Curious
Curious
Comments
171-
-
Was expecting a lot of ml / ca rage. Was not disappointet.
-
ml, stand for marxist leninist I guess. But what does ca mean ?
-
I don’t know, but saw a lot of tankie stuff from lemmy.ca lately.
-
I believe Canada.
-
Perhaps it's communist apologist? It's hard to tell with these people they have so many weird in jokes and references, rather like Nazis and their special numbers
-
-
I'm from Eastern Europe and not even the hardcore communists here are in favour of Russia's war of aggression. In fact, the only ones in support of closer ties with a nation that has consistently fucked us over are the neo-nazis who want communion with the Russian Orthodox Church.
It's mental to see anyone on the left supporting Russia.
-
They believe a lot of what they hear about Russia is propaganda and not true. Oh boy would they get shocked if they actually got what they ask for. You would turn out that all of the propaganda was in fact reality, too often do those two things get confused.
Sometimes they will even go to Russia expecting a warm welcome and they get stuck on the front line and you never hear from them ever again.
-
-
Its funny seeing solarpunk users ideologically 180 as soon as russia comes up.
-
-
The cognitive dissonace hits hard on this one, how dare you join a defensive pact!
-
They assert it is not a defensive pact, and that NATO will come for them as soon as they are powerful enough.
Sadly, that's not really something that can be disproven, so it's great propaganda.
-
Lack of evidence isn't evidence.
-
that's not really something that can be disproven
People treated Russia as a superpower. They fucked up so bad they got successfully counter invaded by the country they were invading. They don't have 5th Gen fighters and they can't produce modern tanks. They're refitting older tanks and giving troops fucking golf carts. They've depleted a ton of soviet stock and their air defense can't even keep their oil infrastructure from exploding once a week. Prigozin nearly marched directly to Moscow with no resistance.
If NATO was planning to invade, they now factually know that Russia is a paper tiger and could take Moscow in days.
Also if NATO somehow forced putin to annihilate his own armor stocks and troops, then they are doing 5,000 iq illuminati bullshit and there's nothing to be done anyway. I tag those people as NATO propagandists because they're bigger western chauvinists than they even wish I was lol.
-
Indeed, it's not something that can be disproven, as in it's nonsense that shouldn't be entertained in rational discourse.
-
NATO is definitely taking its time then, it's been around since 1949. Also the strategy of not ramping up military production until after your enemy attacks a neighbouring country, for the second time, seems like a risky one.
-
-
Ask Yugoslavia how "defensive" Nato is.
-
NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region. Yugoslavia's actions had already provoked condemnation by international organisations and agencies such as the UN, NATO, and various INGOs.
Are we talking about this?
-
Do you mean Serbia, or are you just confused in general about things?
-
-
-
On 21 December 1991, Boris Yeltsin, President of Russia, sent a letter to NATO asking it to consider accepting Russia as a member of the alliance sometime in the future. In the letter to NATO, Yeltsin stated, "This would contribute to an atmosphere of mutual understanding and trust and would strengthen stability and cooperation on the European continent. We regard this relationship as serious and wish to develop this dialog on all fronts, both on the political and military levels. Today we raise the issue of Russia's membership in NATO, however, we see this as a long-term political goal".
Then, a bunch of stuff happened and both sides realized it was advantageous to not have Russia in NATO. Turns out it's easier to win elections when there's a cold war going on. You can read about it here.
-
Including Russia in the military alliance meant to safeguard others from Russian aggression seems wild. I know things were very different in 1991 and there were hopes that Russia would become like Western European countries, but it just feels like it would've made NATO pointless and not in the good sense of it not being needed anymore.
-
Russia wasn't exactly a bastion of stability at that era, especially as Shock Therapy economics absolutely destroyed the country.
Additionally, all these other countries that wanted into NATO vehemently hated Russia for years of occupation. They'd probably have been far more hesitant to join if Russia was in there.
Not saying there wasn't malice on the side of the West, but at no point in NATO's existence had inviting Russia into the fold made any strategic sense.
-
at no point in NATO’s existence had inviting Russia into the fold made any strategic sense.
Nato after 1991 also didn't make strategic sense with a crumbled Russia.
What about all other countries not being part of a strong military alliance? Why do only the most prosperous and strong countries feel threatened?
Either dissolving Nato or inviting Russia would have created the opportunity to fully implement the idea of the UN and leave conflicts behind.
The problem is that we also have Capitalism. The UN doesn't limit the power of billionaires. That's fine within the West but the Russians must have objected to being treated like any weak economy. This should be the actual reason why Russia is not part of Nato.
-
-
Well, off course. Its about trillions of dollars in weapons and arms selling to the allies. Peace is not that profitable. Who would be the bad guy now, if Russia had joined NATO?
Also in 1992 there was the Wolfowitz Doctrine, a U.S. defense policy document, which laid out America’s grand strategy post Soviet Union, describing how the U.S. will maintain global dominance. The CHINA, CHINA, CHINA (with Trumps voice), is now a "problem" to that Doctrine, and the U.S. is trying to control the damage.
I don't say that Russia was the innocent victim, but this is how the game is played in that level. Were Russia in the place of the USA, they would have made the same move.
-
I'd imagine Russia would still act like the dickbags they always have but now they'd be inside the military alliance that was supposed to defend against Russian aggression.
Or they could be a totally normal and peaceful liberal democracy. But for me it's jushard to imagine that being the likely outcome
-
-
-
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
-
Are you seriously suggesting it was the CIA's fault that Yanukovych was removed from power?
Motherfucker stole billions, killed hundreds of protesters, and committed high treason by conspiring to use the Russian military to quell dissent.
If the CIA helped that's fine, people like that should not be in power.
-
-
Damn if only people in Moscow had considered joining NATO, oh wait they did, I'm sure Ukraine will join any day now don't worry, ukraine uber alles and all that, how good is imperialism, heck yeh
-
The people in Moscow have other more pressing issues inside their country that needs fixing before concerning themselves with external alliances.
No other country was accepted into NATO while in the state that Russia is in right now.
-
Nice stroke you had there
-
If only they tried to join in good faith...
-
Assuming they were sincere about it, it probably wouldn't have lasted. The way they maintain and assert authority over autonomous regions would've had to change from stamping out separatist movements to more diplomatic and democratic solutions.
Though it might've reduced the rampant corruption we saw after the dissolution of the Soviet Union that moved Russian military hardware into warzones at the time.
-
-
-
I'm in no way on Russias side here but there have definitely been plans to provoke them: e.g. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
-
Provoke into what exactly? Joining NATO or EU? Polls before the Russian annexation of Crimea showed most Ukrainians want to join EU, not NATO. These two are separate and distinct entities. As expected with the Russians, they think EU and NATO are one and the same. Truth of the matter is that Russians are first and foremost nationalist and whatever second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism. For the Russians, it's "either you're with us, or against us" mentality.
The Russians have always been chauvinists who believe they deserve a piece of the pie as a global power, regardless of whoever rules in Kremlin. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the imprisoned dissident and the West' poster boy of the brutality of Soviet regime, was also an ultranationalist who believe in Russian superiority despite being against Soviet rule. Alexei Navalny, who was Putin's late main opponent, was also approving of annexing Crimea and hinted at being approving of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Navalny's wife framed the war in Ukraine as akin to a civil war, the same framing that Putin used to say that Ukraine's independence was illegal and always belonged to Russia.
It goes to show that despite internal factionalism among Russian elites, they all still agree that Russia is a country on its own and don't need anyone but themselves. And any neighbouring country who tries to align away from them will be punished.
-
Alexei Navalny, who was Putin's late main opponent, was also approving of annexing Crimea and hinted at being approving of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
That's a series of misunderstandings and thesises by Russian propaganda. In the end, he didn't approve of annexation and invasions. From what I remember he only hinted at the difficulty of solving the issue of Crimea in future. Even if you find specific posts or reactions from him that suggest supporting what Russia did, they are not explained enough to be sure and those interpretations have been denied by himself in later interviews and posts.
I've listened to him for years. I believe that it's impossible for him to approve Russian expansion already because of what he consistently suggested: Russia needs to think of its problems within first, and when it comes to international relations it should be good friends with Europe. In no universe he could think that violent invasions or annexations or wars would contribute to that. And I don't find him to be any kind of supremacist. He explained a lot of issues with Russia and wanted to solve them.
-
These two are separate and distinct entities. As expected with the Russians, they think EU and NATO are one and the same.
Umm... no, that's not true.
You don't have to like Russia and/or Putin. I certainly don't. But these kinds of stupid accusations wont help you understand politics.
-
-
That's a think tank research on what could be done and what the effects would be rather than a plan
-
Woke liberal gay propaganda, obviously.
Well, I see nothing gay in joining a military alliance. More like propaganda where the true benefactor is Aipac.
I'd say the true benefactor is whichever country now has the protection of the military alliance