99
submitted 4 weeks ago by jackeroni@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 weeks ago

There's no evidence of this, though. Scaremongering about Russia taking Paris and whatnot has no economic backing. Russia has been clear about why it invaded Ukraine, it wants to demillitarize it as it was cozying up to NATO, and NATO has been encircling Russia for decades. If NATO didn't exist, there would be no reason for the Russo-Ukrainian war to begin with, as Russia doesn't stand to gain much, if anything, economically.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

How many of their NATO neighbors have they attacked vs their non-NATO neighbors? There's a reason countries want to join it lol

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 weeks ago

Why do you think Russia invaded Ukraine? Like, what is their primary goal. The impetus that drove them to approve the invasion.

Secondly, what do you think the functioning role of NATO is?

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

They wanted to prevent them from joining because they couldn't bully them if they managed to join. I think that answers for both.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 weeks ago

So the underlying, material reason for why you think Russia invaded Ukraine, was because they wanted to "bully" Ukraine? And that NATO is just an international "anti-bullying" alliance? No, lmao.

NATO is an alliance of imperialist nations. They band together, agreeing to each exploit their own corner. The biggest players are the US Empire, as well as the former hegemons Germany, the UK, and France. The other NATO members play along so that they can ride along on this system of monopoly capitalism expropriating vast wealth from South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and more. If countries go against NATO desires economically, they get bombed, like Yugoslavia, Libya, etc.

NATO promised Gorbachev that they wouldn't expand eastward, decades ago. This is because originally, NATO was an anti-communist alliance. However, with the fall of the USSR, the west needed a new enemy, so they stuck with Russia even after Russia tried to join NATO. With NATO building up in Ukraine, following the Euromaidan coup of 2014 cementing the Ukrainian Nationalists as the leaders of Ukraine, and their relentless shelling of the donbass region, Russia invaded as it didn't feel like it wanted a belligerent neighbor, and decided to take pre-emptive action.

The entire invasion never would have happened without NATO.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz -1 points 4 weeks ago

You've quite rudely ignored my question even though I promptly answered yours.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 weeks ago

Because it doesn't matter. Russia hasn't attacked NATO countries, sure. Unless you're saying western imperialism is a good thing, and that it was correct to encircle and reject Russia's attempts to join NATO. You're JAQing off.

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz -1 points 4 weeks ago

It doesn't matter that Russia hasn't attacked NATO countries but it has and currently is attacking non-NATO countries? Interesting take

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

It only makes sense if your conclusion is that, genetically, Russians just love attacking people. If you ignore the real, materialist explanation for events and substitute it with a deliberate refusal to acknowledge the actual causes, then you're only left with racism. Earlier, your only reason was "bullying," so if you really do believe it's a genetic thing then that checks out.

I'd love you to prove me wrong about that, though.

[-] for_some_delta@beehaw.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

I acknowledge the argument NATO is encircling Russia. To what extent does Ukraine differ from other actions by Russia such as Georgia in 2008? Which sorts of actions are not resistance to NATO encircling?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

Ukraine is an interesting case, due to the Euromaidan coup in 2014 leading to the nationalists taking control. Prior to Euromaidan, relations with Russia weren't so bad, actually.

[-] for_some_delta@beehaw.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

My understanding of Euromaidan is likely tainted, but wasn't that a Ukrainian alignment to the European Union and not NATO? Aligning to the European Union would still be a move away from Russian influence.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

It was generally a pro-western coup. You can't really disentangle the EU from NATO from the US along clean lines, they have lots of overlap. NATO, in 2021, affirmed its plans of further integrating Ukraine.

Really, Euromaidan was sparked by Yanukovych pivoting away from the more predatory IMF loan offer to the less predatory Russian loan offer. Indeed, the loan from Russia had better terms, the IMF loan would have forced Ukraine to slash their healthcare and education budgets, and stop subsidies in natural gas (which kept energy prices low) as part of the loan terms.

[-] uuldika@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago

yeah, they could have been like Belarus!

[-] zakobjoa@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

This thing that keeps happening to a lot of the countries around Russia that are not in NATO? Completely wouldn't happen if no one was in NATO.

Sure.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

If NATO didn’t exist, there would be no reason for the Russo-Ukrainian war to begin with, as Russia doesn’t stand to gain much, if anything, economically.

What reason do you think is behind the war?

this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
99 points (68.3% liked)

Memes

51705 readers
1991 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS