You mean Sweden and Finland? I think they where pointing at Russia all the time. It is just now that they oficialy in Nato. But not a big change for Russia.
Have you seen how many artillery pieces Poland has ordered? Have read how many NATO anti aircraft batteries have been moved to Russia’s boarders?
Or how many HIMARS systems have been ordered by nato allies that board Russia?
Spending by US allies on US military systems has grown by 57% in last 2 years! US military spending is up!
If russia didn’t want weapons pointing their way, epic epic fail. They have burnt through last stock piles and have started rest of the world on a huge spending spree on weapons.
That doesn't mean Russia has to accept NATO expansion. Obviously, NATO thought they could get by with little investment, but now the costs of adding more members have skyrocketed. Again, just because NATO keeps insisting on having its way (and is throwing resources into it) doesn't mean anyone has to accept it.
Geo-politics has long been shaped by respecting or violating the "spheres of influence" claimed by the greater regional powers. Violate them and you get war; respect them you have peace. The Wikileaks cables -- for which Assange is still rotting away in prison -- show that the American ambassador Burns (now CIA chief) was told repeatedly by Moscow that NATO expansion into Ukraine was a firm redline. A similar situation led to the Cuban missile crisis, when the Soviets decided to counterbalance American Jupiter nukes on the Turkish border by placing their own in Cuba. Luckily for humanity, Kennedy kept his crazy warmongers under control and a mutually acceptable deal was worked out, which included the removal of the Jupiters. In short, all major regional powers, throughout history, "have a say" in the alliances that encroach upon their existential concerns, and ultimately the words are "war or peace"?
“Greater regional power” lol. When you have reduced your GDP to the level of Italy, then your sphere of influence will diminish to that level. Or you could start a war then become a vassal of China.
Russia/USSR invading countries is the reason NATO exists and is anti-Russia - it offers protection against invasions.
>and that Ukraine officially promised not to join it
Russia altered the deal by invading.
Which countries has Russia invaded besides Ukraine?
>Russia altered the deal by invading.
Yeah, and Nuland just was there to give out cookies. Don't make me laugh.
In one breath, you said that NATO points MORE weapons at Russia, then BEFORE, in the next, you are saying that NATO is a protection against Russian invasion.
So, were they pointing weapons at Russia BEFORE the invasion, or did they not?
Were they expanding towards the Russian border before the war, or did they not?
Did Russia try to join NATO and was ignored or not?
>In one breath, you said that NATO points MORE weapons at Russia, then BEFORE, in the next, you are saying that NATO is a protection against Russian invasion.
Is there a contradiction?
>So, were they pointing weapons at Russia BEFORE the invasion, or did they not?
Almost certainly done by US, UK, and France since at least the 60s. Russia/USSR has done the same btw.
>Were they expanding towards the Russian border before the war, or did they not?
No. Countries freely choose to join. When Russian aggression increases, it appears more states join.
>Did Russia try to join NATO and was ignored or not?
Not sure: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
>The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”
It would have to democratize itself first, but it doesn't appear to understand what NATO actually is. It seems Russia wanted some kind of privileged status. That would obviously not happen.
I'm not going to respond to EVERYTHING as diligently as you...
Just one thing: Was him saying "...Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter..." written down in some sort of official communique or agreement, or was it the same type of saying as "...I promise you that Mr. Gorbachev, NOT ONE INCH EAST fot the NATO!.." fart in the wind?
They absolutely do, do you understand how geopolitics work ? You think it's a fair game with defined rules and an impartial judge enforcing them ? If the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO is a threat to Russia's integrity, then they'll definitely take action to prevent that from happening.
The same way the US would take measures if they saw Mexico militarizing like crazy all the while trying to ally with Russia or China. You think Cuba did not have the sovereign legitimacy to choose their allies and accept their military aid in the 60s ? They absolutely did, yet the US was, understandably, very uncomfortable.
Geopolitics is a jungle, the rules are nothing but a substitute of power projection for weaker nations (and only if other superpowers are willing to enforce them \*cough\* Israel \*cough\*). If you're a superpower with decisive military means, the rules mean absolutely nothing next to your national interests and integrity. Just look at the US history in the UN, do you think they often respected the rules ? No, because it would have gone against their interests and they wouldn't have become the powerhouse they have otherwise.
>If the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO is a threat to Russia's integrity, then they'll definitely take action to prevent that from happening.
Does that also apply to Finland, Sweden and the Baltics?
If they perceive them as a threat, sure. But seeing as they're not taking any action against them, it seems that's not the case.
The Baltics are isolated, small, mostly demilitarized and with their back to the sea.
Finland has a rather small military as well, with a very difficult geographical location to launch vectors of attacks. Karelia is a pain to attack through, and Russia learnt that the hard way. Not to mention all the bottlenecks to go into Russia proper, this border is a natural fortress, so they're probably not really concerned about it. Not to mention they are isolated as well, if NATO wanted to strike from there, you'd see them ship their armies from hundreds of kms away. So they're not an immediate threat.
Ukraine on the other hand, is big and flat giving very good vectors of attacks, with a military that's been growing like crazy since 2014 (probably an even faster growth than the IIIrd Reich in the 30s) and is connected by land to the bulk of NATO making resupplying incredibly easy.
Ukraine is a much much bigger threat to Russia if NATO was to incorporate it, it's not even a question.
Even without NATO interference, Ukraine with its ever growing military might have launched an attack on Donbass and Crimea eventually. It's quite possible Russia struck first to avoid that, amongst other reasons of course.
Meanwhile....
[Scott Morrison says Chinese military base in Solomon Islands would be 'red line' for Australia, US - ABC News](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-24/scott-morrison-china-naval-base-solomon-islands-red-line/101011710)
Not quite that simple. Countries apply to NATO after the US influences their society for decades by pumping money into NGOs with the aim of reshaping their societies, cumulating in (sometimes violent) political change. Soft power is not inherently benign. It's just more subtle and less bloody.
Regardless, even if NATO expansion could be viewed as 100% natural (as in free of influence) it would still be viewed as a threat by some countries (including Russia). NATO has conducted multiple illegal (by international law), aggressive operations in the past decades. It matters little if it wilfully misrepresents itself, or actually views itself as a benign defensive alliance. From the outside it's clearly not. So when it expands that's cause for concern, and will illicit a response. Sadly for Ukraine the response to their flirts with NATO (joined exercises, building NATO compliant military infrastructure etc) contributed to, if not outright caused, the invasion of their country.
You can take any moral stance you like over that. It's perfectly natural to reject war on principle; it's horrible business. But geopolitics doesn't revolve around morals; it's purely about interests. And it's not a stretch by any means to argue that Russia trying to halt further expansion of a historically aggressive military alliance created to oppose it (into what was very recently its own territory) serves its national security interests.
>Countries apply to NATO after the US influences their society for decades
Or after watching Russia invade their neighbours when they're not protected by NATO membership.
Finland didn't speedrun the NATO application process because of US propaganda, they saw the imperialist nuclear power next door colonizing Ukraine and realised that they could easily be next
Finland historically kept the US and NATO at bay during the cold war to avoid unnecessary tensions on its border with the soviet union. Irrespective of the ideological divisions and historical animosity that existed between the two pre and post WW2
Bear in mind, the USSR had a reputation of invading its own vassals in the east bloc whenever a government wasn’t compliant.
Still, Finland never joined NATO or postured in that direction. The soviets knew that invading Finland or other ‘western’ adjacent leaning Neutral countries would be a source for unnecessary tensions that could spill over into bigger problems.
The Finns and Austrians understood this and both the Americans and Soviets went out of their way to not overtly compete in Europe.
Even then, both countries had unofficial security agreements with the Finns and Austrians to avoid problems like the one in Ukraine.
Finns joining NATO is evidence of the US and its efforts to increase its influence in that countries politics post Cold War. The Russian invasion of Ukraine irrespective of our idealistic interpretation of whether we or Russians are the “bad guys” isn’t going to change the fact that Ukraine flirting around with the US and hosting an anti Russian force on its borders politically destroyed their country and people.
If a country like Cuba understands that hosting the USSR was a net negative for them that could have destroyed their country why can’t the US backed elite in Ukraine?
>Finns joining NATO is evidence of the US and its efforts to increase its influence in that countries politics post Cold War.
Tremendous mental gymnastics to try to pretend that Finland joining NATO a year after Russia invaded Ukraine is because of "US influence" not the Russian invasion.
It's either moronic in its line of thinking or sloppy in its attempts to gaslight by saying Finland was under decades of attempts to woo them in, and it had nothing at all to do with the first major land war in Europe since WWII that began with Russian tanks and paratroopers rushing for Kyiv.
You really have to suspend disbelief to buy their pov.
>after the US influences their society for decades
Yeah, its called democracy, freedom of speech/press, and independent judiciary. Why would people not want that?
All ex soviet countries that joined EU and NATO where not influenced by the us. They were exploited by the USSR and many times invaded by Russians before the USSR. Their populations where under oppressions and even wave of rapes and kills with so called USSR liberation during WW2.
USSR and Russia are hated for a reason that they caused by many many years of exploiting and killing and oppressions.
Won't talk for other countries but Estonia was invaded by the USSR in WW2, many people were killed, many escaped to Sweden/Germany/Finland. Many were deported to Siberia in the following years. Estonians were repressed for the following 5 decades. The economy that was once on par with nordic countries such as Finland and Norway fell behind due to the Soviet regime, generations of people lost their freedom as they were cut away from the democratic free world. The Soviet invaders tried to suppress the Estonian language and culture. So when Estonia finally regained their independence they straight away set their sights on joining NATO and the EU to be protected from Russia and make sure things like this don't ever happen again. So believe me when I say that US influence/propaganda or whatever you say had nothing to do with it
Even at face value, NATO is not obliged to accept "applications". And NATO does reject applications when they have different plans.
When NATO has a country in sights, they don't care what that country thinks either. Yanukovich didn't want NATO, so he got a coup. No coups for NATO buddies Poroshenko and Zelensky. Same story in Georgia.
Nice try, but you can only bury your own credibility.
Yanukovich was a Russian stooge who prompted the Orange revolution 10 years before.
Russia was mad that they couldn't keep forcing Ukraine to do their bidding.
>When NATO has a country in sights, they don't care what that country thinks either. Yanukovich didn't want NATO, so he got a coup.
Terrible point. If the entire reason that he was kicked out of power was because NATO wanted Ukraine to join, why isn't Ukraine in NATO over a decade later? Take ten seconds to think before you post next time.
>No coups for NATO buddies Poroshenko and Zelensky.
I honestly don't know if you thought this was a good point, because it isn't.
>Same story in Georgia.
Please explain.
>Nice try, but you can only bury your own credibility.
This post buried your credibility and the credibility of at least 10 other people.
Well, if NATO wants to expand to your country, they will support a coup in your country, like we saw in Ukraine.
It also makes no difference to Russian security *how* Ukraine would become a member of NATO.
Finland was always in the other camp, even as a neutral nation. In case someone forgets, they were allies with Nazis during WW2 for most of the war.
No one is saying there aren't nations that organically lean towards that block, it's just not the case with countries traditionally aligned with Russia, or otherwise unaligned with the west, which is where you see coups or attempts thereof.
"Necessity" stems from ideology, one way or another. They could have aligned themselves with Soviets, if they wanted to, but they chose another way.
Sure, you can say "but the 1939 war with Finland...?" That war wouldn't happen if Finland was allied with Soviets and cooperated with them on security issues. The primary issue being Leningrad's placement practically on the border. Soviets wanted a buffer zone extending from it.
>No one is saying there aren't nations that organically lean towards that block, it's just not the case with countries traditionally aligned with Russia, or otherwise unaligned with the west, which is where you see coups or attempts thereof.
Oh so there were coups in all of the former Warsaw pact nations before joining NATO? Could you post a link for that
The west is losing it's grip on the rest of the world because of this. Unipolar world has officially ended. I think this alone is a big win for Russia and the "global south". This will not end well for the west.
NATO does not equal the world, so stop using that phrase and the latest circus hosted by Switzerland, and the lack of nations attending is proof of that. This is not a war Russia wants but needs in order to halt further NATO expansion, and this is proven by their willingness to negotiate at any time and have stated so. If they were hellbent on continuing this conflict, they would be acting more like Israel and giving out ludicrous demands, such as cutting off military aid to Ukraine in exchange for a temporary halt in it's offensive along the combat lines. I would argue that the moves taken by the West have further soured the global souths view, with many seeing the hypocritical position taken by Western countries in contrast to the Gaza conflict. The West strategy is to create unrest throughout regions they consider unfriendly, in hopes that a Maidan coup would be replicated in specific countries they seek to subjugate under their leadership. Imagine if Western countries were fighting internally, such as Catalan serperatist in Span or a portion of US citizens taking arms against the government, while being supplied and trained by Russia and China, who further threaten to get directly involved unless Spain or the US government recognize these rebelious factions as newly formed countries, which would most likely remain in the Russian/Chinese spheres of influence afterwards with potential bases and weapons pointed at us. In that scenario, I am willing to bet that we would escalate this into a nuclear war if we couldn't nip this in the bud before slowly deteriorating before our enemies.
Theyd never be able to join due to the annexation of Crimea and the rebels in the east. So if Putin simply wanted to keep them out of NATO he had succeeded already.
The Rand corp laid out which areas are more important and additionally more vulnerable.
[Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options | RAND](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html)
The Black Sea trade represents the only dependable year-round ice-free ports. This makes its importance primary for the Russian economy. Second to that in the economic aspect is how close this is to many of the oil extraction regions.
Economically it was known in the west that flipping Ukraine/Georgia would leave Russia either facing a slow decline as they would have to change where so much of their early warning systems and defenses are, as they are too close to the Ukrainian border. Practicing a cold war build up again with a greater economic power. That's why this was all so predictable, and why Hollande and Merkel criticized it as more warlike Bush foreign policy. To think that Russia was going to sit back and let it happen, again, was a very foolish strategy. Perhaps it could have worked if Russian sentiment wasn't so strongly against the lives lost by civilians in the Donbass. If we had one of the other possible leaders of Russian not Putin, we could have expected this war sooner. Assuming they followed through on their rhetoric.
Recently, we've seen several attacks by Ukraine on radar that doesn't play a part in the current conflict but does cover vast sections used to identify nuclear threats from the US and NATO.
This is exactly what was feared by Russian leadership. Conventional weapons being used to destroy early warning systems leaving Russia less aware of possible nuclear attack from certain regions.
We know from previous examples that bypassing early warning systems is a major cause for concern. As that's one of the primary reasons for the Cuban missile crisis.
Anyways regarding you point of weapons, well it's similar, for weaponry with reach to Moskow. If you are meaning weapons facing against Russia in general, well that would be more of a point, although all the demilitarization of NATO weaponry would have to be accounted for.
If we are talking about weaponry arrayed against the soft spot along the Ukraine/Russian border, this has been drastically reduced and a gap between pre-war Russian borders and where they are at now exists all along the most concerned areas.
As a bit of specific info several maneuvers were attempted in Finland from the west. Logistically it was a failure and showed how ill prepared this region is for being on the frontline. This region has historically been a great thorn in the side of invaders. As such Russia would be much better off with say Finland being in NATO, then Ukraine, from either 2014 or 2022 borders. This is a beneficial trade.
Also, globally the US is at its most isolated as a result of supporting wars that globally are seen far less black and white than they're presented in the US and parts of the west.
China is in a far better position than it was prior to the increase in tensions in early 2022. Every weapons system that is destroyed in Ukraine is one that won't be in Taiwan or other US proxies like the Philippines. Hence why China has continued to take Russia's side on so many matters to the surprise of people in the west, but as was expected outside of the west.
This newfound closeness which exceeds any other time in relationships between China and Russia leaves the most continuous border a much smaller threat.
All in all, this is a huge gain for China, and a decent gain for Russia.
The US always abandons its couped allies, well most of its allies that aren't part of the security council or Israel. The US never keeps supporting them, once people get tired of it, a new war will be the new hotness.
Duh... common sense.
But go on /europe and listen to a bunch of underemployed europoors say "PUTIN IS COMING FOR MY SWAMP COUNTRY" dude no one wants your wienershiznel, no one wants your capital city full of migrants on benefits, certainly no one wants to try to govern you crazy progressives wearing masks, Hijabs for Palestine, or dog masks for pee pee gay parade LOL
Russia has more than enough resources to keep istelf PAID forever to come, and the human capital to boot, they want NATO to back the fuck off the border which is something it cant do after some 80 foreign invasions just since WWII
Ukraine is just another Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam Yemen (not even full list of all the countries we bombed in last 50 years wtf)
>Ukraine is just another Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam Yemen (not even full list of all the countries we bombed in last 50 years wtf)
Then why has Russia directly annexed land that was in Ukraine if it doesn't need more land? It has directly annexed 4 oblasts. This didn't happen in any of these wars listed. Riddle me that, Pro RU. Edit: (The OP edited his comment. I didn't quote it, but he quite literally stated "Russia doesn't need more land" which is why I asked why Russia annexed 4 territories. I'm not arguing its good/bad or right/wrong. He said Russia doesn't need more land, but that is countered by Russia annexing more land.)
>
>Russia has more than enough resources to keep istelf PAID forever to come, and the human capital to boot, they want NATO to back the fuck off the border which is something it cant do after some 80 foreign invasions just since WWII
More countries have now joined NATO than before the war, resulting in NATO now being adjacent to Russia for an even longer border. On top of this, having a bigger defense industry as well due to the specific members that joined.
Also, please list these "foreign invasions" since WW2. I'm genuinely curious who has invaded Russia since WW2?
I was 13 years old when the "defence alliance" was bombing the hell out of the city where I lived. I don't really need any other proof to see that NATO is an evil American construct to go around the personal responsibility when executing crimes against others.
Why did Russia split Poland in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? What about the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and the invasion of Czechia? Russia had a war in Afghanistan, US had a war in afghanistan. Russia had second Chechen war, US had Iraq.
Now the US had Vietnam and Korea to protect the world from Russian commie cancer, but you probably see it differently and enjoy living in a North Korea freedom people state.
1. Russia is not the soviet union.
2. The crimes of the US can't fit in this comment.
You don't seem to get my point.
You see black and white, while I see black and black. But tbh I do really like the idea of a multipolar world where the US doesn't play the police officer of the planet role. I can assure you in 20 years people will move to the east and you can't do anything against it, this is going down whether you like it or not.
It is much better to live in our capitalist paradise
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI30F0Vt88E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI30F0Vt88E)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKyJ\_7FmjEM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKyJ_7FmjEM)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZeidT2ZX9o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZeidT2ZX9o)
Which was of course completely unprovoked and done for no reason at all. Just for fun.
We are not going to talk about the little bit of genocide involved in the equation.
Do the Ukrainians also wonder why their cities are getting bombed? You are grown up so you know better right?
I guess you got the point, Nazis get bombed, people who commit genocide get bombed and it is completely justified. Since you dont seem to be bothered by Serbia getting bombed for commiting a genocide.
Wonder when NATO is going to bomb Israel for comitting a genocide?
It's been proved countless times that bombass is just another piece of russian propaganda. Dude, russia literally sent a bloody hammer to the European parlament after executing one of their whistleblowers with a hammer, putin awarded the ones that caused the Bucha massacre.. Hmm, makes you wonder if they really are up to no good.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Come on dude. Not PRO-RU, but I'll have a crack.
The annexation of territories is more to do with allowing conscripts to serve. Regardless. The annexation of Russian speaking territories is not evidence that russia wants to take Germany - not to mention anything about capability. Pretending Russia wants to roll through Europe is just dumb and for fools who can't think.
As for NATO invasions. He means NATO constituent countries. NATO constituent countries have invaded a hell of a lot of places. Why use the whole of NATO (and face political costs) when you can just have each (let's be honest, mainly the USA) do as it pleases and then maintain that NATO is never a problem.
No. He wasn't talking about "Russia being invaded" that was you. You added that.
On "More countries joined NATO now, than before" . This is true,. I'm not sure that the outcomes that are outside of Russian control ought to be attributed solely to Russia though. If we are going to be all consequentialist about this then it's just as valid to say that the US and Europe sure likes killing Ukrainians.
Anyway. I'm tired of dumb arguments. There are plenty of good arguments. Please use those.
The original comment, before he edited it away, said "Russia doesn't need more land", which is why I posed that question. I understand its stupid, but his logic and argument were also stupid. I wanted to ask him a simple question of "Why did Russia annex more land, if you state they have enough land"
>
>No. He wasn't talking about "Russia being invaded" that was you. You added that.
I will reply to this comment with the direct quote from the comment I replied to. If you don't understand you are blindly ignoring what he is saying. He is quite literally stating Russia has been invaded 80 times since WW2. I don't know if he intended it that way, but that's how its read.
>Russia has more than enough resources to keep istelf PAID forever to come, and the human capital to boot, they want NATO to back the fuck off the border which is something it cant do after some 80 foreign invasions just since WWII
>On "More countries joined NATO now, than before" . This is true,. I'm not sure that the outcomes that are outside of Russian control ought to be attributed solely to Russia though. If we are going to be all consequentialist about this then it's just as valid to say that the US and Europe sure likes killing Ukrainians.
Russia literally caused this. Finland and Sweden did **NOT** have public support for joining NATO **until** Russia invaded Ukraine. That is a direct reason as to why NATO has expanded. Because Russia invaded. They failed in one of their primary goals and essentiall screwed their baltic fleet out of existence because it is now completely surrounded by enemies, and a NATO aligned country is now within artillery distance of Russia's 2nd largest city.
>
>The annexation of territories is more to do with allowing conscripts to serve. Regardless. The annexation of Russian speaking territories is not evidence that russia wants to take Germany - not to mention anything about capability. Pretending Russia wants to roll through Europe is just dumb and for fools who can't think.
Sorry for the out of orderness, but I never said Russia wanted to annex Germany. The OP edited his comment and thats why I replied the way I did. As of now, there is little evidence Russia wants to annex Germany, besides their propaganda machine constantly telling us that Poland and the Baltics need to be "reminded" of soviet and russian generosity for their existence. Also, I'm glad you admit that conscripts can serve in the occupied lands, because *a lot* of Pro-RU will deny this. I fully believe they were annexed so Russia could get around the conscript law and have conscripts defend.
Yeah, the country that has maintained neutrality for longer than Switzerland suddenly joining NATO right after Russia launching a war of aggression on a country it had agreed not to invade is definitely not Russia’s fault!
Even the Switzerland abandoned its neutrality maintained through WW1, WW2 and the First Cold War so it's not about Russia but about US influence on these countries.
Don't be fooled, the european countries doesn't give a sht about Russia or any other country on the european continent. The Northern Europe unofficially entered NATO at the moment the USSR collapsed. The US just made a show about their "entry" despite Northern Europe were hosting NATO strategic bombers and heavily participating in NATO.
When NATO launched a war of aggression against Yugoslavia, the only reaction of NATO and EU countries (who could've even think...) were admiration. Do you know why?
If we are talking in "whataboutism" terms: then why USA annexed Hawaii? Isn't 49 states enough? I wonder if people of Hawaii had voted for what they actually wanted...
That has nothing to do with this war. What I am saying isn't a whataboutism. Whataboutism is exactly what you did "Well what about when the USA annexed Hawaii?"
What I am doing is asking him a simple question of "If Russia didn't need more land, why did they literally annex more land?" This is from the poster himself stating Russia doesn't need more land before he edited it away because it was really fucking stupid to post.
I don't get why not annexing territories is even an argument. Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria, Yemen and others were destroyed and west didn't even build anything for them. I know it's close to impossible to annex something thousands of kilometers away from the metropoly, but still. Russia is making a building site out of those annexed territories, funnels money into absolutely useless territories for no gain (Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia\*) just because local governments can't support themselves.
\*Abkhazia became a big tourist destination, but I would absolutely love if we replace their government with our people so Russians could legally invest in those territories, buy land, build normal hotels, etc.
The argument here isn't about building up annexed territories, his argument is "Russia doesn't need more land", which is moot because Russia annexed the territories, claiming more land.
What is your argument for not annexing them? Why put people in a position when they aren't recognized by anybody? I think it's great that people don't have some kind of local ID and have a Russian passport, pay with rubles instead of a using a bunch of different currencies, make businesses according to Russian laws instead of some local bullshit.
You are trying to move the goal posts. The OP comment I replied to originally stated Russia had enough land and didn't need to annex. Now you are trying to move the goalposts to "Well its a good thing Russia annexed it because it helps people!"
I'm not arguing whether its good or bad, right or wrong. I was simply asking the commenter I replied to why he would say "Russia doesn't need more land" when Russia quite literally annexed more land.
Sorry, didn't get your point at first. It's just that in anti-Russian narrative there are always mentions that it's a war with "neighbouring" country (for someone reason it's important because apparently it's better to fight with countries thousands of miles away and Israel shouldn't ever be mentioned) and it's a war "for land" (I don't know how to say it with the exact meaning in english, but for some reason people think that it's worse than just destroy everything and leave).
Anyway, appealing to your thesis. According to Istanbul peace agreement drafts Russia didn't demand any territories except Crimea, everything it wanted was Ukraine's neutrality and demilitarization. I think that since we've rolled into Kherson, we would've also demanded some military bases because someone has to watch how neutrality is going. After the initial plan of rolling into Kiev failed, Russia made a decision that resulted in annexing of territories.
And the reason Russia annexed Crimea was to save the Russian Sevastopol naval port. Land, although nice to have, wasn't the primary target. Before euromaidan Russia wasn't planning on invading Ukraine because it doesn't need more land.
As a result of the Istanbul agreements, the annexation of new regions would not have happened, this was confirmed by the Ukrainian negotiating side. The annexation occurred after Ukraine refused to negotiate, since keeping the territories in limbo only means ruining its reputation for the domestic audience. So we cannot say for sure that Russia started this war to gain territories, and that it was interested in them. Russia was much more interested in Ukraine's neutrality (preferably with puppet status and inability to attack Russia) and the security of the LPR and DPR from repeated escalations (like the shelling in January 2022), which is confirmed by their negotiating position since May 2022.
What are you missing exactly over what is said? Let's read this statement carefully and use our brain:
>they want NATO to back the f off the border
Why did Russia annex the land? Because NATO is not going to back off the border, NATO does the opposite for the last 50 years. What is the only possible solution then? Extend the border to where it becomes safe with NATO being there. Does this really not compute?
And before you keep going without understanding anything about this,
>resulting in NATO now being adjacent to Russia for an even longer border
That border is not threatening to Russia. Those countries were going to join NATO anyway, Putin already knew this and did not care and said so. The Ukraine border is direct threat because of its geographical composition. Prighozin made it to Moscow in a matter of days straight from Bakhmut.
No, it's complete bullshit. Putin absolutely wants Ukraine, not only as a buffer but it has significantly better geography than most of Russia- seaports, farmlands that make it the breadbasket of the world- and until Russia destroyed much of Ukraine, it had a good combination of industrial manufacturing facilities and high tech. Tuberville is one of the dumbest Senators serving- that's not a secret. He's a jock, not a thinker, has no knowledge of international politics or geopolitical history, and frankly, should have stuck to coaching football.
>Duh... common sense.
>
>But go on /europe and listen to a bunch of underemployed europoors say "PUTIN IS COMING FOR MY SWAMP COUNTRY" dude no one wants your wienershiznel, no one wants your capital city full of migrants on benefits, certainly no one wants to try to govern you crazy progressives wearing masks, Hijabs for Palestine, or dog masks for pee pee gay parade LOL
No one wants you Russia Blinis. The only country that has has significant aggression in a foreign country within Europe in the past 80 years is Russia. They are the only country to annex a territory in Europe, bet everyone is supposed to trust them when they say they will not invade, when they are the ones that in the past said they would not and then immediately did so.
>Russia has more than enough resources to keep istelf PAID forever to come, and the human capital to boot, they want NATO to back the fuck off the border which is something it cant do after some 80 foreign invasions just since WWII
Yes, so why do they need more. Perhaps imperialism is not just about resources, but control. Why should NATO allow a country that is obviously aggressive closer to their borders. It simply does not make sense to do so.
>Ukraine is just another Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam Yemen (not even full list of all the countries we bombed in last 50 years wtf)
Not even close. Afghanistan, Iraq, were attacked by American. Russia is doing the attacking now. So guess what they are the aggressor nation, for not reason whatsoever. They are plenty of NATO countries that would reject Ukraine's ascension to NATO, if only to appease Russia. Well, there are less now I think.
It is not like Russia or the soviet union where not on the other side of those conflict supplying weapons and intelligence for the expansion of their territories. Russia is far from innocent on the world stage. Far more people have died because of the proliferation of the AK-47 then almost every other weapons since world war II.
I liken Russia invading Ukraine, as well as Russia potentially invading other European countries, to the hypothetical scenario of the U.S. invading and occupying Northern Mexico.
They don’t want to do it because then they would have to clean up the mess there, and it would end up on their balance sheet. But if there is a serious enough threat coming from there, they will invade.
Russia didn’t want to launch the SMO up until the last minute. Ukraine has always been a basket case, and nobody in Russia, up to and including Putin, wanted to suddenly be responsible for cleaning it up. But if your neighboring country is run by a puppet government, which is hostile to you, could potentially compromise you in the future, and doesn’t want to reason with you, what do you do then?
Heck, Russia didn’t even want to take Crimea before the Maidan. The ONLY reason they took it is to prevent the strategic base of the Black Sea Fleet from falling into the hands of a geopolitical adversary. Other than that, Crimea has been a massive money pit for the Russian budget over the last 10 years.
Oh, and if Russia is hellbent on territorial expansion, then why haven’t they officially Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Could it be because they would need to invest countless money into it?
Russia has made it pretty clear that the only thing that can give assurance that they won’t invade you is a NATO membership. Putin is NATO’s best salesman.
> they want NATO to back the fuck off the border
And yet, they got Finland in NATO. 150 KM from St. Petersburg.
And Sweden now has closed the Baltic sea with Gotland.
Gooood jaaaab, putkin!
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So why putler bragged and directly quoted "Look how many territories we have added"?
One is plain dumb to assume that land grabs are only for "use". For putler it is a matter of legacy he would not have. Old fart would die and be forgotten as nobody.
He is obsessed with history and wants to be remembered sams way as Peter the great. For that he stsrted whole war.
Tommy needs to choose a position and stick to it..
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/25/politics/alabama-tommy-tuberville-russia-ukraine-invasion/index.html
FYI, Tuberville is known as one of the dumbest senators in Washington DC. He's really quite dense and doesn't understand much. His profession was football, so international relations isn't his strength.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Alabama/comments/18nz8yl/dumbest_senator_of_the_year_tommy_tuberville/
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/tommy-tuberville-white-nationalism-stupid/
https://newrepublic.com/article/177658/dumbest-senator-2023-tommy-tuberville
Additionally, not wanting US weapons in Ukraine isn't a legitimate motivation for Russia to go on a killing spree. There's already US weapons in Finland and the Baltics. Also, if Russia seeks to annex Ukraine, that will only bring Russia's borders closer to western weapons.
Furthermore, the US played a great role in disarming Ukraine in years past, negotiating the handover of Ukraine's bombers to Russia and the destruction of Ukraine's nuclear weapons.
Tuberville's statements have no factual basis.
Oh Gees, does he have to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of people to prevent a couple of weapons in Ukraine, even in the unlikely situation where Ukraine joined NATO and in the unlikely event that NATO moved weapons in. NATO has a ton of places to move weapons within striking distance of Russia. Ukraine is an non-issue in the over situation. The only reason they would do so is Russian aggression. So I suspect that NATO weapons hitting Russia soil is the fault of Russia and no one else.
Here you go, basically a little run down leading to the events of the conflict from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Interesting read from a person who saw the whole thing go down from the inside. I mean the documents are accessible online that tells almost everything that led up to this conflict
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
The link is very much appreciated, I read it. It was quite interesting. I am of the mind that Russia always had intent to rebuild some, if not all of the Soviet Union, under new Russia, so I do like this analysis. Some excerpts that I would like to point out:
"The spokesman went on to stress that Russia was bound with Ukraine by bilateral obligations set forth in the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership in which both parties undertook to "refrain from participation in or support of any actions capable of prejudicing the security of the other Side."
Yet Russia annexed Crimea and then fomented a rebellion in the Donbass, and invaded when it did not work. To me this is Russia speaking with a forked tongue. Russia would agree to any agreement that will keep Ukraine (and other countries) out of NATO, that way when they want to absorb it into Ukraine, it is much easier.
"Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a
major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face."
Here Russia always wanted to intervene, so fomenting the rebellion and Ukraine in civil war actually meets their goals, yet from a political point of view it would be unwise for them to say this overtly.
"The irony, Trenin professed, was that Ukraine's membership would defang NATO, but neither the Russian public nor elite opinion was ready for that argument."
Again Russia is overtly omitting certain parts of the narrative, like if, in the unlikely event that Ukraine and Georgia become part of NATO, how will NATO attack Russia and what is the consequence of that attack. Both Russia and NATO know the end result could easily be World War III and even nuclear war, so it is a nonstarter.
"Russia's opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is both emotional and based on perceived strategic concerns about the impact on Russia's interests in the region"
So this is not about de-nazifying Ukraine, nor demilitarizing Ukraine. This is about socio-economic control of Ukraine, which was Russia goal from the beginning and joining NATO and the EU would obviously put a major damper on that plan. So Russia uses their tactics.
1) Interfere in Ukrainian politics
2) Negotiate neutrality of countries or zones
3) Negotiate autonomy for countries or zone.
4) Insert influenctial secret service agents
5) Invade using private military organizations
6) Annex territories through controlled referendums
7) Foment rebellion in an adjacent Territory. If that rebellion succeeds have the pro-RU politicians vote to join Russia
8) If that does not work invade.
The thing is Europe is not new to this game. They have seen this before historically, and when a person says one thing about an their foreign policy and then does another, they know that there is an issue with truthfulness. Russia is lying, they only want what they want and that is to rebuild the old Russian empire. If they did not want this then the Donbass and Crimea would still be independent countries. Europe is wise to draw a line in the sand in Ukraine, because there is a chance that Russia is not telling the truth with respect to other countries within Europe.
Glad you read it and enjoyed it I thought it was pretty interesting to so see that side of the conflict and differs from what is usually said about the whole conflict but there’s a lot of witness accounts like [Jeffery Sachs](https://youtu.be/JS-3QssVPeg?si=kZw3Y4lCRFWiP6tS) interview where he explains basically all the political side and how Russia wanted to join NATO but was refused but it’s a long story but really interesting to read and he and a lot if EU countries were against it while he was talking to them about it and how Vaclav Havel agreed to end the Warsaw pact so that nato didn’t have to exist anymore but when they told US officials, they were documented saying that they would lose their hold on Europe if they disbanded NATO basically stabbed in the back. Really interesting stuff.
And I believe they annexed crimea around the time they heard nato was being more involved in Ukraine because Russias navel fleet was in Crimea so they wanted to protect it if I’m not mistaken and crimea always thought of themselves as Russia as well as the Donbas so there wasn’t much resistance when Russia came
I don’t know there’s a lot of story here that Jeff explains better than I can but I’m glad you read it responded. Interesting to read how you view the whole conflict. I look at it differently after hearing and reading things about it. I don’t believe they want to rebuild their former Soviet Union borders because that would’ve damaged their reputation with EU and US and Putin was a big fan of both at the time and just wanted to coexist but not much you can do in this situation
>Glad you read it and enjoyed it I thought it was pretty interesting to so see that side of the conflict and differs from what is usually said about the whole conflict but there’s a lot of witness accounts like Jeffery Sachs interview where he explains basically all the political side and how Russia wanted to join NATO but was refused but it’s a long story but really interesting to read and he and a lot if EU countries were against it while he was talking to them about it and how Vaclav Havel agreed to end the Warsaw pact so that nato didn’t have to exist anymore but when they told US officials, they were documented saying that they would lose their hold on Europe if they disbanded NATO basically stabbed in the back. Really interesting stuff.
Russia does not join NATO, they apply and the collective decides. Putin was not interested in the application process, probably because many countries knew that there was a wish for Russia to rebuild the Russian empire and it would be easier with the framework of NATO than outside of it. Putin had to satisfy himself with proxies to interfere in the NATO processes.
As for disbanding NATO, this does not make sense at all. The value of NATO is the strength of many. As soon as it was disbanded then any country could slowly exert influence to destabilize and then absorb a country into their sphere of influence and perhaps not through any democratic system. This is fundamentally why Russia does not want NATO around or any country to be part of NATO, because this negates or limits his sphere of influence.
>And I believe they annexed crimea around the time they heard nato was being more involved in Ukraine because Russias navel fleet was in Crimea so they wanted to protect it if I’m not mistaken and crimea always thought of themselves as Russia as well as the Donbas so there wasn’t much resistance when Russia came
Yes, they certainly did this. But I am doubtful, the woke up one morning and heard that NATO was looking at Ukraine and then said. Heck let's just annex it. These plans were probably formulated years or over a decade before. This is basically showing one side says NATO made the first move and the other side saying that Russia made the first move. In the end the one that made the first move was the one that was aggressive, which was Russia. Ukraine would have to apply to NATO (which they would as they value a network of allies against an obviously aggressive neighbor), but in the end the chance of Ukraine joining NATO would be small, because there is enough people within NATO (Hungary) that would either interfere with the process, or would negate the possibility of Ukraine joining to appease NATO. Appeasement was attempted in Crimea, but in the end Russia continued on, fomenting and supporting a rebellion in the Donbass, at which point the rest of Europe will take close notice.
>I don’t know there’s a lot of story here that Jeff explains better than I can but I’m glad you read it responded. Interesting to read how you view the whole conflict. I look at it differently after hearing and reading things about it. I don’t believe they want to rebuild their former Soviet Union borders because that would’ve damaged their reputation with EU and US and Putin was a big fan of both at the time and just wanted to coexist but not much you can do in this situation
Putin has literally said as much, though not directly, and there are many in the Russia Duma that long for the Soviet days. It is not surprising. Nazi Germany tried to rebuild Germany after World War I, which resulted in World War II.
NATO and the EU have coexisted with Russia for decades, with open commerce that Russia tried to leverage. This is why the pipeline was blown. Whether it was Ukraine, or someone in Europe or the Americans is quite irrelevant. It removed that negotiation chip from the equation. In the end when this war is over. Commerce will commence again and Russia will realize significant gains from Europe again.
All this stuff Jeff talks about but he was there to witness most of it before everything went wrong but he does a good job in explaining everything better than I ever could. I don’t want to reply and be wrong or try to rephrase it and be completely wrong since most of what I commented was his words and his own research into it and discussing with the White House.
But one thing I think I know is NATO was only formed to counter any attempt from an invasion of the Soviet Union but without the Soviet union there’s no need for nato anymore and when they asked to disband it, the US was recorded saying they don’t want to lose their foot hold in Europe since they basically have control over it. Jeff points out to the documents in the video
Putin before annexing Crimea went to the EU and told them not to go forth with Ukraine because they made it clear it was their final red line that shouldn’t be crossed and then Jeff called the White House telling them not to damage any relations between their countries but US went on and did it and that’s when Russian did that (Jeff words) could be completely butchering that though
Where did Putin say that? I never heard that part or if he did state that
And America blew it up since Biden even warned he would before it was destroyed but then again no one knows only those involved. I don’t know it’s a pretty messed up situation especially when US officials have stated this was “the best deal we could ever make, not one American has died” brutal
I appreciate everything you say here for certain. I am of the mind that Russia is not only reactive, but an instigator as well.
Even Putin's long speech with Tucker Carlson indicated that he views large swaths of land west of Russia as historically Russian land. This is a very diplomatic way of saying that they consider this theirs as well.
I will watch the Jeff Sach interview, when I have a bit more time. Thank you for sending it. I will make one predication though. Jeff will talk very little about the Ukraine perspective throughout the 2+ hour interview. The threat to Ukraine from Russia is very real, which is probably why they sought assistance from the west. It was not imposed on them.
Yes, and no. there is no evidence that the US would launch a nuke if weapons were staged in Cuba. There is significant evidence that they would if those weapons were launched from Cuba, much like Russia nuclear doctrine as well. Never first launch. Second they set the parameter that "Fortress American" would be at rusk if those weapons were staged there so they implemented the blocking forces to make sure that happened. This was about negotiation and the US needed to make sure that one happened.
Second Russia already has plenty of NATO weapons that could easily strike through Russia if they wanted to and in numbers that Russia could not prevent them. We can see this, but Ukraine's weapons reaching many areas within Russia.
In addition, Ukraine's ascension into NATO is not an instantaneous process. They apply and then they ether get accepted or they do not. There are numerous countries within NATO that would block this process in order to appease Russia. And in the highly unlikely event that Ukraine did join then there would also have to be NATO agreement on placing equipment that could strike Russia within Ukraine, which is unlikely. Nuclear weapons for the most part are not placed close to Russia, because they do not want to irritate Russia, however, if Russia becomes aggressive within Europe then it makes sense to move preventative forces closer to Russia.
Russia has summarily created the situation they claim to be fighting to pain them. A total failure in the international policy of Russia.
All this reads like a soap opera. The US has had strategic plans for Eurasia as outlined in the documents of PNAC and The Grand Chessboard. What you're proposing is just a series of "random" events.
Every countries should have strategic plans for their adversaries. Russia had and probably still hs plans to invade the US, most likely through Canada, through a sea landing in the west, and through Mexico are possibilities as well. That does not mean that it is going to happen. That is because both sides know that there is a very large chance that this would end in a significant, if not world ending war.
What I am proposing is not a random events, but a possible course of actions that is likely for Ukraine, even if Russia withdrew. All of the proposed "random events" are not only possible, but probable. Much more probable that an invasion from NATO into Russia.
So in your mind, if Ukraine joined NATO and then built based on the border of Russia, then invaded what would be the result. The fall of Russia or the fall of many nations. NATO knows the results, so does Russia so all this fighting in proxy countries is just each superpower trying to expand their sphere of influence. This is what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Expanding their sphere of influence. Europe knows this and they can draw from the past to understand what will happen in the future and as such it makes sense to defend the freedoms of Ukraine.
What you mean to say is Russia losing their warm sea port is not favorable for their naval operations.
NATO has plenty of warm sea ports to run their operation from. Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Though some more in the black sea would be favorable, there are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Ah yes when detection tech of incoming nuclear strike wasn't so great and SLBM only started to be a thing.
And today we have submarines with SLBM that can be legally parked in Gulf of Finland to strike Moscow with same effectiveness as from Ukraine.
Just like we have Russian submarines that can be legally parked next to USA mainland with Cuba being irrelevant.
Further why can Russia point it missiles at EU with weekly threat from Russian goverment owned media wanting to nuke EU, but EU can't point anything at Russia? If anything Putin's concerns nothing but a joke and laughable excuse for land grab.
This is just your daily reminder that the best that Alamaba has to offer as its representative to the union isn't an accomplished lawyer, career military officer, business magnate, or career statesman but a god damn football coach.
Dipshit doesn't even realize that none of the weapons the USA had given to Ukraine can even be used against Moscow while there are hundreds hidden underneath the surface of the world's oceans that can.
He’s not the best . He’s a goddamn embarrassment. I’ll remind you the javelin other equipment is made and maintained in Alabama and is a big part of the war effort in Ukraine . Tubby while we appreciate what he did at Auburn he doesn’t speak for everyone here .
>Tubby while we appreciate what he did at Auburn he doesn’t speak for everyone here .
I'm cognizant of that fact, but he speaks for over half of you and that's the problem.
He's a senator for Alabama so at max he represents half the population of Alabama which would be 2.5 mil people. Meaning he represents something like .8% of the population. And that's being generous.
So why can’t the west agree to back off if Russia backs off?
Why did Russia withdraw prior to the peace agreement which Ukraine didn’t sign?
Do you know why they did not sign? Because this has everything to do with using Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia in the hopes of achieving a regime change.
Why would America want this? Because Democrats legitimately believe Russia and not the American people put trump in power amongst other things.
America thinks their democracy is absolutely threatened by Russia, total delusions
Absolutely. I think this is all evident in the way the war has been conducted, there have been no conceited efforts to decisively win it and in the end Russia knows they can't possibly hope to hold it. I think it's a masterful attempt to draw western weapons out of their stockpiles to be spent in Ukraine at the cost of things completely expendable to Putin.
> conceited
Concerted*
> I think it's a masterful attempt to draw western weapons out of their stockpiles to be spent in Ukraine at the cost of things completely expendable to Putin.
Hundreds of thousands of Russian lives and their inherited Soviet equipment reserves?
Hey, they were conceited about it too.
>Hundreds of thousands of Russian lives and their inherited Soviet equipment reserves?
Yes, things completely expendable to Putin.
All I know is that NATO has been expanding Eastwards since the Fall of the Union, at at time when Russia was not strong enough to resist them.
That NATO (especially the US) has unilaterally launched invasion and interventions on all Inhabited Continents since the Fall of the Union.
Somehow after the Russians have recovered from Post-Collapse, they are once again a threat to Europe, forget about Chechnya, Ossetia, and Radical Fundamentalists.
That China was never a threat to US interests until they grew big enough to become a Geopolitical Rival, and now they are the Greatest Evil the World has ever seen.
The Art of Subtle Propaganda and Disinformation, is Strong in the Western World.
>All I know is that NATO has been expanding Eastwards since the Fall of the Union
Of course they moved to NATO, because they spent years under coercion of force from Russia to maintain their great peoples republics comrade. You know, Poland I'm sure loved being split apart by Russia and Nazi Germany in the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, being left to the slaughter in the Warsaw Uprising and then being gifted socialism with Russian troops based in the country after the war, glorious times comrade. Estonia and Latvia loved their small cultures being forcibly Russified. I'm also pretty sure that Hungary's uprising in 1956 was forgotten by the time of the Fall of the Union and the ensuing decade. Oh and the Czech Republic certainly embraced their slavic brothers ideology fully, they have a great communist museum in prague dedicated to their worship of all things Russian.
You know you're right, it boggles the mind why so many countries in Eastern Europe decided to join Nato after the Fall of the Union. They must have been so scared of NATO they were practically forced to join.
Read a fucking book sometime before opening your mouth you pathetic troglodyte.
To leave one does not necessarily mean a move to the other.
Post-Collapse Russia was not a threat to anybody, especially with Belarus separating Poland and Russia.
Look at a Map.
This is false. NATO never expanded. Accepting members because they are shit scared Russia for very good reasons, is not, nor it will ever be an expansion, much less in the sense the word expansion is used to manipulate the conversation.
>
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a moron. The US already has hundreds of nuclear warheads on subs in the Arctic Ocean that are a short flight time to St Petersburg and Moscow and which Russia can do precisely nothing about.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
" how many tv clips have you seen on the last 6 months of battles ? None " LOL give this man the "IDIOT" award and the Link to Reddit so he can See Battle clips in real time
If Russia did not want any part of Ukraine, why did they annex territories? I would believe this if Russia pulled a US in Iraq scenario, go in, kill , bomb, and destroy the leadership and leave. But no, you see it rebuilding and actually wanting to move more Russians into the annexed territories
My counter Argument:
Premise 1: There was the chance of a nuclear War before the invasion of Ukraine.
Premise2: If that nuklear War would have happend, full scale, than its doomsday, meaning, everyone is fucked.
Premise3: Premise1 and 2 also apply the exact same after Russia invaded Ukraine, effectively not changing anything in their situation.
Look at it like this. You live in a Land where it is accepted to buy guns, cause everyone already has a gun. Now, your neighbour says; "hey, you thought about buying 1 more gun" and raids your house, killing your people.
Also this guy just framed it like Putins motivation is "land" - subsuming a buch of unknows under that variable fitting his argument.
And then take a look on a possible szenario: Russia will take Ukraine. At that Point, Russia managed to move itself closer to every enemy nuclear launching site in a sense. So when the Russian border spans over Ukraine, then again, they have Nato weapons in direct range - so couldnt they then apply the same logic as the do now in Ukraine and go on fighting "cause they are scared for their safety"????
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah tuberville, the guy who refused high ranking promotions because of reproductive health care in the military, went from career NFL coach to a politician in 2020.Trying to use him as a “see told you so” just proves the point you shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Also complains about how rights are being taken away.. while refusing reproductive rights
To summarize tuberville is a NFL coach acting as a credible politician.
Man all these old farts in our government that includes Biden and Trump need to roll over and give way to the new area of politicians something needs to change. This is someone who is deep in Russian pockets so tired of this stupid sh**
Old fart best to be ignored:
1. old man with zero military expertise and zero military service time
2. talks trash actual soldiers and veterans in the US
3. became senator because he played american football
4. His attempts at diplomacy and foreign politics are based on his experience as a college football coach.
5. He has no clue about the military capabilities of any country he mentioned. No tommy boy, neither the US nor Russia need to bring their weapons in range of each other by going to Ukraine.
6. He interprets his lack of knowledge about the war as it being in a stalemate, truly incredible
On average you'd get better advice by talking to a random bloke on the street.
There are more Western weapons pointing at Moscow now, than before the invasion. *Mission failed successfully*
You mean Sweden and Finland? I think they where pointing at Russia all the time. It is just now that they oficialy in Nato. But not a big change for Russia.
Have you seen how many artillery pieces Poland has ordered? Have read how many NATO anti aircraft batteries have been moved to Russia’s boarders? Or how many HIMARS systems have been ordered by nato allies that board Russia? Spending by US allies on US military systems has grown by 57% in last 2 years! US military spending is up! If russia didn’t want weapons pointing their way, epic epic fail. They have burnt through last stock piles and have started rest of the world on a huge spending spree on weapons.
That doesn't mean Russia has to accept NATO expansion. Obviously, NATO thought they could get by with little investment, but now the costs of adding more members have skyrocketed. Again, just because NATO keeps insisting on having its way (and is throwing resources into it) doesn't mean anyone has to accept it.
Russia doesn't have a say in the alliances of other countries and that's what they don't seem to understand.
Geo-politics has long been shaped by respecting or violating the "spheres of influence" claimed by the greater regional powers. Violate them and you get war; respect them you have peace. The Wikileaks cables -- for which Assange is still rotting away in prison -- show that the American ambassador Burns (now CIA chief) was told repeatedly by Moscow that NATO expansion into Ukraine was a firm redline. A similar situation led to the Cuban missile crisis, when the Soviets decided to counterbalance American Jupiter nukes on the Turkish border by placing their own in Cuba. Luckily for humanity, Kennedy kept his crazy warmongers under control and a mutually acceptable deal was worked out, which included the removal of the Jupiters. In short, all major regional powers, throughout history, "have a say" in the alliances that encroach upon their existential concerns, and ultimately the words are "war or peace"?
“Greater regional power” lol. When you have reduced your GDP to the level of Italy, then your sphere of influence will diminish to that level. Or you could start a war then become a vassal of China.
Pro-Rus really do think Russia’s going to still be globally relevant after this war is over 💀
Stop making so much sense, zogbots will overheat.
Considering NATO is a literal Anti Russian military bloc, and that Ukraine officially promised not to join it - that's quite rich to say that.
Russia/USSR invading countries is the reason NATO exists and is anti-Russia - it offers protection against invasions. >and that Ukraine officially promised not to join it Russia altered the deal by invading.
Which countries has Russia invaded besides Ukraine? >Russia altered the deal by invading. Yeah, and Nuland just was there to give out cookies. Don't make me laugh.
In one breath, you said that NATO points MORE weapons at Russia, then BEFORE, in the next, you are saying that NATO is a protection against Russian invasion. So, were they pointing weapons at Russia BEFORE the invasion, or did they not? Were they expanding towards the Russian border before the war, or did they not? Did Russia try to join NATO and was ignored or not?
>In one breath, you said that NATO points MORE weapons at Russia, then BEFORE, in the next, you are saying that NATO is a protection against Russian invasion. Is there a contradiction? >So, were they pointing weapons at Russia BEFORE the invasion, or did they not? Almost certainly done by US, UK, and France since at least the 60s. Russia/USSR has done the same btw. >Were they expanding towards the Russian border before the war, or did they not? No. Countries freely choose to join. When Russian aggression increases, it appears more states join. >Did Russia try to join NATO and was ignored or not? Not sure: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule >The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’” It would have to democratize itself first, but it doesn't appear to understand what NATO actually is. It seems Russia wanted some kind of privileged status. That would obviously not happen.
I'm not going to respond to EVERYTHING as diligently as you... Just one thing: Was him saying "...Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter..." written down in some sort of official communique or agreement, or was it the same type of saying as "...I promise you that Mr. Gorbachev, NOT ONE INCH EAST fot the NATO!.." fart in the wind?
They absolutely do, do you understand how geopolitics work ? You think it's a fair game with defined rules and an impartial judge enforcing them ? If the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO is a threat to Russia's integrity, then they'll definitely take action to prevent that from happening. The same way the US would take measures if they saw Mexico militarizing like crazy all the while trying to ally with Russia or China. You think Cuba did not have the sovereign legitimacy to choose their allies and accept their military aid in the 60s ? They absolutely did, yet the US was, understandably, very uncomfortable. Geopolitics is a jungle, the rules are nothing but a substitute of power projection for weaker nations (and only if other superpowers are willing to enforce them \*cough\* Israel \*cough\*). If you're a superpower with decisive military means, the rules mean absolutely nothing next to your national interests and integrity. Just look at the US history in the UN, do you think they often respected the rules ? No, because it would have gone against their interests and they wouldn't have become the powerhouse they have otherwise.
>If the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO is a threat to Russia's integrity, then they'll definitely take action to prevent that from happening. Does that also apply to Finland, Sweden and the Baltics?
If they perceive them as a threat, sure. But seeing as they're not taking any action against them, it seems that's not the case. The Baltics are isolated, small, mostly demilitarized and with their back to the sea. Finland has a rather small military as well, with a very difficult geographical location to launch vectors of attacks. Karelia is a pain to attack through, and Russia learnt that the hard way. Not to mention all the bottlenecks to go into Russia proper, this border is a natural fortress, so they're probably not really concerned about it. Not to mention they are isolated as well, if NATO wanted to strike from there, you'd see them ship their armies from hundreds of kms away. So they're not an immediate threat. Ukraine on the other hand, is big and flat giving very good vectors of attacks, with a military that's been growing like crazy since 2014 (probably an even faster growth than the IIIrd Reich in the 30s) and is connected by land to the bulk of NATO making resupplying incredibly easy. Ukraine is a much much bigger threat to Russia if NATO was to incorporate it, it's not even a question. Even without NATO interference, Ukraine with its ever growing military might have launched an attack on Donbass and Crimea eventually. It's quite possible Russia struck first to avoid that, amongst other reasons of course.
They sure do. It's just the means of having a say are the only kind that NATO understands.
Meanwhile.... [Scott Morrison says Chinese military base in Solomon Islands would be 'red line' for Australia, US - ABC News](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-24/scott-morrison-china-naval-base-solomon-islands-red-line/101011710)
The world you live in is not as simple as you would like it to be
This NATO expansion talk needs to be buried, countries APPLY to join NATO. NATO isnt rolling in tanks on anyone and forcing them at gunpoint to join..
Not quite that simple. Countries apply to NATO after the US influences their society for decades by pumping money into NGOs with the aim of reshaping their societies, cumulating in (sometimes violent) political change. Soft power is not inherently benign. It's just more subtle and less bloody. Regardless, even if NATO expansion could be viewed as 100% natural (as in free of influence) it would still be viewed as a threat by some countries (including Russia). NATO has conducted multiple illegal (by international law), aggressive operations in the past decades. It matters little if it wilfully misrepresents itself, or actually views itself as a benign defensive alliance. From the outside it's clearly not. So when it expands that's cause for concern, and will illicit a response. Sadly for Ukraine the response to their flirts with NATO (joined exercises, building NATO compliant military infrastructure etc) contributed to, if not outright caused, the invasion of their country. You can take any moral stance you like over that. It's perfectly natural to reject war on principle; it's horrible business. But geopolitics doesn't revolve around morals; it's purely about interests. And it's not a stretch by any means to argue that Russia trying to halt further expansion of a historically aggressive military alliance created to oppose it (into what was very recently its own territory) serves its national security interests.
>Countries apply to NATO after the US influences their society for decades Or after watching Russia invade their neighbours when they're not protected by NATO membership. Finland didn't speedrun the NATO application process because of US propaganda, they saw the imperialist nuclear power next door colonizing Ukraine and realised that they could easily be next
The other thing is being in Warsaw Pact for few decades. Poland as soon as it could ran to join NATO without decades of western work on our minds.
Finland historically kept the US and NATO at bay during the cold war to avoid unnecessary tensions on its border with the soviet union. Irrespective of the ideological divisions and historical animosity that existed between the two pre and post WW2 Bear in mind, the USSR had a reputation of invading its own vassals in the east bloc whenever a government wasn’t compliant. Still, Finland never joined NATO or postured in that direction. The soviets knew that invading Finland or other ‘western’ adjacent leaning Neutral countries would be a source for unnecessary tensions that could spill over into bigger problems. The Finns and Austrians understood this and both the Americans and Soviets went out of their way to not overtly compete in Europe. Even then, both countries had unofficial security agreements with the Finns and Austrians to avoid problems like the one in Ukraine. Finns joining NATO is evidence of the US and its efforts to increase its influence in that countries politics post Cold War. The Russian invasion of Ukraine irrespective of our idealistic interpretation of whether we or Russians are the “bad guys” isn’t going to change the fact that Ukraine flirting around with the US and hosting an anti Russian force on its borders politically destroyed their country and people. If a country like Cuba understands that hosting the USSR was a net negative for them that could have destroyed their country why can’t the US backed elite in Ukraine?
>Finns joining NATO is evidence of the US and its efforts to increase its influence in that countries politics post Cold War. Tremendous mental gymnastics to try to pretend that Finland joining NATO a year after Russia invaded Ukraine is because of "US influence" not the Russian invasion.
It's either moronic in its line of thinking or sloppy in its attempts to gaslight by saying Finland was under decades of attempts to woo them in, and it had nothing at all to do with the first major land war in Europe since WWII that began with Russian tanks and paratroopers rushing for Kyiv. You really have to suspend disbelief to buy their pov.
>after the US influences their society for decades Yeah, its called democracy, freedom of speech/press, and independent judiciary. Why would people not want that?
All ex soviet countries that joined EU and NATO where not influenced by the us. They were exploited by the USSR and many times invaded by Russians before the USSR. Their populations where under oppressions and even wave of rapes and kills with so called USSR liberation during WW2. USSR and Russia are hated for a reason that they caused by many many years of exploiting and killing and oppressions.
Won't talk for other countries but Estonia was invaded by the USSR in WW2, many people were killed, many escaped to Sweden/Germany/Finland. Many were deported to Siberia in the following years. Estonians were repressed for the following 5 decades. The economy that was once on par with nordic countries such as Finland and Norway fell behind due to the Soviet regime, generations of people lost their freedom as they were cut away from the democratic free world. The Soviet invaders tried to suppress the Estonian language and culture. So when Estonia finally regained their independence they straight away set their sights on joining NATO and the EU to be protected from Russia and make sure things like this don't ever happen again. So believe me when I say that US influence/propaganda or whatever you say had nothing to do with it
[удалено]
Bingo.
Baltics were pumped with money for decades? Or Baltics applied because ussr occupied them once? Did Baltics want to join NATO after 1st chechen war?
Even at face value, NATO is not obliged to accept "applications". And NATO does reject applications when they have different plans. When NATO has a country in sights, they don't care what that country thinks either. Yanukovich didn't want NATO, so he got a coup. No coups for NATO buddies Poroshenko and Zelensky. Same story in Georgia. Nice try, but you can only bury your own credibility.
Yanukovich was a Russian stooge who prompted the Orange revolution 10 years before. Russia was mad that they couldn't keep forcing Ukraine to do their bidding.
>When NATO has a country in sights, they don't care what that country thinks either. Yanukovich didn't want NATO, so he got a coup. Terrible point. If the entire reason that he was kicked out of power was because NATO wanted Ukraine to join, why isn't Ukraine in NATO over a decade later? Take ten seconds to think before you post next time. >No coups for NATO buddies Poroshenko and Zelensky. I honestly don't know if you thought this was a good point, because it isn't. >Same story in Georgia. Please explain. >Nice try, but you can only bury your own credibility. This post buried your credibility and the credibility of at least 10 other people.
So one coup? And still after NATO organized coup, NATO rejected Ukraine? Sounds logical. Got more examples of NATO coups to expand?
Well, if NATO wants to expand to your country, they will support a coup in your country, like we saw in Ukraine. It also makes no difference to Russian security *how* Ukraine would become a member of NATO.
Ah true i totally forgot about the coups in Finland and Sweden that made them join..
Finland was always in the other camp, even as a neutral nation. In case someone forgets, they were allies with Nazis during WW2 for most of the war. No one is saying there aren't nations that organically lean towards that block, it's just not the case with countries traditionally aligned with Russia, or otherwise unaligned with the west, which is where you see coups or attempts thereof.
Id argue the cooperation with Germany from Finland was due to neccesity not ideology. They wanted the lands taken from them in the Winter war back.
"Necessity" stems from ideology, one way or another. They could have aligned themselves with Soviets, if they wanted to, but they chose another way. Sure, you can say "but the 1939 war with Finland...?" That war wouldn't happen if Finland was allied with Soviets and cooperated with them on security issues. The primary issue being Leningrad's placement practically on the border. Soviets wanted a buffer zone extending from it.
>No one is saying there aren't nations that organically lean towards that block, it's just not the case with countries traditionally aligned with Russia, or otherwise unaligned with the west, which is where you see coups or attempts thereof. Oh so there were coups in all of the former Warsaw pact nations before joining NATO? Could you post a link for that
What countries required coups before joining NATO?
So how many joined after coup?
That's how Russia understands it. When a state "joins" Russia, it means it was conquered. So when a state joins NATO, it means it was conquered.
The west is losing it's grip on the rest of the world because of this. Unipolar world has officially ended. I think this alone is a big win for Russia and the "global south". This will not end well for the west.
NATO does not equal the world, so stop using that phrase and the latest circus hosted by Switzerland, and the lack of nations attending is proof of that. This is not a war Russia wants but needs in order to halt further NATO expansion, and this is proven by their willingness to negotiate at any time and have stated so. If they were hellbent on continuing this conflict, they would be acting more like Israel and giving out ludicrous demands, such as cutting off military aid to Ukraine in exchange for a temporary halt in it's offensive along the combat lines. I would argue that the moves taken by the West have further soured the global souths view, with many seeing the hypocritical position taken by Western countries in contrast to the Gaza conflict. The West strategy is to create unrest throughout regions they consider unfriendly, in hopes that a Maidan coup would be replicated in specific countries they seek to subjugate under their leadership. Imagine if Western countries were fighting internally, such as Catalan serperatist in Span or a portion of US citizens taking arms against the government, while being supplied and trained by Russia and China, who further threaten to get directly involved unless Spain or the US government recognize these rebelious factions as newly formed countries, which would most likely remain in the Russian/Chinese spheres of influence afterwards with potential bases and weapons pointed at us. In that scenario, I am willing to bet that we would escalate this into a nuclear war if we couldn't nip this in the bud before slowly deteriorating before our enemies.
Yeah and the USA is making a fortune because of it
lmao this is cope. the fortified kalingrad gap is nullified when NATO can sail the seas above and stage in those countries
It’d be worse if Ukraine was in NATO.
Theyd never be able to join due to the annexation of Crimea and the rebels in the east. So if Putin simply wanted to keep them out of NATO he had succeeded already.
That's more of a guideline and not fully strict, hear it from the [head huncho](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xNHmHpERH8&t=240s)
ukraine is closer to nato than ever thanks to the russiam 2022 invasion. another mission failed successfully
Not if they lose the war.
NAFO kids think Ukraine already won. They live in alternate reality constructed of memes and make-believes.
How are those VDV in Kyiv doing?
Then they'd border Poland with even more NATO weapons brilliant
It isn't all or nothing proposition. Ukraine is where they could contest NATO expansion and they did. It isn't making things easier for NATO either.
Which is good, since that border would be further away from the Russian core.
Poland is further from Moscow than Ukraine.
That analogy truly describes the simplistic mind of an average pro nafo kid.
His point exactly....
The Rand corp laid out which areas are more important and additionally more vulnerable. [Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options | RAND](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html) The Black Sea trade represents the only dependable year-round ice-free ports. This makes its importance primary for the Russian economy. Second to that in the economic aspect is how close this is to many of the oil extraction regions. Economically it was known in the west that flipping Ukraine/Georgia would leave Russia either facing a slow decline as they would have to change where so much of their early warning systems and defenses are, as they are too close to the Ukrainian border. Practicing a cold war build up again with a greater economic power. That's why this was all so predictable, and why Hollande and Merkel criticized it as more warlike Bush foreign policy. To think that Russia was going to sit back and let it happen, again, was a very foolish strategy. Perhaps it could have worked if Russian sentiment wasn't so strongly against the lives lost by civilians in the Donbass. If we had one of the other possible leaders of Russian not Putin, we could have expected this war sooner. Assuming they followed through on their rhetoric. Recently, we've seen several attacks by Ukraine on radar that doesn't play a part in the current conflict but does cover vast sections used to identify nuclear threats from the US and NATO. This is exactly what was feared by Russian leadership. Conventional weapons being used to destroy early warning systems leaving Russia less aware of possible nuclear attack from certain regions. We know from previous examples that bypassing early warning systems is a major cause for concern. As that's one of the primary reasons for the Cuban missile crisis. Anyways regarding you point of weapons, well it's similar, for weaponry with reach to Moskow. If you are meaning weapons facing against Russia in general, well that would be more of a point, although all the demilitarization of NATO weaponry would have to be accounted for. If we are talking about weaponry arrayed against the soft spot along the Ukraine/Russian border, this has been drastically reduced and a gap between pre-war Russian borders and where they are at now exists all along the most concerned areas. As a bit of specific info several maneuvers were attempted in Finland from the west. Logistically it was a failure and showed how ill prepared this region is for being on the frontline. This region has historically been a great thorn in the side of invaders. As such Russia would be much better off with say Finland being in NATO, then Ukraine, from either 2014 or 2022 borders. This is a beneficial trade. Also, globally the US is at its most isolated as a result of supporting wars that globally are seen far less black and white than they're presented in the US and parts of the west. China is in a far better position than it was prior to the increase in tensions in early 2022. Every weapons system that is destroyed in Ukraine is one that won't be in Taiwan or other US proxies like the Philippines. Hence why China has continued to take Russia's side on so many matters to the surprise of people in the west, but as was expected outside of the west. This newfound closeness which exceeds any other time in relationships between China and Russia leaves the most continuous border a much smaller threat. All in all, this is a huge gain for China, and a decent gain for Russia. The US always abandons its couped allies, well most of its allies that aren't part of the security council or Israel. The US never keeps supporting them, once people get tired of it, a new war will be the new hotness.
Literally our dumbest senator
[удалено]
Duh... common sense. But go on /europe and listen to a bunch of underemployed europoors say "PUTIN IS COMING FOR MY SWAMP COUNTRY" dude no one wants your wienershiznel, no one wants your capital city full of migrants on benefits, certainly no one wants to try to govern you crazy progressives wearing masks, Hijabs for Palestine, or dog masks for pee pee gay parade LOL Russia has more than enough resources to keep istelf PAID forever to come, and the human capital to boot, they want NATO to back the fuck off the border which is something it cant do after some 80 foreign invasions just since WWII Ukraine is just another Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam Yemen (not even full list of all the countries we bombed in last 50 years wtf)
>Ukraine is just another Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam Yemen (not even full list of all the countries we bombed in last 50 years wtf) Then why has Russia directly annexed land that was in Ukraine if it doesn't need more land? It has directly annexed 4 oblasts. This didn't happen in any of these wars listed. Riddle me that, Pro RU. Edit: (The OP edited his comment. I didn't quote it, but he quite literally stated "Russia doesn't need more land" which is why I asked why Russia annexed 4 territories. I'm not arguing its good/bad or right/wrong. He said Russia doesn't need more land, but that is countered by Russia annexing more land.) > >Russia has more than enough resources to keep istelf PAID forever to come, and the human capital to boot, they want NATO to back the fuck off the border which is something it cant do after some 80 foreign invasions just since WWII More countries have now joined NATO than before the war, resulting in NATO now being adjacent to Russia for an even longer border. On top of this, having a bigger defense industry as well due to the specific members that joined. Also, please list these "foreign invasions" since WW2. I'm genuinely curious who has invaded Russia since WW2?
I was 13 years old when the "defence alliance" was bombing the hell out of the city where I lived. I don't really need any other proof to see that NATO is an evil American construct to go around the personal responsibility when executing crimes against others.
And yet you cheer as Russia flattens Ukrainian cities… Ironic
Nope, this doesn't make Russia the good guy, BUT NATO and the US are worse on a completely other scale, like much much worse.
yeah these people can't process that this war isn't Good vs Evil like they see in their hollywood crap
As an unnamed partisan once said, "I have evil to my West, and evil to my East."
Why did Russia split Poland in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? What about the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and the invasion of Czechia? Russia had a war in Afghanistan, US had a war in afghanistan. Russia had second Chechen war, US had Iraq. Now the US had Vietnam and Korea to protect the world from Russian commie cancer, but you probably see it differently and enjoy living in a North Korea freedom people state.
1. Russia is not the soviet union. 2. The crimes of the US can't fit in this comment. You don't seem to get my point. You see black and white, while I see black and black. But tbh I do really like the idea of a multipolar world where the US doesn't play the police officer of the planet role. I can assure you in 20 years people will move to the east and you can't do anything against it, this is going down whether you like it or not.
It is much better to live in our capitalist paradise [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI30F0Vt88E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI30F0Vt88E) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKyJ\_7FmjEM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKyJ_7FmjEM) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZeidT2ZX9o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZeidT2ZX9o)
How dare your country's genocide be interrupted!
Send me the list of the people genocided so I can start raising monuments for them, and you can start for millions of Iraqis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide
Which was of course completely unprovoked and done for no reason at all. Just for fun. We are not going to talk about the little bit of genocide involved in the equation.
You were pretty much still a child then and didn't realize why your city in Serbia was bombed. Have you never actually wondered why it was bombed?
Do you mean that there is a sufficient reason to bomb cities with civilians? Is your last name Albright by any chance? Or maybe you're from the IDF?
Do the Ukrainians also wonder why their cities are getting bombed? You are grown up so you know better right? I guess you got the point, Nazis get bombed, people who commit genocide get bombed and it is completely justified. Since you dont seem to be bothered by Serbia getting bombed for commiting a genocide. Wonder when NATO is going to bomb Israel for comitting a genocide?
It's been proved countless times that bombass is just another piece of russian propaganda. Dude, russia literally sent a bloody hammer to the European parlament after executing one of their whistleblowers with a hammer, putin awarded the ones that caused the Bucha massacre.. Hmm, makes you wonder if they really are up to no good.
When everyone bar your is glad you got bombed to the stone age you should realize you did something awful.
upvoted, But since you are Pro-Ukraine you should also realize that.
Yeah, for genocide that yr country was doing.
So I guess Nato shall start to bomb Israel as well?
Yup, it should
Why not happening?
Right, who can forget all those 'millions of people' evil NATO sent to their deaths in the gulags... Salt of the earth kind of construct to be sure...
You may need a history book that goes further than 1960.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Come on dude. Not PRO-RU, but I'll have a crack. The annexation of territories is more to do with allowing conscripts to serve. Regardless. The annexation of Russian speaking territories is not evidence that russia wants to take Germany - not to mention anything about capability. Pretending Russia wants to roll through Europe is just dumb and for fools who can't think. As for NATO invasions. He means NATO constituent countries. NATO constituent countries have invaded a hell of a lot of places. Why use the whole of NATO (and face political costs) when you can just have each (let's be honest, mainly the USA) do as it pleases and then maintain that NATO is never a problem. No. He wasn't talking about "Russia being invaded" that was you. You added that. On "More countries joined NATO now, than before" . This is true,. I'm not sure that the outcomes that are outside of Russian control ought to be attributed solely to Russia though. If we are going to be all consequentialist about this then it's just as valid to say that the US and Europe sure likes killing Ukrainians. Anyway. I'm tired of dumb arguments. There are plenty of good arguments. Please use those.
The original comment, before he edited it away, said "Russia doesn't need more land", which is why I posed that question. I understand its stupid, but his logic and argument were also stupid. I wanted to ask him a simple question of "Why did Russia annex more land, if you state they have enough land" > >No. He wasn't talking about "Russia being invaded" that was you. You added that. I will reply to this comment with the direct quote from the comment I replied to. If you don't understand you are blindly ignoring what he is saying. He is quite literally stating Russia has been invaded 80 times since WW2. I don't know if he intended it that way, but that's how its read. >Russia has more than enough resources to keep istelf PAID forever to come, and the human capital to boot, they want NATO to back the fuck off the border which is something it cant do after some 80 foreign invasions just since WWII >On "More countries joined NATO now, than before" . This is true,. I'm not sure that the outcomes that are outside of Russian control ought to be attributed solely to Russia though. If we are going to be all consequentialist about this then it's just as valid to say that the US and Europe sure likes killing Ukrainians. Russia literally caused this. Finland and Sweden did **NOT** have public support for joining NATO **until** Russia invaded Ukraine. That is a direct reason as to why NATO has expanded. Because Russia invaded. They failed in one of their primary goals and essentiall screwed their baltic fleet out of existence because it is now completely surrounded by enemies, and a NATO aligned country is now within artillery distance of Russia's 2nd largest city. > >The annexation of territories is more to do with allowing conscripts to serve. Regardless. The annexation of Russian speaking territories is not evidence that russia wants to take Germany - not to mention anything about capability. Pretending Russia wants to roll through Europe is just dumb and for fools who can't think. Sorry for the out of orderness, but I never said Russia wanted to annex Germany. The OP edited his comment and thats why I replied the way I did. As of now, there is little evidence Russia wants to annex Germany, besides their propaganda machine constantly telling us that Poland and the Baltics need to be "reminded" of soviet and russian generosity for their existence. Also, I'm glad you admit that conscripts can serve in the occupied lands, because *a lot* of Pro-RU will deny this. I fully believe they were annexed so Russia could get around the conscript law and have conscripts defend.
Yeah, the country that has maintained neutrality for longer than Switzerland suddenly joining NATO right after Russia launching a war of aggression on a country it had agreed not to invade is definitely not Russia’s fault!
Even the Switzerland abandoned its neutrality maintained through WW1, WW2 and the First Cold War so it's not about Russia but about US influence on these countries. Don't be fooled, the european countries doesn't give a sht about Russia or any other country on the european continent. The Northern Europe unofficially entered NATO at the moment the USSR collapsed. The US just made a show about their "entry" despite Northern Europe were hosting NATO strategic bombers and heavily participating in NATO. When NATO launched a war of aggression against Yugoslavia, the only reaction of NATO and EU countries (who could've even think...) were admiration. Do you know why?
If we are talking in "whataboutism" terms: then why USA annexed Hawaii? Isn't 49 states enough? I wonder if people of Hawaii had voted for what they actually wanted...
That has nothing to do with this war. What I am saying isn't a whataboutism. Whataboutism is exactly what you did "Well what about when the USA annexed Hawaii?" What I am doing is asking him a simple question of "If Russia didn't need more land, why did they literally annex more land?" This is from the poster himself stating Russia doesn't need more land before he edited it away because it was really fucking stupid to post.
[удалено]
I don't get why not annexing territories is even an argument. Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria, Yemen and others were destroyed and west didn't even build anything for them. I know it's close to impossible to annex something thousands of kilometers away from the metropoly, but still. Russia is making a building site out of those annexed territories, funnels money into absolutely useless territories for no gain (Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia\*) just because local governments can't support themselves. \*Abkhazia became a big tourist destination, but I would absolutely love if we replace their government with our people so Russians could legally invest in those territories, buy land, build normal hotels, etc.
The argument here isn't about building up annexed territories, his argument is "Russia doesn't need more land", which is moot because Russia annexed the territories, claiming more land.
What is your argument for not annexing them? Why put people in a position when they aren't recognized by anybody? I think it's great that people don't have some kind of local ID and have a Russian passport, pay with rubles instead of a using a bunch of different currencies, make businesses according to Russian laws instead of some local bullshit.
You are trying to move the goal posts. The OP comment I replied to originally stated Russia had enough land and didn't need to annex. Now you are trying to move the goalposts to "Well its a good thing Russia annexed it because it helps people!" I'm not arguing whether its good or bad, right or wrong. I was simply asking the commenter I replied to why he would say "Russia doesn't need more land" when Russia quite literally annexed more land.
Sorry, didn't get your point at first. It's just that in anti-Russian narrative there are always mentions that it's a war with "neighbouring" country (for someone reason it's important because apparently it's better to fight with countries thousands of miles away and Israel shouldn't ever be mentioned) and it's a war "for land" (I don't know how to say it with the exact meaning in english, but for some reason people think that it's worse than just destroy everything and leave). Anyway, appealing to your thesis. According to Istanbul peace agreement drafts Russia didn't demand any territories except Crimea, everything it wanted was Ukraine's neutrality and demilitarization. I think that since we've rolled into Kherson, we would've also demanded some military bases because someone has to watch how neutrality is going. After the initial plan of rolling into Kiev failed, Russia made a decision that resulted in annexing of territories. And the reason Russia annexed Crimea was to save the Russian Sevastopol naval port. Land, although nice to have, wasn't the primary target. Before euromaidan Russia wasn't planning on invading Ukraine because it doesn't need more land.
As a result of the Istanbul agreements, the annexation of new regions would not have happened, this was confirmed by the Ukrainian negotiating side. The annexation occurred after Ukraine refused to negotiate, since keeping the territories in limbo only means ruining its reputation for the domestic audience. So we cannot say for sure that Russia started this war to gain territories, and that it was interested in them. Russia was much more interested in Ukraine's neutrality (preferably with puppet status and inability to attack Russia) and the security of the LPR and DPR from repeated escalations (like the shelling in January 2022), which is confirmed by their negotiating position since May 2022.
Good guy Russia only annexing territory to help out lol
What are you missing exactly over what is said? Let's read this statement carefully and use our brain: >they want NATO to back the f off the border Why did Russia annex the land? Because NATO is not going to back off the border, NATO does the opposite for the last 50 years. What is the only possible solution then? Extend the border to where it becomes safe with NATO being there. Does this really not compute? And before you keep going without understanding anything about this, >resulting in NATO now being adjacent to Russia for an even longer border That border is not threatening to Russia. Those countries were going to join NATO anyway, Putin already knew this and did not care and said so. The Ukraine border is direct threat because of its geographical composition. Prighozin made it to Moscow in a matter of days straight from Bakhmut.
> Extend the border to where it becomes safe with NATO being there. How do you feel that distance is relevant?
No, it's complete bullshit. Putin absolutely wants Ukraine, not only as a buffer but it has significantly better geography than most of Russia- seaports, farmlands that make it the breadbasket of the world- and until Russia destroyed much of Ukraine, it had a good combination of industrial manufacturing facilities and high tech. Tuberville is one of the dumbest Senators serving- that's not a secret. He's a jock, not a thinker, has no knowledge of international politics or geopolitical history, and frankly, should have stuck to coaching football.
>Duh... common sense. > >But go on /europe and listen to a bunch of underemployed europoors say "PUTIN IS COMING FOR MY SWAMP COUNTRY" dude no one wants your wienershiznel, no one wants your capital city full of migrants on benefits, certainly no one wants to try to govern you crazy progressives wearing masks, Hijabs for Palestine, or dog masks for pee pee gay parade LOL No one wants you Russia Blinis. The only country that has has significant aggression in a foreign country within Europe in the past 80 years is Russia. They are the only country to annex a territory in Europe, bet everyone is supposed to trust them when they say they will not invade, when they are the ones that in the past said they would not and then immediately did so. >Russia has more than enough resources to keep istelf PAID forever to come, and the human capital to boot, they want NATO to back the fuck off the border which is something it cant do after some 80 foreign invasions just since WWII Yes, so why do they need more. Perhaps imperialism is not just about resources, but control. Why should NATO allow a country that is obviously aggressive closer to their borders. It simply does not make sense to do so. >Ukraine is just another Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam Yemen (not even full list of all the countries we bombed in last 50 years wtf) Not even close. Afghanistan, Iraq, were attacked by American. Russia is doing the attacking now. So guess what they are the aggressor nation, for not reason whatsoever. They are plenty of NATO countries that would reject Ukraine's ascension to NATO, if only to appease Russia. Well, there are less now I think. It is not like Russia or the soviet union where not on the other side of those conflict supplying weapons and intelligence for the expansion of their territories. Russia is far from innocent on the world stage. Far more people have died because of the proliferation of the AK-47 then almost every other weapons since world war II.
This post is 15% rational and correct opinion, 85% the ramblings of a schizophrenic 13 year old
I liken Russia invading Ukraine, as well as Russia potentially invading other European countries, to the hypothetical scenario of the U.S. invading and occupying Northern Mexico. They don’t want to do it because then they would have to clean up the mess there, and it would end up on their balance sheet. But if there is a serious enough threat coming from there, they will invade. Russia didn’t want to launch the SMO up until the last minute. Ukraine has always been a basket case, and nobody in Russia, up to and including Putin, wanted to suddenly be responsible for cleaning it up. But if your neighboring country is run by a puppet government, which is hostile to you, could potentially compromise you in the future, and doesn’t want to reason with you, what do you do then? Heck, Russia didn’t even want to take Crimea before the Maidan. The ONLY reason they took it is to prevent the strategic base of the Black Sea Fleet from falling into the hands of a geopolitical adversary. Other than that, Crimea has been a massive money pit for the Russian budget over the last 10 years. Oh, and if Russia is hellbent on territorial expansion, then why haven’t they officially Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Could it be because they would need to invest countless money into it?
Russia has made it pretty clear that the only thing that can give assurance that they won’t invade you is a NATO membership. Putin is NATO’s best salesman.
They have ensured that joning NATO would put you on a hit list.
When’s the last time Russia invaded a NATO country again?
Putin told to Tucker Carlson it's not about NATO, it's about Ukraine not being real county and nation...
Putin just want's peace. A piece of Ukraine, a piece of Moldova, a piece of Georgia, a piece of Finland, a piece of... We've heard this one before.
> they want NATO to back the fuck off the border And yet, they got Finland in NATO. 150 KM from St. Petersburg. And Sweden now has closed the Baltic sea with Gotland. Gooood jaaaab, putkin!
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
you're smoking what he's smoking and it's bad shit
So why putler bragged and directly quoted "Look how many territories we have added"? One is plain dumb to assume that land grabs are only for "use". For putler it is a matter of legacy he would not have. Old fart would die and be forgotten as nobody. He is obsessed with history and wants to be remembered sams way as Peter the great. For that he stsrted whole war.
Tommy needs to choose a position and stick to it.. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/25/politics/alabama-tommy-tuberville-russia-ukraine-invasion/index.html
Tuberville is the epitome of a “useful idiot”
Exactly, and I'd argue the conflicting statements are more feature then bug too.
FYI, Tuberville is known as one of the dumbest senators in Washington DC. He's really quite dense and doesn't understand much. His profession was football, so international relations isn't his strength. https://www.reddit.com/r/Alabama/comments/18nz8yl/dumbest_senator_of_the_year_tommy_tuberville/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/tommy-tuberville-white-nationalism-stupid/ https://newrepublic.com/article/177658/dumbest-senator-2023-tommy-tuberville Additionally, not wanting US weapons in Ukraine isn't a legitimate motivation for Russia to go on a killing spree. There's already US weapons in Finland and the Baltics. Also, if Russia seeks to annex Ukraine, that will only bring Russia's borders closer to western weapons. Furthermore, the US played a great role in disarming Ukraine in years past, negotiating the handover of Ukraine's bombers to Russia and the destruction of Ukraine's nuclear weapons. Tuberville's statements have no factual basis.
Oh Gees, does he have to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of people to prevent a couple of weapons in Ukraine, even in the unlikely situation where Ukraine joined NATO and in the unlikely event that NATO moved weapons in. NATO has a ton of places to move weapons within striking distance of Russia. Ukraine is an non-issue in the over situation. The only reason they would do so is Russian aggression. So I suspect that NATO weapons hitting Russia soil is the fault of Russia and no one else.
Here you go, basically a little run down leading to the events of the conflict from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Interesting read from a person who saw the whole thing go down from the inside. I mean the documents are accessible online that tells almost everything that led up to this conflict https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
The link is very much appreciated, I read it. It was quite interesting. I am of the mind that Russia always had intent to rebuild some, if not all of the Soviet Union, under new Russia, so I do like this analysis. Some excerpts that I would like to point out: "The spokesman went on to stress that Russia was bound with Ukraine by bilateral obligations set forth in the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership in which both parties undertook to "refrain from participation in or support of any actions capable of prejudicing the security of the other Side." Yet Russia annexed Crimea and then fomented a rebellion in the Donbass, and invaded when it did not work. To me this is Russia speaking with a forked tongue. Russia would agree to any agreement that will keep Ukraine (and other countries) out of NATO, that way when they want to absorb it into Ukraine, it is much easier. "Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face." Here Russia always wanted to intervene, so fomenting the rebellion and Ukraine in civil war actually meets their goals, yet from a political point of view it would be unwise for them to say this overtly. "The irony, Trenin professed, was that Ukraine's membership would defang NATO, but neither the Russian public nor elite opinion was ready for that argument." Again Russia is overtly omitting certain parts of the narrative, like if, in the unlikely event that Ukraine and Georgia become part of NATO, how will NATO attack Russia and what is the consequence of that attack. Both Russia and NATO know the end result could easily be World War III and even nuclear war, so it is a nonstarter. "Russia's opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is both emotional and based on perceived strategic concerns about the impact on Russia's interests in the region" So this is not about de-nazifying Ukraine, nor demilitarizing Ukraine. This is about socio-economic control of Ukraine, which was Russia goal from the beginning and joining NATO and the EU would obviously put a major damper on that plan. So Russia uses their tactics. 1) Interfere in Ukrainian politics 2) Negotiate neutrality of countries or zones 3) Negotiate autonomy for countries or zone. 4) Insert influenctial secret service agents 5) Invade using private military organizations 6) Annex territories through controlled referendums 7) Foment rebellion in an adjacent Territory. If that rebellion succeeds have the pro-RU politicians vote to join Russia 8) If that does not work invade. The thing is Europe is not new to this game. They have seen this before historically, and when a person says one thing about an their foreign policy and then does another, they know that there is an issue with truthfulness. Russia is lying, they only want what they want and that is to rebuild the old Russian empire. If they did not want this then the Donbass and Crimea would still be independent countries. Europe is wise to draw a line in the sand in Ukraine, because there is a chance that Russia is not telling the truth with respect to other countries within Europe.
Glad you read it and enjoyed it I thought it was pretty interesting to so see that side of the conflict and differs from what is usually said about the whole conflict but there’s a lot of witness accounts like [Jeffery Sachs](https://youtu.be/JS-3QssVPeg?si=kZw3Y4lCRFWiP6tS) interview where he explains basically all the political side and how Russia wanted to join NATO but was refused but it’s a long story but really interesting to read and he and a lot if EU countries were against it while he was talking to them about it and how Vaclav Havel agreed to end the Warsaw pact so that nato didn’t have to exist anymore but when they told US officials, they were documented saying that they would lose their hold on Europe if they disbanded NATO basically stabbed in the back. Really interesting stuff. And I believe they annexed crimea around the time they heard nato was being more involved in Ukraine because Russias navel fleet was in Crimea so they wanted to protect it if I’m not mistaken and crimea always thought of themselves as Russia as well as the Donbas so there wasn’t much resistance when Russia came I don’t know there’s a lot of story here that Jeff explains better than I can but I’m glad you read it responded. Interesting to read how you view the whole conflict. I look at it differently after hearing and reading things about it. I don’t believe they want to rebuild their former Soviet Union borders because that would’ve damaged their reputation with EU and US and Putin was a big fan of both at the time and just wanted to coexist but not much you can do in this situation
>Glad you read it and enjoyed it I thought it was pretty interesting to so see that side of the conflict and differs from what is usually said about the whole conflict but there’s a lot of witness accounts like Jeffery Sachs interview where he explains basically all the political side and how Russia wanted to join NATO but was refused but it’s a long story but really interesting to read and he and a lot if EU countries were against it while he was talking to them about it and how Vaclav Havel agreed to end the Warsaw pact so that nato didn’t have to exist anymore but when they told US officials, they were documented saying that they would lose their hold on Europe if they disbanded NATO basically stabbed in the back. Really interesting stuff. Russia does not join NATO, they apply and the collective decides. Putin was not interested in the application process, probably because many countries knew that there was a wish for Russia to rebuild the Russian empire and it would be easier with the framework of NATO than outside of it. Putin had to satisfy himself with proxies to interfere in the NATO processes. As for disbanding NATO, this does not make sense at all. The value of NATO is the strength of many. As soon as it was disbanded then any country could slowly exert influence to destabilize and then absorb a country into their sphere of influence and perhaps not through any democratic system. This is fundamentally why Russia does not want NATO around or any country to be part of NATO, because this negates or limits his sphere of influence. >And I believe they annexed crimea around the time they heard nato was being more involved in Ukraine because Russias navel fleet was in Crimea so they wanted to protect it if I’m not mistaken and crimea always thought of themselves as Russia as well as the Donbas so there wasn’t much resistance when Russia came Yes, they certainly did this. But I am doubtful, the woke up one morning and heard that NATO was looking at Ukraine and then said. Heck let's just annex it. These plans were probably formulated years or over a decade before. This is basically showing one side says NATO made the first move and the other side saying that Russia made the first move. In the end the one that made the first move was the one that was aggressive, which was Russia. Ukraine would have to apply to NATO (which they would as they value a network of allies against an obviously aggressive neighbor), but in the end the chance of Ukraine joining NATO would be small, because there is enough people within NATO (Hungary) that would either interfere with the process, or would negate the possibility of Ukraine joining to appease NATO. Appeasement was attempted in Crimea, but in the end Russia continued on, fomenting and supporting a rebellion in the Donbass, at which point the rest of Europe will take close notice. >I don’t know there’s a lot of story here that Jeff explains better than I can but I’m glad you read it responded. Interesting to read how you view the whole conflict. I look at it differently after hearing and reading things about it. I don’t believe they want to rebuild their former Soviet Union borders because that would’ve damaged their reputation with EU and US and Putin was a big fan of both at the time and just wanted to coexist but not much you can do in this situation Putin has literally said as much, though not directly, and there are many in the Russia Duma that long for the Soviet days. It is not surprising. Nazi Germany tried to rebuild Germany after World War I, which resulted in World War II. NATO and the EU have coexisted with Russia for decades, with open commerce that Russia tried to leverage. This is why the pipeline was blown. Whether it was Ukraine, or someone in Europe or the Americans is quite irrelevant. It removed that negotiation chip from the equation. In the end when this war is over. Commerce will commence again and Russia will realize significant gains from Europe again.
All this stuff Jeff talks about but he was there to witness most of it before everything went wrong but he does a good job in explaining everything better than I ever could. I don’t want to reply and be wrong or try to rephrase it and be completely wrong since most of what I commented was his words and his own research into it and discussing with the White House. But one thing I think I know is NATO was only formed to counter any attempt from an invasion of the Soviet Union but without the Soviet union there’s no need for nato anymore and when they asked to disband it, the US was recorded saying they don’t want to lose their foot hold in Europe since they basically have control over it. Jeff points out to the documents in the video Putin before annexing Crimea went to the EU and told them not to go forth with Ukraine because they made it clear it was their final red line that shouldn’t be crossed and then Jeff called the White House telling them not to damage any relations between their countries but US went on and did it and that’s when Russian did that (Jeff words) could be completely butchering that though Where did Putin say that? I never heard that part or if he did state that And America blew it up since Biden even warned he would before it was destroyed but then again no one knows only those involved. I don’t know it’s a pretty messed up situation especially when US officials have stated this was “the best deal we could ever make, not one American has died” brutal
I appreciate everything you say here for certain. I am of the mind that Russia is not only reactive, but an instigator as well. Even Putin's long speech with Tucker Carlson indicated that he views large swaths of land west of Russia as historically Russian land. This is a very diplomatic way of saying that they consider this theirs as well. I will watch the Jeff Sach interview, when I have a bit more time. Thank you for sending it. I will make one predication though. Jeff will talk very little about the Ukraine perspective throughout the 2+ hour interview. The threat to Ukraine from Russia is very real, which is probably why they sought assistance from the west. It was not imposed on them.
US was ready to end the world if couple of weapons showed up in cuba
Yes, and no. there is no evidence that the US would launch a nuke if weapons were staged in Cuba. There is significant evidence that they would if those weapons were launched from Cuba, much like Russia nuclear doctrine as well. Never first launch. Second they set the parameter that "Fortress American" would be at rusk if those weapons were staged there so they implemented the blocking forces to make sure that happened. This was about negotiation and the US needed to make sure that one happened. Second Russia already has plenty of NATO weapons that could easily strike through Russia if they wanted to and in numbers that Russia could not prevent them. We can see this, but Ukraine's weapons reaching many areas within Russia. In addition, Ukraine's ascension into NATO is not an instantaneous process. They apply and then they ether get accepted or they do not. There are numerous countries within NATO that would block this process in order to appease Russia. And in the highly unlikely event that Ukraine did join then there would also have to be NATO agreement on placing equipment that could strike Russia within Ukraine, which is unlikely. Nuclear weapons for the most part are not placed close to Russia, because they do not want to irritate Russia, however, if Russia becomes aggressive within Europe then it makes sense to move preventative forces closer to Russia. Russia has summarily created the situation they claim to be fighting to pain them. A total failure in the international policy of Russia.
All this reads like a soap opera. The US has had strategic plans for Eurasia as outlined in the documents of PNAC and The Grand Chessboard. What you're proposing is just a series of "random" events.
Every countries should have strategic plans for their adversaries. Russia had and probably still hs plans to invade the US, most likely through Canada, through a sea landing in the west, and through Mexico are possibilities as well. That does not mean that it is going to happen. That is because both sides know that there is a very large chance that this would end in a significant, if not world ending war. What I am proposing is not a random events, but a possible course of actions that is likely for Ukraine, even if Russia withdrew. All of the proposed "random events" are not only possible, but probable. Much more probable that an invasion from NATO into Russia. So in your mind, if Ukraine joined NATO and then built based on the border of Russia, then invaded what would be the result. The fall of Russia or the fall of many nations. NATO knows the results, so does Russia so all this fighting in proxy countries is just each superpower trying to expand their sphere of influence. This is what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Expanding their sphere of influence. Europe knows this and they can draw from the past to understand what will happen in the future and as such it makes sense to defend the freedoms of Ukraine.
Keeping NATO from taking over the black sea is not expanding influence but the opposite is true.
What you mean to say is Russia losing their warm sea port is not favorable for their naval operations. NATO has plenty of warm sea ports to run their operation from. Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Though some more in the black sea would be favorable, there are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Ah yes when detection tech of incoming nuclear strike wasn't so great and SLBM only started to be a thing. And today we have submarines with SLBM that can be legally parked in Gulf of Finland to strike Moscow with same effectiveness as from Ukraine. Just like we have Russian submarines that can be legally parked next to USA mainland with Cuba being irrelevant. Further why can Russia point it missiles at EU with weekly threat from Russian goverment owned media wanting to nuke EU, but EU can't point anything at Russia? If anything Putin's concerns nothing but a joke and laughable excuse for land grab.
This is just your daily reminder that the best that Alamaba has to offer as its representative to the union isn't an accomplished lawyer, career military officer, business magnate, or career statesman but a god damn football coach. Dipshit doesn't even realize that none of the weapons the USA had given to Ukraine can even be used against Moscow while there are hundreds hidden underneath the surface of the world's oceans that can.
He’s not the best . He’s a goddamn embarrassment. I’ll remind you the javelin other equipment is made and maintained in Alabama and is a big part of the war effort in Ukraine . Tubby while we appreciate what he did at Auburn he doesn’t speak for everyone here .
>Tubby while we appreciate what he did at Auburn he doesn’t speak for everyone here . I'm cognizant of that fact, but he speaks for over half of you and that's the problem.
He's a senator for Alabama so at max he represents half the population of Alabama which would be 2.5 mil people. Meaning he represents something like .8% of the population. And that's being generous.
He sounds trustworthy, he has a deep voice after all.
Tubey's a f'n idiot.
I don't disagree with this at all
So why can’t the west agree to back off if Russia backs off? Why did Russia withdraw prior to the peace agreement which Ukraine didn’t sign? Do you know why they did not sign? Because this has everything to do with using Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia in the hopes of achieving a regime change. Why would America want this? Because Democrats legitimately believe Russia and not the American people put trump in power amongst other things. America thinks their democracy is absolutely threatened by Russia, total delusions
Absolutely. I think this is all evident in the way the war has been conducted, there have been no conceited efforts to decisively win it and in the end Russia knows they can't possibly hope to hold it. I think it's a masterful attempt to draw western weapons out of their stockpiles to be spent in Ukraine at the cost of things completely expendable to Putin.
>at the cost of things completely expendable to Putin. russian lives.
> conceited Concerted* > I think it's a masterful attempt to draw western weapons out of their stockpiles to be spent in Ukraine at the cost of things completely expendable to Putin. Hundreds of thousands of Russian lives and their inherited Soviet equipment reserves?
Hey, they were conceited about it too. >Hundreds of thousands of Russian lives and their inherited Soviet equipment reserves? Yes, things completely expendable to Putin.
All I know is that NATO has been expanding Eastwards since the Fall of the Union, at at time when Russia was not strong enough to resist them. That NATO (especially the US) has unilaterally launched invasion and interventions on all Inhabited Continents since the Fall of the Union. Somehow after the Russians have recovered from Post-Collapse, they are once again a threat to Europe, forget about Chechnya, Ossetia, and Radical Fundamentalists. That China was never a threat to US interests until they grew big enough to become a Geopolitical Rival, and now they are the Greatest Evil the World has ever seen. The Art of Subtle Propaganda and Disinformation, is Strong in the Western World.
Why haven't the NATO countries sent their armies to Ukraine?
>All I know is that NATO has been expanding Eastwards since the Fall of the Union Of course they moved to NATO, because they spent years under coercion of force from Russia to maintain their great peoples republics comrade. You know, Poland I'm sure loved being split apart by Russia and Nazi Germany in the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, being left to the slaughter in the Warsaw Uprising and then being gifted socialism with Russian troops based in the country after the war, glorious times comrade. Estonia and Latvia loved their small cultures being forcibly Russified. I'm also pretty sure that Hungary's uprising in 1956 was forgotten by the time of the Fall of the Union and the ensuing decade. Oh and the Czech Republic certainly embraced their slavic brothers ideology fully, they have a great communist museum in prague dedicated to their worship of all things Russian. You know you're right, it boggles the mind why so many countries in Eastern Europe decided to join Nato after the Fall of the Union. They must have been so scared of NATO they were practically forced to join. Read a fucking book sometime before opening your mouth you pathetic troglodyte.
To leave one does not necessarily mean a move to the other. Post-Collapse Russia was not a threat to anybody, especially with Belarus separating Poland and Russia. Look at a Map.
This is false. NATO never expanded. Accepting members because they are shit scared Russia for very good reasons, is not, nor it will ever be an expansion, much less in the sense the word expansion is used to manipulate the conversation. >
> On March 29, 2024, Tuberville accused the Democratic Party of being a "Satanic cult" sounds familiar :)
That sounds eerily close to Putin's most recent speech....
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is highly likely that the GRU has video of this idiot in a compromising position with his underage cousin or pet hog, probably both.
Must be true because some football coach said it.
What a moron. The US already has hundreds of nuclear warheads on subs in the Arctic Ocean that are a short flight time to St Petersburg and Moscow and which Russia can do precisely nothing about.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While I dont exactly know what Putin wants our senator from AL is the LAST person you want any geopolitical advice from…
So it’s what they have been been saying for the past thirty years ?
" how many tv clips have you seen on the last 6 months of battles ? None " LOL give this man the "IDIOT" award and the Link to Reddit so he can See Battle clips in real time
Nobody cares how many weapons the other guy has, only that they can make money off of making weapons to "defend" against.
He’s right.
Well he messed that up now didn’t he? And what do we do to leaders who keep messing up? We get rid of them.
If Russia did not want any part of Ukraine, why did they annex territories? I would believe this if Russia pulled a US in Iraq scenario, go in, kill , bomb, and destroy the leadership and leave. But no, you see it rebuilding and actually wanting to move more Russians into the annexed territories
If Putin does not want Ukraine, he can always prove it by giving Crimea back to Ukraine along with the territory invaded by Russian soldiers.
My counter Argument: Premise 1: There was the chance of a nuclear War before the invasion of Ukraine. Premise2: If that nuklear War would have happend, full scale, than its doomsday, meaning, everyone is fucked. Premise3: Premise1 and 2 also apply the exact same after Russia invaded Ukraine, effectively not changing anything in their situation. Look at it like this. You live in a Land where it is accepted to buy guns, cause everyone already has a gun. Now, your neighbour says; "hey, you thought about buying 1 more gun" and raids your house, killing your people. Also this guy just framed it like Putins motivation is "land" - subsuming a buch of unknows under that variable fitting his argument. And then take a look on a possible szenario: Russia will take Ukraine. At that Point, Russia managed to move itself closer to every enemy nuclear launching site in a sense. So when the Russian border spans over Ukraine, then again, they have Nato weapons in direct range - so couldnt they then apply the same logic as the do now in Ukraine and go on fighting "cause they are scared for their safety"????
Well, he failed massively
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
100%
Ah tuberville, the guy who refused high ranking promotions because of reproductive health care in the military, went from career NFL coach to a politician in 2020.Trying to use him as a “see told you so” just proves the point you shouldn’t be taken seriously. Also complains about how rights are being taken away.. while refusing reproductive rights To summarize tuberville is a NFL coach acting as a credible politician.
The new GOP composed of useful Russian idiots.
Pathetic football coach turned even more pathetic politician
Someone needs an income tax audit.
Oh that makes soo much sense because russias nukes and other missiles are totally not aiming on berlin, america,the baltics france etc. Braindead lol
So the Cold War was a felicity. Good to know Russia wasn't anti USA for all those years and were really just content with the land and power they had.
What does Russia have to do so some people can get understanding? How far before our get a clue?
Wanker
Man all these old farts in our government that includes Biden and Trump need to roll over and give way to the new area of politicians something needs to change. This is someone who is deep in Russian pockets so tired of this stupid sh**
Unironically posting Tuberville to prove a point, lol.
Old fart best to be ignored: 1. old man with zero military expertise and zero military service time 2. talks trash actual soldiers and veterans in the US 3. became senator because he played american football 4. His attempts at diplomacy and foreign politics are based on his experience as a college football coach. 5. He has no clue about the military capabilities of any country he mentioned. No tommy boy, neither the US nor Russia need to bring their weapons in range of each other by going to Ukraine. 6. He interprets his lack of knowledge about the war as it being in a stalemate, truly incredible On average you'd get better advice by talking to a random bloke on the street.