This is a naive article. Despite what you may think of the US, there is no way in hell that any major country could stay silent on an issue of this scale. She’s a shill.
I present to you: China
The Chinese response takes a position that is similar to a teacher at a school watching a bully beating a smaller, weaker child and saying “I should let them sort it out”. Inaction is an action, particularly when one party to a conflict is much less power than the other.
deleted by creator
US is not the one rolling tanks to another country’s areas and claiming them under their flag.
You must be joking. What about Syria? Or Iraq? Also Korea, Vietnam, Hawai, Puerto Rico, Guam, and so on and so on.
deleted by creator
Yes, but there are precedents to this. The situation didn’t come out of the blue. Russia surely carries the responsibility for acknowledging the separatist states and escalating the situation with “piece troops”.
But NATO surely is responsible for creating the situation at large. The promise was no eastern expansion, yet eastern expansion took place.
The references made to the previous US interventions by Op are highlighting the aggressive nature of the US which created the pretext to the current situation. You cannot wipe those away by saying you are referring to the last 48 hours only.
deleted by creator
Sure I can.
We can cite John Maersheimer from 2014
Here is the outline link to the same article.
More recently the german Spiegel published documents demonstrating the promises. Here is an english language Russia Today link, referencing the original german article (you can find the paywalled link there).
But let’s be frank, the idea that a NATO expansion to the east will set off a conflict with Russia is just obvious. There were high ranking officials confirming that over the last thirty years (I believe even Genscher).
The argument that states should be able to choose their allies is a little bit absurd since we are not talking about a club that you can vote yourself in if you wish to do so. The NATO has to extend an offer for your country to be able to join it.
Russia and before that the Soviet Union expressed their issue with that and asked NATO not to put troops against their borders. Yet, NATO did.
The sources I link to above are from the most realist IR academic and from a totally mainstream german news outlet.
deleted by creator
Please check the Spiegel article. Also, again, isn’t it common sense that if you put troops against a country’s border, that country feels threatened?
edited “border”
So, do you agree to and support the implication that Western imperialist empire should be expansionist and conquer nations for warmongering purposes “to contain China/Russia”?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don’t really follow what people supporting NATO are all up in arms about regarding Russia recognizing Donbas republics. NATO literally set the precedent for doing this when they broke up Yugoslavia. NATO recognized Kosovo’s independence bypassing UN security council. Seems like exact same situation as Russia recognizing Donbas and Luhansk to me.
The US supported the rise of the far-right in Ukraine in 2014, which started the ongoing civil war. If that’s not an affront to not only Ukraine’s sovereignty, but the sovereignty of all of eastern europe. Then I don’t know what is. The only military action Russia has taken against Ukraine was the invasion of Crimea, where the bulk of Russia’s naval ports were, which NATO was trying to isolate from Russia.
Russia isn’t the aggressor in this matter, it’s the United States.
deleted by creator
Also, why focus to US when this issue is between Russia and Ukraine?
Dumbest shit I have read in a long time
So what about the eastern expansion of NATO? Do you sigh over this too?
deleted by creator
USA does not roll in tanks, straight up drone strikes and genocides. Let us ignore the 5 centuries of imperialist divide and conquer history full of interventions and genocides and stealing.
Oh and let us ignore this random UN resolution vote for condemning glorification of Nazism 2 months ago, which curiously only 2 countries voted against, and most of Europe abstained voting for.
Damn, that is sad. Nazism is an abhorrent affront to anything halfway decent about human beings and should be condemned point blank. The fact that most countries would abstain from doing so is a frightening indicator of the hellscape the world is willingly heading into.
Just like any vote in such a body, resolutions are often submitted in bad faith to make another country look bad. The US went into depth on its decision, which included a refusal by Russia to engage on points of contention by the US.
Let us ignore the 5 centuries of imperialist divide and conquer history full of interventions and genocides and stealing.
This perplexes me. Who are you even talking about?
Just like any vote in such a body, resolutions are often submitted in bad faith to make another country look bad.
What a weird claim. This is a trend that I am hearing about for the first time. Apparently UN is platform for jealous shitty countries to sling shit on the USA, the greatest country in the world.
Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia
Here is the a link to the draft: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3946807?ln=en
It has 16 authors:
- Armenia
- Belarus
- Cambodia
- China
- Côte d’Ivoire
- Cuba
- Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
- Eritrea
- Lao People’s Democratic Republic
- Nicaragua
- Pakistan
- Russian Federation
- South Africa
- Syrian Arab Republic
- Uzbekistan
- Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Russia did not single-handedly draft it to “make US look bad”. Even then it is good enough for almost all of the world but the US and Ukraine.
The reason is right there in the explanation you linked to:
The United States Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the constitutional right to freedom of speech and the rights of peaceful assembly and association, including by avowed Nazis, whose hatred and xenophobia are vile and widely scorned by the American people.
It isn’t because RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA. USA literally supports the rights of Nazis to assemble and protest.
Russia did not single-handedly draft it to “make US look bad”. Even then it is good enough for almost all of the world but the US and Ukraine.
It did not do so single-handedly, but there is a definite theme there when you start looking at alliances. Specifically, almost every country listed has a strong relationship with Russia, China, or both.
🤡
The resolution seems rather simple to me, condemning Nazism and all the racist ecosystem that comes with it. Ukraine has Azov Battalion as part of its military, NATO interests seem clear, NATO was founded by literally Adolf Heusinger (read who he was), and for some reason Germany abstained from voting against Nazism. Ukraine becoming NATO partner means USA can go to war with China and Russia whenever it wants, since it is geographically located in a position almost similar to Afghanistan.
In case you do not know why USA occupied Afghanistan for 20 years, this will do you some good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVmliB0rVIo
Who do you think colonised and genocided and did foreign interventions in the last 5 centuries? It was not China or Russia or North Korea. Read some imperialist history if you seriously lack that much knowledge.
If you still argue against Russia, wanting Ukraine’s NATO-ization, then it will be clear you are not arguing in good faith.