moldova are forever serf puppet states to mother Russia. That their nations do not have the sovereignty to partner and treaty with other nations as they see fit from time to time, and that the people of those nations cannot freely choose their governments without military intervention by their neighbors. I reject this premise entirely.

While western European nations embodied imperialism by claiming distant lands, the Russian czars, and later communists, embodied imperialism by enslaving neighboring peoples spanning two continents - either way, it was wrong and while the rest of the world has moved beyond such direct and blatant imperialism, too many in Russia still see it as their rightful destiny. I oppose this anachronistic perspective on global affairs and am underwhelmed by arguments that if we don't agree with Russian imperialist goals we may hurt their feelers.

The question cannot be IF we should blunt Russia's desire to reclaim vast free peoples under its authority, but rather HOW we can do it without lighting the world on fire.

What about US imperialism via teaming with upstanding partners like Al qaeda in the Middle East and white supremacists and nazis to overthrow Ukraine’s in government and install their own puppet government?
 
What about US imperialism via teaming with upstanding partners like Al qaeda in the Middle East and white supremacists and nazis to overthrow Ukraine’s in government and install their own puppet government?
First of all, no moral equivalence with active shelling of schools, churches, and hospitals. Second, I "vote" against those two US examples to the extent either is true - but there is the rub, I get to voice an opinion and vote and do so without Putin sending me off. Please tell me Americans aren't turning into fatalist Russians who would rather have a "stabilizing" thug over messy liberty.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,990
Members
36,275
Latest member
johnw3474
Back
Top