0
US’ real strategic color of selfishness, hypocrisy revealed in Ukraine crisis
(www.globaltimes.cn)
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2022
0 points (NaN% liked)
World News
32315 readers
936 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
Yes, U.S. and NATO were "preaching for deescalation" while shipping millions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine. All while deploying "instructors" and supporting a planned Ukronazi attack on Donbass republics. Of course Russia wasnt just gonna watch and let that happen.
Russia also offered diplomatic solutions many times (since December, and in fact since 2014). Those were all rejected, and now it seems that the time for diplomacy is over.
Edit: forgot to add, just a few days ago Ukraine threatened to develop nuclear weapons. That was obviously a red line for Russia.
What's this neologism? Are you not aware nazis are very well integrated in the State apparatus in many nations? It's not just Ukraine: it's also Russia, France, Germany... So why paint a single nation as nazis when more or less of all the parties involved in the conflict are varying brand of imperialism and racial/cultural supremacy?
What's the evidence that there was a wide-scale attack planned? If that was true, it could justify bringing military support to Donbass as an incentive for the central government not to attack, but how could it ever justify invading the rest of Ukraine?!
From this article, the demands formulated by Russia amount to saying eastern european countries can't have military alliances except with them (neocolonialism, much?). Interviewed russian foreign ministry says:
That's not a diplomatic solution, that's extortion/bullying. "Do what i say, or else..." has nothing to do with diplomacy and nothing to do with the political autonomy of specific regions.
Iran did pursue to develop nuclear weapon for decades. Has that ever justified a full-scale military invasion from the USA? Oh yes, the USA fascists and hard-liners from the republicans would have loved that. Just like the various fascists, traditionalists and neo-nazis of Russia who love the flag and the military really love the idea of conquering Ukraine and reforming a Great Russia (like historical nazis liked their Great Germany). I did not think i would ever say this in my entire life, but do you realize you're spitting propaganda from actual fascists in the name of fighting against nazism?
I've read it. Some sources in there are interesting, but the material itself is completely disconnected from reality. In the sociopathic game of geopolitics, NATO expansion has certainly destabilized the balance of power and incentivized Russia to assert itself (and its claim on its former colonies). But you cannot compare countries forging military alliances, and a country invading another country... it's a completely different kind of escalation.
If anything, your article confirms that Putin is a colonialist bully just as much as NATO is in other parts of the world. It's just russian propaganda and does not account for mischief and imperialist ambitions on the part of Russia. If you want a more nuanced source, i'd recommend checking out Glenn Greewald's Twitter feed: it does a great job to denounce the hypocrisy of western powers, while at the same time acknowledging that invading a sovereign nation is always wrong, no matter what.
Putin's actions, not words, have convinced me. No one has invaded Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine. You cannot talk fast enough to change the facts.
I'm not OK with either. But NATO did not invade Russia and AFAIK is not planning to. There is zero evidence to believe
I have no problems with that. But that's not what's happening: there is a full-scale invasion going on threatening the capital of Ukraine, where Putin's demands go far beyond independence for Donbass.
What the hell are you talking about? I may be missing some details, but Poroshenko's wikipedia page does not mention incarceration, but mentions losing in the elections to Zelensky. To quote the article:
I'm not saying Zelensky is much better, but you seem to be ardent to defend an actual bourgeois fascist whose slogan is "military, language, faith" and inventing conspiracies around him? I mean if you do have reliable sources contradicting this Wikipedia article, please help improve it.
Yes there's selective cold war propaganda going on. And you're fully subscribed to one side of it. I personally am very critical of both sides of the propaganda, and supportive of the civilians and internationalist socialists/communists/anarchists suffering due to political repression on both sides of the border. As much as you dismiss Greenwald, he's doing a correct journalistic job on this topic: he's presenting the lies from both sides and supporting the victims (the populations). You're just a puppet of the Russian Empire. Which side are you on? Are you on the same side as Putin and NATO and other vampires playing the same game of geopolitics? Or are you on the side of the people who struggle against oppression and aim for self-organization at all levels of society?