There is no sign that Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is coming to an end, but Germany is already debating whether the Bundeswehr should participate in peacekeeping forces.
There is no sign that Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is coming to an end, but Germany is already debating whether the Bundeswehr should participate in peacekeeping forces.
Russia claims that it’s stopping a genocide. Not claiming that they are correct. just that in every invasion in the history of the world the agressor had a justification ready of defending themselves or some weak ally.
I don’t see how the length of a war has anything to do with the justifications of the invasion. Russia didn’t have the military force to reach their goals against Ukraine which received aide from the west. Yugoslavia was in a significantly worse position against NATO without any allies that could help them significantly. How does that justify the invasion of NATO?
You asked for a comparable scenario and received an answer. Now you’re trying to no-true-schotsman yourself out of your premise. Just stop.
It matters if one claim is true and the other isn’t though, kinda important. Also, russia is stealing territory and have constantly given different bs reasons for what they are doing. NATO saw a genocide, halted it and left. These are not comparable at all.
Not if you’re trying to understand why nation states are doing things and you’re not incredibly naive.
Any detail/specifics with these generic vapid assertions?
Donezk and Luhansk were actually attacked by Ukrainian forces since the Euromaidan. So if your justification is that “NATO wanted to stop a genocide”, then you’d have to also do some research on the justification Russia claimed.
In the end, this is a hopeless endeavor, though. Nations go to war for strategic reasons, not moral ones. And people continuosly want to ignore the strategic interests of the west, claiming that it only wants to “help Ukraine”, while claiming that Russia wants to return to Czardom. Both interpretations ignore the strategic motivations.
I don’t think that going into detail would help anything. I don’t think I’ll be able to convince you that nations or their treaty organisations do anything because of a moral imperative.
You mean when russia invaded Ukraine and fomented a war in those regions?
Russia’s claims are weak. It’s quite obvious that they’ve recycled the nazi Sudetenland strategy as they’ve done multiple times to invade neighbours. Start a war using your “little green men”, then use the fighting you started to claim the “genocide of russian-speakers” and ride that excuse into invasion and annexation. That should be obvious, if you’re not incredibly naive.
No, I meant after the Euromaidan. Those regions mostly weren’t ok with the Euromaidan and have been bombed by Ukrainian forces since then.
I agree that the allegations by Russia have been blown out of proportions. That doesn’t make NATO the “good guys”.
Since russia invaded the country, yes. Who downed MH17? Are you actually pretending that there was any kind of organic internal conflict without russian influence? lol
You don’t have to be “good” to be incomparably better than ruzzia
Why is that so absurd? Donetsk and Luhansk are russian-speaking and were vitally economically dependant on Russia. They were afraid that Kyiv politically focusing on Europe would be disastrous for their economy.
I’m not arguing that Russia didn’t have any interests there, that Russia didn’t do some weird insurgency crap. I’m also not saying that it payed of for the poor sods who lived there. But believing that Ukraine would have been completely united after Euromaidan (which was allegedly also helped by western forces) if it weren’t for Putin is naive.
I’m not in the business of comparing imperialists. I oppose them all. And my (very limited) sphere of influence doesn’t reach into Russia. I can’t do anything against Putin. I am however living in a NATO member counrty. And Karl Liebknechtput it best:
Not really, I’m just still waiting for a comparable example.
Ok, moving the goalposts, then.
No, the whole point of this conversation, and my original comment, was to point out that Russia and NATO are not even in the same league as far as imperialistic tendencies. NATO has intervened to actually protect civilians. Russia just claims to be doing that while in reality murdering innocent men, women, and children by the thousands.
Your point of this conversation is to make a moralistic argument of how evil Russia is. Moralistic arguments don’t really work when you’re trying to understand politics.
I agree that Russia is committing atrocities. You failed to give a reason why this is happening, other than “they are evil”.
You’re telling me what my point is now, lol?
That’s what you’re doing.
If you read the comment that I was originally responding to:
… you’ll see that I was addressing the thought that Russia and NATO basically have the same goals, (i.e. imperialism), which any thinking person can see is false.
What do youthink “imperialism” means?