Tweet
Originally posted by MOBIUS
View Post
Victoria Nuland was literally recorded plotting it, among other things
The US has been desperate to maintain its hegemonic status. Russia has repeated its red lines about NATO expansionism since circa 2008, and complained it before then. What happened to Georgia in 2008 should have be a wake up call, but the fact of the matter is that the US doesn't give a **** about trashing any nations that happen to get sucked up and spat out along the way.
Ukraine is basically ****ed for our lifetimes, and for what? It won't have anything to show for it except a ruined nation and being in permanent debt to the US - it certainly won't be a member of NATO, which was surely the whole point of this utter folly...
Perhaps it's you guys being fed US propaganda, just like all the lies that emerged about Iraq like WMDs etc. How many of the usual suspects here got sucked in by that, I know I certainly wasn't. So yeah, my views have been remarkably consistent, actually.
Plenty of people have been warning about this **** for decades - when you back something dangerous in a corner, expect it to come out fighting, it's simply the laws of nature. I mean what else was Putin going to do?
That's not being an apologist - that's just being a realistic...
Do you believe that every state has a responsibility to not provoke aggression from other states regardless or whether or not the provoked response would be a reasonable one? If other states provoke an unreasonable but promised response from a particular state does it then follow that the provoking states which provoked that response by disregarding the repeated unreasonable demands and ultimatums bear any responsibility for the provoked response? When do they bear responsibility for the unreasonable but promised response and when do they bear only partial responsibility? if they bear partial responsibility when does their responsibility approach zero and when (if ever) do they bear majority or even complete responsibility? In the case of the provoking states bearing complete responsibility let's agree that this would describe a situation in which we deem that the state that made unreasonable demands and carried out the promised unreasonable response could be said to bear zero responsibility for carrying out its promised response to its unreasonable demands.
Do you believe that demands by a state that one or more other states must never join one or more defensive alliances freely formed by freely signed treaties among the other states are reasonable demands? Would it be reasonable for the United states to make such a demand? which states, if any, would you agree that the United states could reasonably demand must never be allowed to join a defensive organization freely joined by all members? If you don't agree that the US could reasonably make such a demand which states, in your view, could reasonably make such demands and how are they different from the united states in such a way that it is reasonable for them to make such demands but not for the united states to make such demands?
Do you agree that military invasion is a reasonable response to a foreign sponsored coup in a country so long as the invading country views the sponsor of the coup as a rival or even hostile? When is a military invasion a reasonable response to a foreign sponsored coup in another country?
Does a military invasion of a country in response to a coup in that country sponsored by a country hostile to the invading country remain reasonable if several years have passed since the foreign sponsored coup and there have been multiple elections in the country since the coup which have been observed by international monitors and deemed to be fair and free of irregularities by such observers? When (if ever) would it stop being acceptable for a country to invade another country when a foreign sponsored coup is the justification for the invasion?
Finally how do you think exceptionally evil and powerful fascist countries such as the United States will react if it is established that so long as any state clearly states an ultimatum then the democracies and various non-evil responsible parties on the world stage who respect rule of law both domestic and international will advocate that everyone must respect the unreasonable ultimatums of any state and that they will advocate that countries which refuse to obey the unreasonable demands of the united states will bear much if not all of the responsibility for the aggression that results from failing to obey those demands? Do you think the United states will make fewer unreasonable demands and carry out fewer threatened reprisals than is currently the case or do you think that perhaps the (obviously fascist) united states might be emboldened to do so more often and even more brazenly? Do you think it will become easier or more difficult to discourage the united states from carrying out its evil fascist schemes?
I'm not being an apologist. I'm just being a realist.
Comment