Or NATO was going to install nuclear launch sites next door to Russia. But if you gloss over that fact then yes, Russia bad.
Analogy: Mexico lets a US adversary install nuclear launch sites just south of the USA border. How do we think that would go? Mexico would be the pawn.
What’s happening in Ukraine is a result of USA/EU actions, and Ukraine not being smart enough to pick up a history book and see how the USA uses poor countries as fodder. They must be shoveling mass money and cocaine at Zelensky. It’s all literally a case of “well well, the consequences of our actions.” The USA just wants resources and nuclear launch sites.
Russia doesn’t really give a shit about Nazism in Ukraine
they certainly do. But America has trouble relating because we were all cushy and safe over here while Russia was ratfucked by Nazi Germany. Russians still know the songs about the Great Patriotic War.
Or NATO was going to install nuclear launch sites next door to Russia. But if you gloss over that fact then yes, Russia bad.
Why? What’s the difference of having launch sites in kieve compared to having launch sites in Germany, or even on a submarine in the artic circle? It’s not the 60’s anymore, we already have more than enough capacity to Russia if it came to nuclear war.
Ukraine not being smart enough to pick up a history book and see how the USA uses poor countries as fodder.
Yeah, because historically it’s been America who’s done horrible things in their country? Has the US used and abused it’s allies? Of course, just go ask the ask the Kurds. But it’s ignorant to believe that Russia hasn’t practiced their own form of militant imperialism. Militant imperialism that has and is still personally effecting their country.
The USA just wants resources and nuclear launch sites.
Yes, we are super desperate for …sunflower oil and wheat?
Where did this insane theory about nuclear launch sites come from? America hasn’t expanded launch sites since 87’. If NATO was wanting more sites, don’t you think they would have put some in Poland by now?
they certainly do. But America has trouble relating because we were all cushy and safe over here while Russia was ratfucked by Nazi Germany.
Lol, yeah… Putin hates Nazis, which is why they have a pmc named Wagner, whos previous co founder was a self confessed neo nazi.
Nazism is a problem everywhere in the post Soviet eastern block, including Russia. While the soviets were in power they strictly banned nazi imagery, for obvious reasons. When Gorbachev loosened state control over media and other censorship laws, the swastika became an anti state and anti communist symbol.
This was often adopted by criminal organization in and around the Soviet block. These same criminal organizations had the capital to buy up state controlled companies as the soviets auctioned off state companies to private interes, becoming some of the oligarchy now controlling the Russian state.
they don’t launch missiles from dedicated launch sites or missile silos in the ground anymore, they use stealth aircraft or fighter jets to carry the missiles for hypothetical first strike scenarios. airbases that close to russia could let them attack the capital before they could meaningfully retaliate. rando military officers promoted via emergency aren’t going to be as willing or able to push the big red nuclear retalliation button as the career politicians and generals in the capital. ICBMs like the ones carried by nuclear subs are easier to detect and intercept (or more realistically retalliate against the launcher), because they have to reach high altitudes to fly with less wind resistance, while nukes deployed via even normal un-stealthed aircraft can be camouflaged more easily, as they don’t have to have the range or size of ICBMs. they don’t necessarily know just from radar if its a nuke on the plane and not a normal missile, for example, and weapon systems like low-altitude cruise missiles launched from planes relatively closeby to the target could take a path through terrain that would conceal it from radar by using treetops and mountainlines as cover.
Right, that’s kinda my point. It was the other person’s claim that they invaded Ukraine to stop the US putting installing missile sites. Neither silos or airbases really makes any sense. North west Poland is closer to Moscow by the way of the crow than all but a small part of Ukraine.
and you don’t think they would use that “small part” of ukraine? you don’t think having access to ukrainian airspace, ideally someday without russian military euipment within its borders, would be helpful at all? like maybe we would want to launch a multi-pronged attack from several locations at once or something?
no one said it was the only reason, there’s also the consistently broken ceasefires and ethnic cleansing of russian speakers in the donbass and luhansk republics. and the american interference in ukraine’s government. see any UN report from before 2020.
and you don’t think they would use that “small part” of ukraine?
Not really, it’s basically a salient flanked by Belarus. Not exactly somewhere you’d want to put sensitive equipment. Especially compared to Poland, where they have buffer states.
ideally someday without russian military euipment within its borders, would be helpful at all?
I mean, we were talking about Russia’s justification of invading Ukraine. Now that justification includes Russia already being there?
like maybe we would want to launch a multi-pronged attack from several locations at once or something?
Why? What would the west materially gain by fully mobilizing and invading a nuclear power? NATO doesn’t care defeating Russia in a totalitarian war, they mostly care about Russian competition in central Asia and the Middle East.
Why invade when you can bankrupt the government via proxy war, just like they did with the USSR. If NATO really wanted to set up an invasion, they wouldn’t be slow walking more aggressive military aid.
broken ceasefires and ethnic cleansing of russian speakers in the donbass and luhansk republics
There’s been no evidence for this…
Again, you are aping the justifications from a militaristic capitalist state, while completely ignoring historical materialism…
i wasn’t talking about invading and mobilizing, but a multi prong nuclear first strike to take out nuclear launch and control facilities. an invasion may or may not happen afterwards to secure the region.
as for evidence of ethnic cleansing, i already mentioned the UN reports but i’ll post.
Is not saying anything about ethnic cleansing. Everyone knows there’s been crimes against humanity committed by both pro Ukrainian and pro Russian forces.
Lol literally an opinion piece that starts with …
“Of the many distortions manufactured by Russian President Vladimir Putin to justify Russia’s assault on Ukraine, perhaps the most bizarre is his claim that the action was taken to “denazify” the country and its leadership.”
“Russia-led forces in the Donbas region engaged in: enforced disappearances, torture, and unlawful detention; committed gender-based violence; interfered with freedom of expression, including of the press, peaceful assembly, and association; restricted movement across the line of contact in eastern Ukraine; and unduly restricted humanitarian aid.”
I would do the rest, but I can tell by the titles that they don’t hold any evidence that says there’s been any ethnic cleansing. You managed to link more evidence supporting ukraine cause than ones justifying any of Russias claims.
Or NATO was going to install nuclear launch sites next door to Russia. But if you gloss over that fact then yes, Russia bad.
Analogy: Mexico lets a US adversary install nuclear launch sites just south of the USA border. How do we think that would go? Mexico would be the pawn.
What’s happening in Ukraine is a result of USA/EU actions, and Ukraine not being smart enough to pick up a history book and see how the USA uses poor countries as fodder. They must be shoveling mass money and cocaine at Zelensky. It’s all literally a case of “well well, the consequences of our actions.” The USA just wants resources and nuclear launch sites.
they certainly do. But America has trouble relating because we were all cushy and safe over here while Russia was ratfucked by Nazi Germany. Russians still know the songs about the Great Patriotic War.
Why? What’s the difference of having launch sites in kieve compared to having launch sites in Germany, or even on a submarine in the artic circle? It’s not the 60’s anymore, we already have more than enough capacity to Russia if it came to nuclear war.
Yeah, because historically it’s been America who’s done horrible things in their country? Has the US used and abused it’s allies? Of course, just go ask the ask the Kurds. But it’s ignorant to believe that Russia hasn’t practiced their own form of militant imperialism. Militant imperialism that has and is still personally effecting their country.
Yes, we are super desperate for …sunflower oil and wheat?
Where did this insane theory about nuclear launch sites come from? America hasn’t expanded launch sites since 87’. If NATO was wanting more sites, don’t you think they would have put some in Poland by now?
Lol, yeah… Putin hates Nazis, which is why they have a pmc named Wagner, whos previous co founder was a self confessed neo nazi.
Nazism is a problem everywhere in the post Soviet eastern block, including Russia. While the soviets were in power they strictly banned nazi imagery, for obvious reasons. When Gorbachev loosened state control over media and other censorship laws, the swastika became an anti state and anti communist symbol.
This was often adopted by criminal organization in and around the Soviet block. These same criminal organizations had the capital to buy up state controlled companies as the soviets auctioned off state companies to private interes, becoming some of the oligarchy now controlling the Russian state.
they don’t launch missiles from dedicated launch sites or missile silos in the ground anymore, they use stealth aircraft or fighter jets to carry the missiles for hypothetical first strike scenarios. airbases that close to russia could let them attack the capital before they could meaningfully retaliate. rando military officers promoted via emergency aren’t going to be as willing or able to push the big red nuclear retalliation button as the career politicians and generals in the capital. ICBMs like the ones carried by nuclear subs are easier to detect and intercept (or more realistically retalliate against the launcher), because they have to reach high altitudes to fly with less wind resistance, while nukes deployed via even normal un-stealthed aircraft can be camouflaged more easily, as they don’t have to have the range or size of ICBMs. they don’t necessarily know just from radar if its a nuke on the plane and not a normal missile, for example, and weapon systems like low-altitude cruise missiles launched from planes relatively closeby to the target could take a path through terrain that would conceal it from radar by using treetops and mountainlines as cover.
Right, that’s kinda my point. It was the other person’s claim that they invaded Ukraine to stop the US putting installing missile sites. Neither silos or airbases really makes any sense. North west Poland is closer to Moscow by the way of the crow than all but a small part of Ukraine.
and you don’t think they would use that “small part” of ukraine? you don’t think having access to ukrainian airspace, ideally someday without russian military euipment within its borders, would be helpful at all? like maybe we would want to launch a multi-pronged attack from several locations at once or something?
no one said it was the only reason, there’s also the consistently broken ceasefires and ethnic cleansing of russian speakers in the donbass and luhansk republics. and the american interference in ukraine’s government. see any UN report from before 2020.
Not really, it’s basically a salient flanked by Belarus. Not exactly somewhere you’d want to put sensitive equipment. Especially compared to Poland, where they have buffer states.
I mean, we were talking about Russia’s justification of invading Ukraine. Now that justification includes Russia already being there?
Why? What would the west materially gain by fully mobilizing and invading a nuclear power? NATO doesn’t care defeating Russia in a totalitarian war, they mostly care about Russian competition in central Asia and the Middle East.
Why invade when you can bankrupt the government via proxy war, just like they did with the USSR. If NATO really wanted to set up an invasion, they wouldn’t be slow walking more aggressive military aid.
There’s been no evidence for this…
Again, you are aping the justifications from a militaristic capitalist state, while completely ignoring historical materialism…
i wasn’t talking about invading and mobilizing, but a multi prong nuclear first strike to take out nuclear launch and control facilities. an invasion may or may not happen afterwards to secure the region.
as for evidence of ethnic cleansing, i already mentioned the UN reports but i’ll post.
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ga12483.doc.htm
https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14823.doc.htm
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-has-nazi-problem-vladimir-putin-s-denazification-claim-war-ncna1290946
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_14th_HRMMU_Report.pdf
https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/ukraine/
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/02/the-historian-whitewashing-ukraines-past-volodymyr-viatrovych/
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/white-supremacists-other-extremists-respond-russian-invasion-ukraine
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/359609-the-reality-of-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-is-far-from-kremlin-propaganda/
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-s-got-a-real-problem-with-far-right-violence-and-no-rt-didn-t-write-this-headline/
https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion
Is not saying anything about ethnic cleansing. Everyone knows there’s been crimes against humanity committed by both pro Ukrainian and pro Russian forces.
Is a un voting resolution about the spread of nazi ideology… nothing to do with ethnic cleansing.
Is literally a un security council meeting about Russians killing civilians…
Lol literally an opinion piece that starts with … “Of the many distortions manufactured by Russian President Vladimir Putin to justify Russia’s assault on Ukraine, perhaps the most bizarre is his claim that the action was taken to “denazify” the country and its leadership.”
Is a document laying the blame for the vast majority of human rights violations on Russian led forces…
“Russia-led forces in the Donbas region engaged in: enforced disappearances, torture, and unlawful detention; committed gender-based violence; interfered with freedom of expression, including of the press, peaceful assembly, and association; restricted movement across the line of contact in eastern Ukraine; and unduly restricted humanitarian aid.”
I would do the rest, but I can tell by the titles that they don’t hold any evidence that says there’s been any ethnic cleansing. You managed to link more evidence supporting ukraine cause than ones justifying any of Russias claims.
Hilarious.