this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
1153 points (97.1% liked)
World News
32327 readers
460 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So from having had a few exchanges with pro Russian accounts on Lemmy (which seems to be infested with a few very active ones) this is a summary of their arguments:
That all sounds like brigading emotional nonsense. In fact, there were strong reasons for Russia to invade. It is probably true that Russia was manipulated into invading, it had no choice because of strategic decisions made by Ukraine. It's a shame none of the people you talked to were able to argue the issues sensibly.
Lol Ukraine strategically decided not to surrender their territory, thus manipulating the peaceful Russians to invade
Why should Russia strategically be required to invade exactly?
I've never heard a cogent argument on this point.
It's because Russia sees NATO as a threat and wants to take control of Ukraine to keep buffer states on the west side. Also, to keep it'sblack sea fleet safe. Why it happened now and not sooner or later - nobody knows. The official reasoning, of course, is bullshit, just like with any other war. Not the worst one, though.
Most people haven't. We all have a filter bubble.
Here is a first draft, my attempt to provide the missing context. Please leave comments on anything bad or missing you notice. https://lemmy.ml/post/4848742
That is just a list of Russian propaganda points. There is no evidence for any of it.
Ask Jens Stoltenburg. He just fucked up and bragged about how he forced them into it.
Okay, but you didn't actually answer the question, you just pointed to the geopolitical equivalent of blurry sasquatch footage. What's the strategic logic?
M.A.D.
Seems like a really dishonest question when you're pretending not to understand such a basic concept. Unless you want me to believe that you're an idiot or something?
The MAD play would be to stay within their borders and make sure their nukes and delivery systems are all in good working order. Escalating at great cost and with a risk to internal stability isn't very good from a MAD perspective.
Agreed but here we are. They're now arming their fascist puppet state with ATACMS and installing nukes in Finland, which is just eliminating MAD by reducing the time that Russia can respond.
I see what you did there. I don't believe NATO has puppet states.
Fair enough, it's the USA that has the puppet states.
Them either, unless you count, like, Puerto Rico. But I think you knew what I meant.
Well here is your chance. Argue this issues sensibly.
Probably the tired line of NATO expansion fears. How'd that work out? Does Russia have more or less NATO countries near their borders? The invasion itself is the best sales pitch NATO could ever need.
This just supports that explanation? Use your brain man.
So Russia says: "Nooo, nooo, don't band together to defend yourself against our aggression! You mustn't band together to defend against me! Wait if you even dare think about it, I'll invade you. So here come the tanks"
What aggression? NATO is the obvious aggressor here? You don't even believe what you're saying. This propaganda is stale man. Even NATO admits it was the provoker.
What aggression? See Ukraine
But that was a response to NATO aggression?
There was no NATO aggression. The response doesn't make sense anyways. It only strengthens NATO. Are you actually Russian? I can't make any other sense of your stance here
Having a Nazi puppet state threaten you with joining the world's most destructive military alliance and install nuclear weapons isn't aggressive? What's your reasoning?
Lol ok, that's what happened. 👌
Which part do you disagree with? This is all historical fact. Nobody disagrees with this.
Ukraine wanting to join NATO is NATO aggression? Lol France & Germany even said they wouldn't allow them in
They promised Ukraine they'd let them join so they could use them as cannon fodder in their proxy war. Then they betrayed them. Even Zelensky was threatening to install nukes after they joined. Totally not aggressive.
You must have missed some history then. Bush said he wanted them to join. France and Germany told him "never gonna happen cowboy". I'm not sensing you know anything about how NATO works in this regard but they basically told ol' gubya he could go eat a bag of dicks in the corner. Can you cite a source of NATO promising anything or are you going to join him there finish the rest of the dicks
Here's Secretary-General Rasmussen inviting after the Obama regime's Nazi coup. You must have missed some history.
Yeah Rasmussen is still eating dicks in the corner along with his buddy Bush jr.
Watch out there might be a nazi in the bottom of your bag!
Weak. You try to enjoy your dick now.
Lol, lemmygrad. GTFO with your bullshit
Great contribution there Mr Feynman.
Why thank you good sir
Of course Russia had a choice. Not invading a country is the easiest thing to do. I do it every day, and I have nowhere near the power and resources that Vlad Putin does.
Exactly why the choice is so easy for you.
What do you think would've happened if Russia hadn't invaded?
I mean look, it's a nation we talked in to giving up it's nuclear weapons in exchange for protection and recognition by us. We really had no choice but to invade.
Background? Link?