Putin goes on to say
”Our proposal is not to freeze the conflict, like how the west wants it, but to end it. I repeat, this is not to freeze the conflict, but for its final completion.”
Putin goes on to say
”Our proposal is not to freeze the conflict, like how the west wants it, but to end it. I repeat, this is not to freeze the conflict, but for its final completion.”
Including more history is not to Putin’s credit.
You uh
You wanna expand on that or are you going to pretend you got an epic mic drop own
Because I have no fucking clue what you’re trying to say
No mic drop intended, just replying fast to a few people.
I guess before I figure out which way to expand on it I need a baseline, do you believe history will look fondly on Putin?
No, I don’t. He represents the worst of the collapse of the Soviet Union. He runs a staunchly conservative, queerphobic nation that’s put a number of my friends in real material danger simply for existing, and they can scarcely tell me about it because of how tightly the state cracks down on that
How history will view him depends on how the war shakes out and who you’re asking and why. He’s been a leader - or around the reins of power - for a very long time, and I don’t see him as innocent or blameless in the events that bring us to the invasion. This was a collision thirty odd years in the making, and Great Man Theory fucking sucks as an analysis of history
This doesn’t just have to do with Putin, there is no reality where any Russian president would accept Ukraine joining NATO. That has been clear since the fall of the Soviet Union.
true, Russia could have elected Karl Marx or Jesus Christ or Taylor Swift as president and they would still have responded to american provocation in similar ways. Putin is a conservative, homophobic oligarch, but just about anyone else in that position would have responded similarly to the threat of NATO nukes on their border and nazis ethnically cleansing speakers of their language. If Mexico decided to join BRICS and host Chinese nukes and militias started massacring english-speakers and anyone with american citizenship or ancestry, we would go full Iraq Invasion style and turn the entire country into rubble and irradiated craters and corpses, meanwhile Russia waited like 2 years after invading to even start targeting the electrical grid and other infrastructure.
I’m not great at geography, so when I recently saw a map that showed how some of the Western missiles could reach Moscow from Ukrainian territory…that was when it really hit me how Ukraine potentially joining NATO is basically the Cuban missile crisis except much worse for Russia. Yeah, make fun of me all you want for not taking the time to really look at a map.
yea i’ve had people be like ‘we can hit them with nukes from anywhere why does ukraine matter’ but like having 20 or 30 minutes to detect an incoming ICBM from the ocean (to maybe shoot it down/knock it off course or get everyone into bunkers to launch your own counterattack) is a much better situation in terms of deterrence than having 5 minutes to maybe detect a launch from concealed/rough terrain and have just enough time to let everyone in the nuclear command center/capital city know they are going to die (missile nerds correct me if i’m oversimplifying, ICBMs at long range need to reach near-orbit heights in their flights whereas closer range missiles can be launched to fly somewhat closer to the ground in ways harder to detect with radar or intercept with missiles of your own)
I think it also has to do with Ukraine being the perfect pathway for a land invasion as well.
Whether or not any Russian president would have accepted it doesn’t justify invading another country with the intent of claiming the land as their own, nor does it make them any less of the aggressor.
You seem to be giving a green light to invade to every NATO-aligned state, including Ukraine. But hey, prove me wrong and tell us how every state that invaded, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan should answer for their crimes.
But no, if the gang of states that keep invading everywhere around the world and killing millions are encroaching on your borders after promising to not expand towards you, you have a reason to act against them.
Also, care to tell us what makes you qualified to tell the rest of the world how it should resist you?
Turns out that diplomacy doesn’t work like “we are the USA and we will dictate the terms always and forever”, it was only a matter of time before someone put their foot down.
That’s not a moral judgement, that’s just how shit happens.
I’m sure you’re referring to what happened with Crimea after Euromaidan, but real quick… What was Euromaidan and how come the US state department could decide who should run Ukraine? And why exactly is it so hard to believe that regions of Ukraine with a majority of ethnic Russians would vote to become part of Russia, rather than a country whose government was installed by Nazis that publicly stated they wanted to get rid of ethnic Russians in Ukraine?
Should we go further back? Back to when NATO pledged to Yeltsin not to expand further towards Russia? Or in 00’s when Russia was rejected from NATO membership (having applied after NATO expanded further towards Russia despite previous pledges).
lol. lmao
😝
Including more history is not justification but to explain why things happen. Wtf is wrong with liberals?
It’s like explaining to a child how babies are made and they go “no actually babies just appear out of nowhere” lmao