|
|
|
|
|
by michaelmrose
1192 days ago
|
|
Nuclear weapons would have been enough of a detergent for the foreseeable future. Invading increased security not one whit nor was it expected to. It was expected to increase wealth and power at the expense of decreasing security. In fact invasion has actually done more to advance the cause of NATO than the US could have done. They are already and were always going to be surrounded by enemies due to being surrounded by former vassal states. Russia was never going to be in NATO because it's primarily a defensive alliance vs Russia. Nobody wants to give Russia a vote in an alliance that exists for mutual defense against Russia. Who gives a fuck what the Indian man on the street thinks? Greater truth isn't decided by surveying as many ignorant people as possible. Shall we next survey Kentucky or London to achieve critical rube mass? Worse India profits greatly from cheap Russian gas. May as well ask farmers about the wisdom of subsidies or johns about whether prostitution ought to be legalized. This is all more chaff. This conflict exists so that Russia can trade it's citizens blood for power. Nothing else necessitates it. It serves no other end. It has no other interest. Every other end is damaged by this war save one. You go on without end while ignoring this fundamental fact. If you can't address it properly then you may see yourself out of the conversation. |
|
Literally everything you’re saying is just parroting CIA / US establishment talking points word for word, just like in every other proxy war against Russia (Afghanistan, Syria).
No there isn’t “just one side” that unilaterally began this conflict. Not even close. And the rest of the world outside the media bubble you’re in realized it. That’s billions of people who realize NATO expansion is responsible. Western leaders too:
There was a war going on in Donbas since 2014 for 8 years before Russia invaded. Russia negotiated Minsk and Minsk II but it was never implemented. USA fomented a revolution in 2014 and Ukraine’s new government was using cluster munitions against civilians in the Donbas as early as 2014:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-c...
This wasn’t “unprovoked”. Even in mainstream Western Europe many leaders clearly warned Russia was being provoked:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqE7UTptgGg
And still say now that it was provoked by NATO:
https://www.upi.com/amp/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy...
I could go on. I could cite experts and leaders in USA and in Europe all of whom say the war was provoked and there is more than “one side”. They say it was very easy to avoid:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4
But it won’t make a dent. You won’t care what billions of people think. Or what leaders think. Or what experts think. Because they’re all wrong. You in your media bubble have it right: the causes are super simplistic and only one side is at fault. This is fed to you to justify ANY LEVEL of escalation, up to and including the destruction of the entire world. It’s pretty ridiculous and scary actually. But the US military industrial complex has successfully co-opted most of its mainstream media to make sure only one narrative is allowed in the minds of most people. This has been a phenomenon that already was honed with other issues, such as vaccine hesitancy immediately prior.
We have seen proxy wars happen (in Yemen for instance, an incredibly destructive war), we know how they occur… one side foments a revolution, the other props up the counterrevolutionaries, and both sides funnel weapons to the region for years. One side bombs the country and the other delivers weapons from afar.
No thougutful person thinks there is “one side that attacked in an unprovoked way” and so on. Especially in this case, where Russia is defending its security against being surrounded by a hostile military alliance led by its geopolitical enemy, while USA simply went around the world 3000 miles away to bomb countries to the stone age to prevent, I dunno, communism I guess.