The Invasion of Ukraine, Russia Threatens Finland/Sweden

[Umeria]

Quite honestly, his arguments are not unique to himself. There is another set of Russia defenders that actually want Russia to annex countries because they hate Western democracy, this includes people like Tucker Carlson

Maybe ask yourself why some people have become so disillusioned with US foreign policy that they grew to like a government as bad as Russia's, instead of deflecting all of the blame onto The Bad Guys.

[Prima Scriptura]

Quite honestly, his arguments are not unique to himself. There is another set of Russia defenders that actually want Russia to annex countries because they hate Western democracy, this includes people like Tucker Carlson

Maybe ask yourself why some people have become so disillusioned with US foreign policy that they grew to like a government as bad as Russia's, instead of deflecting all of the blame onto The Bad Guys.

Yeah, no. Russia is a defacto fascist state, and those on the left defending them just hate the West. It’s the old “The enemy of my enemy is my friend“ and “oppose anything the enemy supports“.

[The Black Forrest]

Quite honestly, his arguments are not unique to himself. There is another set of Russia defenders that actually want Russia to annex countries because they hate Western democracy, this includes people like Tucker Carlson

Lots of countries love democracy, but can't have it because of Western aggression and imperialism.

Who is Tucker Carlson? I see his name sometimes but don't know who he is.

Tucker is a mouthy little cuss on Fox. You know the type. Very tough when surrounded by security.

[TheFlyingDutchman]

Lots of countries love democracy, but can't have it because of Western aggression and imperialism.

Who is Tucker Carlson? I see his name sometimes but don't know who he is.

Tucker is a mouthy little cuss on Fox. You know the type. Very tough when surrounded by security.

Sorry, I am not American so I don't really know about such things.

[The Black Forrest]

Tucker is a mouthy little cuss on Fox. You know the type. Very tough when surrounded by security.

Sorry, I am not American so I don't really know about such things.

No worries. Not worth knowing. Just likes saying crap to piss people off.

[Port Caverton]

Wow... it just gets better.

Quite honestly, his arguments are not unique to himself. There is another set of Russia defenders that actually want Russia to annex countries because they hate Western democracy, this includes people like Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson should be sent to Gitmo

[Deblar]

Quite honestly, his arguments are not unique to himself. There is another set of Russia defenders that actually want Russia to annex countries because they hate Western democracy, this includes people like Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson should be sent to Gitmo

And soil Cuba with his filth? I think the embargo is enough punishment for them existing and being communist at the same time, thank you very much

[Umeria]

Maybe ask yourself why some people have become so disillusioned with US foreign policy that they grew to like a government as bad as Russia's, instead of deflecting all of the blame onto The Bad Guys.

Yeah, no. Russia is a defacto fascist state, and those on the left defending them just hate the West. It’s the old “The enemy of my enemy is my friend“ and “oppose anything the enemy supports“.

You are so unwaveringly certain of the motivations behind people who disagree with you. I don't think you'd appreciate it if people described you with the same lack of nuance ("you just hate Russia").

[The Two Jerseys]

America said that America was justified and therefore it must be true.

Tell that to the innocents of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Grenada, Vietnam, and so many other poor countries.

Methinks you need to read up on the invasion of Grenada, because you're literally saying that the same thing was justified in Crimea.

The difference is that the US actually liberated Grenada.

[New Tryphalia]

Maybe ask yourself why some people have become so disillusioned with US foreign policy that they grew to like a government as bad as Russia's, instead of deflecting all of the blame onto The Bad Guys.

Yeah, no. Russia is a defacto fascist state, and those on the left defending them just hate the West. It’s the old “The enemy of my enemy is my friend“ and “oppose anything the enemy supports“.

Russia is a quasi-Tsarist state and the Cold War is supposed to be over. McCarthyism is a very bad take.

[TheFlyingDutchman]

Tell that to the innocents of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Grenada, Vietnam, and so many other poor countries.

Methinks you need to read up on the invasion of Grenada, because you're literally saying that the same thing was justified in Crimea.

The difference is that the US actually liberated Grenada.

Okay, you're right. Bad example with Grenada.

[Deblar]

Tell that to the innocents of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Grenada, Vietnam, and so many other poor countries.

Methinks you need to read up on the invasion of Grenada, because you're literally saying that the same thing was justified in Crimea.

The difference is that the US actually liberated Grenada.

That’s extremely debatable, but this isn’t the thread for that

[The Two Jerseys]

Methinks you need to read up on the invasion of Grenada, because you're literally saying that the same thing was justified in Crimea.

The difference is that the US actually liberated Grenada.

That’s extremely debatable, but this isn’t the thread for that

Well they certainly didn't annex it like the Russians did to Crimea...

[Hemakral]

Sorry, I am not American so I don't really know about such things.

yet more credence to the russian bot theory

Don’t you know, only Russia has a right to defend itself. No other Eastern European country has a right to defend its’ borders.

"country", "defend", "borders"
You're clearly a flaming Russophobe!

[The Two Jerseys]

Sorry, I am not American so I don't really know about such things.

yet more credence to the russian bot theory

Don’t you know, only Russia has a right to defend itself. No other Eastern European country has a right to defend its’ borders.

"country", "defend", "borders"
You're clearly a flaming Russophobe!

Don't forget to call him a fascist!

[New Tryphalia]

Sorry, I am not American so I don't really know about such things.

yet more credence to the russian bot theory

Don’t you know, only Russia has a right to defend itself. No other Eastern European country has a right to defend its’ borders.

"country", "defend", "borders"
You're clearly a flaming Russophobe!

Russian bots only exist in Hillary’s feverish imagination. Most of them were created by New Knowledge, a tech firm banned from Facebook for doing so. I’d call them a CIA front, but then they wouldn’t have been banned. Since Mark Zuckerberg is bosom buddies with CIA operative Pete Buttigieg.

[Novus America]

What threat? What is Ukraine supposed to do to Russia?

Russia has literally been taking territory from them.

Russia took Crimea for good reason. The Ukrainian government was overthrown in a Western-backed coup and was replaced by a russophobic fascist regime. The people of Crimea were understandably terrified, so Russia decided to protect them. The people wanted it and welcomed becoming a part of the Russian Federation.

USA invades other countries for no reason. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are all victims of Western aggression against non-threats. It is the West that the world needs to be wary of, not Russia.

Moving the goalposts, AGAIN.
You fail to even address the key points.

How is Ukraine a threat to Russia now? Beyond merely existing? Why does Ukraine have zero right to try to protect its own security interests?

Do you really think Ukraine is going to launch an invasion of Russia or anything?

The last part is objectively false, the US did have reasons for all those (Afghanistan was actually used to attack the US, 9-11 was a real thing). You might find the reasons bad, unjustifiable, etc. But obviously there were reasons,

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously at least offer some nuance beyond “Russia good, US bad”.

I do not deny Russia has reasons for what it has done to Ukraine. I do not agree with the reasoning, but they had reasons, even if many were bad and unjustified reasons.

[Deblar]

That’s extremely debatable, but this isn’t the thread for that

Well they certainly didn't annex it like the Russians did to Crimea...

Fair

[Novus America]

So explain what makes these phony and what a genuine diplomatic offer is.

No effort to take seriously the threat posed by NATO expansion in breach of Western promises.

I already addressed the “promise” BS in great detail. James Baker is not eternal supreme leader of NATO whose comments are unbreakable diktats for all time.
Quite mining his hypotheticals does not make any good justification, especially when even if he actually meant it as a promise, it would be a promise that he had no legal authority to make.

If Lavrov says something does it automatically permanently bind CSTO for all eternity? Of course not.

If I promise to give you the Hope Diamond would you be surprised when you do not get it? Of course not.

Secret treaties are illegal, treaties must be public and in writing, Also for treaties with the US must be ratified by the senate. And treaties with NATO require agreement of ALL NATO countries. Oh an treaties lacking an exit clause can be unilaterally disavowed by any party.

Where is a written treaty, signed by all NATO members, including the US, ratified by the US Senate (and whatever the equivalent other NATO members require) stating that the treaty cannot be repealed without Russia agreeing?

Obviously it does not exist.

Any “promise” was illegal, unenforceable, null and void.

And how is NATO a threat to Russia? What is NATO threatening to do to Russia?
NATO has zero political will to attack Russia. You really think all NATO members (even Russian simps like Germany) will unanimously agree to a unprovoked invasion of Russia?

That is just ridiculous. The whole argument is. You know it, I know it, and Russia knows it.
So cut the crap. This is absolutely not about some illegal “promise”, or threat to Russia,

It is about Putin’s desire to distract people from the poor economy and collapsing healthcare system, fear if Ukraine becomes a functioning democracy it will undermine his rule, his personal anger at the Soviet Union falling and having to work as a taxi driver (what is wrong with that anyways, it is a perfectly good job), revanchist and irredentist fantasies etc.

Russia has its reasons. But be honest about what they are.

[Novus America]

Well they certainly didn't annex it like the Russians did to Crimea...

Fair

And that is a fundamental point. That does not make all US actions good, but it is false equivalency to say they are the exact same. Or that one justifies the other.

Especially as the pro Russian argument essentially boils down to “other people commit murder and that is bad, so I can too and it is good for me to commit murder”.
If the are going to argue there is equivalency, and Russia is good and justified, then by extension so would the US!

It is very hypocritical to say “person X did Y, Y is super evil, therefore I can commit Y”. That argument is just saying “I am evil too!”
Which is a very silly argument to make.

Notice how the US has never said “Russia’s invasion of Crimea justifies the Iraq invasion”.
Turn it around and you easily see just how stupid an argument it is.

[Novus America]

You did not address any of my points at all.

And this is bullshit.
James Baker verbally floated that idea, apparently without authorization to Gorbachev, that was just his hypothetical musings. Obviously James Baker floating an idea that if it was a promise, he would have no authority to make, is not permanently eternally binding policy on all NATO.

Who made James Baker eternal supreme dictator of NATO? Nobody.

At best it was a gentleman’s agreement between James Baker and Gorbachev which had absolutely no legal value whatsoever and had no relevance once both were out of office. The US and other countries of NATO have laws (and the US cannot unilaterally make such decisions on behalf of NATO as they require unanimous consent). Also treaties must be public an in writing, and in the US ratified by the Senate. And treaties without an explicit exit clause are assumed to be able to be terminated by either party unilaterally at any time.

Gorbachev obviously never was the sharpest tool in the shed, but even so, he should have known that. Even if such agreement was made, it would be illegal and not binding.

So this is a ridiculous argument. I could also go through everything every US Secretary of State (or Russian foreign minister) ever said, quote mine it and try to twist it, then claim that is forever permanently biding diktat that must be obeyed for eternity.

I do not, because it is a completely shit argument. I would deservedly get mocked for doing so.

And why does Russia need to “fall back”? Russia is the largest country by landmass and no NATO troops have set foot on Russian soil. So what is this “falling back”? That would only work if we assume that Ukraine is Russian territory. It is not. Russia does not even legally claim most of it is!

Nobody is asking Russia to “fall back” from its territory! Just not commit more violations against Ukraine.

Besides again why does Russia only have these Uber special rights?

Russia can and does send ships 15 miles off the US coast before having them dock in Cuba.

Which it legally can do.

Just as NATO can legally deploy its troops on its own territory. Also those are not permanently stationed troops anyways.
But rotational and as needed.

Russia only wanted “good relations” if it got special rights it was never entitled to and no other country has, and it would never allow others to have. Making one sided demands is not a recipe for good relations and you should not be surprised when they are rejected.

Russia's military actions are for its national security. Unlike the USA, Russia has genuine national security interests in Europe. It has never needlessly attacked another country like the USA did thousands of miles from its borders with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. It is the US that everyone should be wary of, not Russia. Russia is the victim here, and all they want is a promise of a peaceful future in which they will not be threatened.

Collective security is a thing. The US also had security interests. Security interests do not automatically give you the ability to deny your neighbors sovereignty.

Also the proximity of the attack does not bear any relevance to its justification.

And look at it from Ukraine’s perspective. How do you think Ukraine views Russia actually encircling it after already attacking it and seizing some of its territory?
Why do Ukrainians not get any promise of not being threatened?

And what again is the threat to Russia here? How is it remotely probable NATO would unanimously agree (including Russia sympathizer Germany) to attack Russia? Or that Ukraine will launch an attack on Russia?

[Shekelesh]

And what again is the threat to Russia here? How is it remotely probable NATO would unanimously agree (including Russia sympathizer Germany) to attack Russia? Or that Ukraine will launch an attack on Russia?

Have you tried looking at it from Russia's perspective and the context of their reality?

[Shekelesh]

The Ukrainians pose a threat of actually trying to defend their homeland.

Don’t you know, only Russia has a right to defend itself. No other Eastern European country has a right to defend its’ borders.

Ukraine has every right to defend their borders. That doesn't mean we have to help them.

[New haven america]

And what again is the threat to Russia here? How is it remotely probable NATO would unanimously agree (including Russia sympathizer Germany) to attack Russia? Or that Ukraine will launch an attack on Russia?

Have you tried looking at it from Russia's perspective and the context of their reality?

Russian oligarchs using state media to push propaganda that NATO wants to conquer them (For some nebulous reason that changes like every week or 2) in order to justify their continued takeover of valuable former Soviet Union territory in the name of territorial integrity and self-defense. (You should look up what the oligarch that got gifted Crimea is up to)

Actually, chances are most of the general Russian population doesn't even really know Russia's lining up troops along the border, because state media's not allowed to report on it.

[New haven america]

Don’t you know, only Russia has a right to defend itself. No other Eastern European country has a right to defend its’ borders.

Ukraine has every right to defend their borders. That doesn't mean we have to help them.

Yes, America actually does.

In exchange for giving up the USSR's nukes that were in their territory, then they got protection from both the US and Russia, and if they were attacked by 1 side, then the opposing side would have to step in.

In 2014 the lack of US intervention was considered a complete and total US foreign policy failure on Obama's part and to this day a lot of the conservative users still bring it up.