452
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
452 points (97.9% liked)
World News
32352 readers
865 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
NATO is a hostile military alliance formed for the sole purpose of destroying the Soviet Union. It did not go away when that purpose was achieved, but continued to creep closer to the USSR's main successor state despite assurances that it would not. In this post-USSR period it has undertaken multiple purely offensive actions (the former Yugoslavia and Libya come to mind). It also invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, despite none of the hijackers being from Afghanistan, and despite the Afghan government offering to turn over bin Laden. Then you have the puppetmaster of NATO invading Iraq on completely false pretenses, and generally running a wide-ranging assassination program all over the world.
I wouldn't want NATO near me, either.
Somehow it doesn't currently seem like it was achieved.
If you think the Russian Federation and the USSR are remotely comparable, you're smoking crack. NATO won, and the depraved, neoliberal regime it replaced the USSR with is its own God damned fault.
I don't think USSR became what anyone in the west wanted it to become. It's nowhere near neoliberal, for one, more like a mafia state.
Oh no, I don't. The Russian Federation is much worse. Just saying that we didn't really "destroy" them in the same way as, for instance, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan was destroyed in WW2.
Who is Yeltsin?
Technically it quickly became something closer to classically liberal rather than neoliberal (as the imperial core shunned it) but to claim that liberalism is opposed to mafiosi is hilarious, it has never existed without them. It's like saying liberalism is opposed to slavery, there is some vacuous sense in which you could use sophistry to push that angle, but when you look at real, historic manifestations of liberal states, they are heavily economically reliant on various forms of slavery, whether domestic or via their dogs in the third world.
Lmao what?
What nations are allowed to have their own interests, and act to secure those interests? Is that something only for the U.S. and (when the U.S. allows it) its allies? Or is it possible that some countries have legitimate interests that conflict with the U.S.?
Is Ukraine allowed that?
Legitimate national interests don't include attacking ethnic minorities, which is a major cause of the current war dating back to the early 2010s.
There's also a question of what "national interest" means when the U.S. coups your elected government, as it did to Ukraine in 2014.
Does there exist proof that it was a US coup?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
I don't know, why don't you ask the Americans who replaced their government for them?