this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
413 points (90.3% liked)
World News
32351 readers
613 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Alright but what would guarantee Russia's safety after they do that? It's obviously not in their interest. What they want is to negotiate a peace treaty, which is why they are holding their defense line so strongly until their opponents are exhausted.
If a coup happened tomorrow in Canada and the new government was suddenly allying itself with China and asking for Chinese military bases to be placed along the border with the US I guarantee that America would invade Canada within the year to "protect itself" against the "Chinese invasion."
When you're a country on the other side of the world and you're trying to put troops in place to surround a country you've arbitrarily decided is your "enemy" then that's a clear, open threat.
Would you have believed Russia saying that their troop buildup on the border of Ukraine in 2021 was "defensive?" If not why would you expect Russia to believe the same of nato? Russia at the time was claiming there was no intent to invade, just like NATO does.
Russia has a long history of invading its European neighbors and an unabashed imperial ambition (pathetic shithole though it is). When was the last time a nato country attacked russia? Edit: you gonna answer the question, or just downvote like a bitch?
The US already had bases closer to Moscow and St. Petersburg than Ukraine! As soon as Russia invaded Crimea, the US stationed a shitload of troops in the Baltic states that are part of NATO. Every part of Ukraine's further from Russia's center of power as compared to the deployments of Operation Atlantic Resolve.
There's not a damn thing that Ukraine would do to benefit the US militarily other than securing non-Russian nuclear plants to provide power to the EU. Russia is going after a war of retribution and hydrocarbon imperialism for leaving it's sphere of influence.
You forgot the part where the Us first needs to annex Quebec a few years earlier.
Nuclear Arms. The ones they accepted from Ukraine in return for security guarantees. Which they violated when they took Crimea already.
How on your mind do you think attacking Ukraine guaranteed their security? Like how was that a “oh this will make us more secure move” By driving all other Neighbors into NAtOs nuclear shields ?
That’s big brain energy right now. I’m afraid of the entire neighborhood, especially the guy next door who gave me their shotgun in exchange for safety 2 decades ago , let me rape their wife and abduct their children and annex their house, that’ll show the neighborhood, especially if I manage to show that I barely can take the front lawn before getting spanked.
What I heard were rumors that the "UN" could sort of hold Ukraine's occupied territories "in escrow" as a DMZ buffer, but it's not a final solution (we know how these handovers have turned sour in the past), because eventually you'd have to divide it, or create a new country...the essential is that russia does not get rewarded for its aggression with territory to brag about in the history books and that there is no chance that any native pro-russian Ukrainian in the buffer zone suffers reprisals...
those territories are independent republics that have been embroiled in a civil war with Kyiv for 9 years. Ukraine's fascist factions within the military have been shelling those republics in violation of multiple peace treaties that have been signed over the past 9 years. securing the independence of those regions is Russia's entire pretext for invading - in response to requests for military aid from said republics.
They aren’t independent republics anymore, they’ve been annexed by the Russian Federation
sure but forgetting the historical context just provides justification for NATO aggression
Sure, I just thought it was a difference worth noting
I could even imagine a scenario where if they had become independent republics, russia parked tanks there and said: "peace now", it could have worked, but Putin got greedy. Then to pile on the catastrophic stubbornness, russia annexed parts of them, plus parts of 2 other oblasts in mock referendums that nobody recognizes. There is no defense, it's a land grab and a clumsy one at that.
can you see how if you were living in those cities and multiple peace treaties were violated, that you might prefer joining the larger power that speaks your language to remaining at the mercy of death squads that howl for your blood?
If you speak russian and you want to move to russia and you like daddy putin's policies, you always could join Russia: they'll give you a passport and welcome you with open arms, nobody is stopping you, they have plenty of space and can use the manpower.
why is "leave the place you and yours have lived for countless generations" a preferable option to you? would you see it the same way if this were the choice offered to your city?
That's a great thought process, instead of emigrating from Ireland to the UK, ask the UK to invade Ireland so you don't have to move and can live with your English buddies. Wtf. Respect borders, move if your country allegiance changes
lmao taking the side of the Brits over the IRA is a fucking amazing take. Tiocfaidh ár lá
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=S7woEXovruc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
it is, isn't it? That's what russian speakers are doing, this just keeps getting better and better.
it's literally the opposite. they're in the position of Northern Ireland, in this analogy.
Nah, I was talking about Ireland, the country.
it's a real conflict you knob. the actual history is exactly the opposite and it's a great fucking analogy that's going straight over your head.
Yes, but why cant some dude in Ireland call up his English friends to add bits of Ireland to Northern Ireland? The possibilities are endless without borders just the way putin likes. Or maybe Switzerland or Belgium can join France...I can just keep listing countries that speak the same language as their neighbour that could be invaded to "save the speakers". Hitler invaded Poland on that pretext too, it's super versatile.
mate, the Brits literally colonized Ireland and the actual direction people want to go is towards Ireland. there was a real reuinfication conflict. posing a ahistorical hypothetical that's precisely the opposite of the actual lived reality is fucking hilarious. what you're saying effectively amounts to "if the Irish in Northern Ireland want to join Ireland so badly, why don't they simply move there", which is fucking insane and precisely the point I've been making for a half dozen comments.
THis probably isn't worth it. Gsus is either taking the piss or not clever or knowledgeable enough to follow you.
I know, I'm just amused by the
takes
You can twist my careless example of a translinguistic border in every direction to represent what you want, apparently in this case you're making Ireland to be russia here, but I can say the UK represents russia...which is still different from:
Ukraine was already independent in 1993 without DNRs+LPRs and there was a referendum which settled the matter according to russia too, only for russia to come back 20 years later for Crimea and then for the Donbas by force.
If you want to be russian after 20 years of settled internationally recognized borders and peace, you can move there, because that's not how borders or international law work.
I'm pointing out the similarities with a group that shares language and culture with the parent nation wishing to rejoin the parent nation. those borders have also been "settled". and yet the only conscionable choice is to support the separarists. the other poster is right, you are too dense to understand history and its lessons.
And, again, are you suggesting the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, who have lived their for at least decades, should have fled the country when the coup Rada declared their language illegal?
Why do you think a nation, any nation, would give up a strategic port and major naval facility to it's enemies without a fight?
What are you even on, dude? There wasn't hard border between Russia and Ukraine for Ukraine's entire existence as a state until the destruction of the USSR. People should flee when their own country decides to kill them? That is actual, real, literal ethnic cleansing and/or genocide?
Are you seriously saying that all the Russian speaking Ukrainians should have fled Ukraine when the Rada started sending death squads in to the Donbass? Are you really saying that?:
Pro-ethnic cleansing apologia from feddit dot nl
The UN was absolutely useless at peacekeeping in Ukraine from 2014-2022. Why would they suddenly become competent now? Ukraine would just keep shelling those territories (now with cluster munitions) and would invade them if Russia pulled it's military back.
And if you try and say that Ukraine wouldn't dare do that because it would be against "international law" I'll remind you that Ukraine had absolutely no problem violating the Minsk Agreements. Ukraine just kept violating those agreements by shelling the Donbas for 8 years without suffering any consequences until Russia invaded.