67
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 14 Feb 2024
67 points (76.0% liked)
World News
32089 readers
985 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
I think that question requires about 8 years of ignored context to be valid?
If Trudeau has spent billions of dollars and half a million Canadian lives attempting to invade a smaller country, and Democrats were the only thing standing in his way...... Yeah, I would say he's pushing for trump.
That's not even mentioning the election interference.... Or the fact that Trump is basically screaming that he'd destroy NATO if given the chance. You know, Russia's proclaimed casus belli of the war.
Russia's Casus Belli is 2 fold, and I cannot speak to what one is the stronger motivator, though I can speculate, I will refrain from doing so here, One is a military aliance with the Express Purpos of destroying the ~~USSR~~ Russia at any cost, that has both denied the USSR & Russia Entry (I add this so no one can deny my previous point) on many occasions and denied its repeated promise not to expand past Germany, to be frank NATO has vastly outlived its usefulness and purpous, and is going to be on its way our with our without trump, The United States Intrests no longer lie with Europe as heavily. The second reason for the war, and the stated one was the ongoing genocide of the Russian Speaking population in the dunbas region (now a part of Russia), and the flagrent violation of the Minsk agreements, that Ukraine had been carrying out sense 2014.
Democrats standing in Russias way? Russia has effectivly won the war, the onlything happening now is the US is telling their puppet of Ukraine to not sign the peace treaty, or any cese fire agreements, while draining the wests arsonals, Privitizing Ukraine at breakneck pase, and causing senseless loss of life in Ukraine. From the first week the Russian Federation offered a Peace Treaty, and about twice a month after that either a peace treaty or cese fire,to end the killing, the Dems are not "standing in the way" they are activly prolonging the war sure but the war is over in all but treaty.
Also last I remember, the aleged 2020 and 2016 election interfearence, came up as inconclusive, I understand my memory may be faulty, and it was a heavily pushed narritive, but at the end of the day not only is saying that unproductive because it does not let us look at ourselves in the mirror and see how we caused Trump to hapen (well as much as we could with him loosing the popular vote) but agian, if my memory serves, it being incorrect.
Look what I am trying to say is that this fraiming and spinn is disingenuous, I understand, and could belive that it is in Russia's best intrest for Trump to be elected president, however I feel as though using this as evidence is more of a hinderance to that argument than a bost. The argument you laied out, in absence of his statement is more compelling than with his statment. I understand this is forign politics and not everything is always taken at face value, but that being said, this argument of "Putin said X so he means Y" is not as effective as you think it is.
How does a defensive pact = the express purpose of destroying the USSR/Russia?
If it indeed was made expressly to destroy the USSR, why would the USSR attempt to join it? You are either misrepresenting the inherent purpose of NATO, or you are claiming the USSR wanted to invade the USSR in the 50s.
The same cognitive dissonance is apparent in your claim about Russia. If NATO was built to destroy the USSR and Russia "at any cost", why did NATO create the Nato-Russia Council, why did the Russians join it? Why were we doing joint military exercises in the early 00s? None of these activities are ones you would participate in with your mortal enemy......
I feel this is more wishfull thinking than anything a kin to a factual statement.
You mean the one that has never been substantiated?
"Following the invasion, Ukraine brought a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to challenge Russia's accusation. During the proceedings of Ukraine v. Russian Federation, the ICJ said it had found no evidence of genocide. The International Association of Genocide Scholars also rejected Russia's accusation.[2] Further reports by 30 legal and genocide scholars warned that Russia's accusations are part of the "accusation in a mirror" technique, ultimately revealing the Russian incitement to commit genocide against Ukrainians.[3]"
They've lost nearly half a million people and generations of weapon stockpiles, and have wrecked any kind of economic future outside a war time economy. In the meanwhile NATO has expanded even further, and is closer to Moscow than ever before. Can they really call that a win?
I kind of think it's hilarious that you would blame the West for the deaths of Ukrainians, but not Russia? Are you claiming Ukrainians lack the agency to decide wether they want to defend their country? Or are you claiming the Russians lack the ability to keep their hands to themselves?
"Deputy Kremlin Chief of Staff Dmitry Kozak said in 2022 that he had negotiated an agreement with Ukraine within a few days of the invasion.[37] This settlement would have ended hostilities in exchange for guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO. The agreement was however blocked by Putin, who "expanded his objectives to include annexing swathes of Ukrainian territory""
No, there was plenty of evidence that Russia made efforts to interfere in the election in the fovour of the trump administration. The inconclusive part was how involved the trump campaign was.
Based on your spin and framing of other current events, I think this claim is disingenuous and hypocritical.
I didn't appeal to it as evidence, I appealed to the surrounding context which highly suggest Vladimir Putin is lying through his teeth.
Can you quote where I made that claim?
What I'm trying to say is that global politics is a complex landscape, and the false dichotomy of NATO bad = Russia good is foolish. I've heard the myopic arguments, that anyone fighting the hegemony is morally valid. That Russian attempts of expansion isn't imperialism or colonialism, despite Russia being a western capitalist nation run by a powerful oligarchy growing rich by stealing from "state owned" resources.... Nope they're just defending themselves by attacking their neighbor.