If the point is simply strategic interest why did Putin feel the need to lecture Tucker Carlson about hundreds of years of Russian history? Is that propaganda to justify the real motive? Tucker(and his audience) are prime targets for NATO expansion bullshit talking points.

Seems to me it's the other way around. Putin and his minions use the NATO talking point for propaganda(which appeals to anti-Western Westerners like yourself and Djunior), while Putin's true motive has more to do with his conception of what Russia is and should be as a great power.

This post was edited by IceMage on Mar 9 2024 07:42am

Your walls of text are becoming unbearable and require an effort to even respond to this so I cut to the relevant bits.

You want sources of far right ultra nationalists in Ukraine right. Have you heard of Stepan Bandera? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera

Check that source and let it sink in. A striking quote from that source:




And this https://www.wiesenthal.com/about/news/wiesenthal-center-harshly-4.html




Here you see Ukraine's (former) top general Zaluzhny posing in his office, notice the Bandera busts and portrait




Statue of Bandera, notice the red/black flags, yes?




Euromaidan, notice the red and black flags?




You could've found out about this a long time ago, Western media were all reporting on this and stating that far right ultra nationalists in Ukraine were a big problem. The US even signed a law that prohibited arming neo-nazi groups in Ukraine https://khanna.house.gov/media/in-the-news/congress-bans-arms-ukraine-militia-linked-neo-nazis


Here's a selection of Western media reporting on the Ukrainian nazi problem on You Tube



Check these links, can only embed 1 video
BBC - Ukraine: On patrol with the far-right National Militia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE6b4ao8gAQ
Time - Inside A White Supremacist Militia in Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy910FG46C4
The Guardian - Ukraine's far-right children's camp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiBXmbkwiSw
AP - Ukraine far right groups stage anti-govt march https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0Xr57IcTxI


This is just a small selection, if you take the time to ask google about this you find an abundance of vids and articles


About the sources I posted previously, the message of high ranking Western officials at Maidan is clear. They literally say they support the protesters. For Russia it's crystal clear what's happening (Ukraine's legitimate president overthrown by Western backed protesters) and that this is a huge provocation to which they might react. Nothing you said changes that.

cant remember if we posted this

Whether you frame it as neoimperialist irridentism or justifiable defensive reaction, what functional difference does it make to the proximate cause of this war? That just had a bearing on how far you think Putin's ambitions might extend past Ukraine. As to why this war began, its clearly a response to NATO barging into his back yard via a color revolution, threatening Russian access to strategic resources, the black sea and a buffer state. They were at peace with the status quo until we buggered it, they never lifted a finger to build an empire in ukraine until we tried to snatch it. And that does say something about imperialist ambitions.

I'll tell you one thing I agree with the neoliberals on: Losing the war in Ukraine is indeed likely to embolden Putin to seize more territory, at a minimum transnistria, possibly looking deeper into the baltics. The difference is I said we shouldn't pick a losing fight in the first place and shouldn't double down on losing it harder. Now we've got childhood sex abuse victim Macron wanting to start WW3.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Mar 9 2024 09:04am

Yes I posted it

The timing of this is interesting considering she's one of the "project Ukraine" architects and Ukraine is in dire straits rn

Very comprehensive view and primarily opposed view to Mearsheimers theory of realism, a large part of Putins justification for the invasion.
Not only debunks that justification, again, but also rebukes the threadbare excuse that Putin sought to negotiate in good faith prior to February 2022.
As if tanks rolling upto the border left any room to negotiate in good faith anyway.

Again the misunderstanding of Mearsheimer is that he's attempting to excuse or justify, when he's attempting to explain. BoJo's peace deal scuttling and the negotiations are all pretty irrelevant, the casus belli was NATO expansion into Ukraine via color revolution in the first place. They can talk all they want about the 90s era guarantees or trade accusations of bad faith at the Kiev negotations, it doesn't change the simple cause and effect: The Maidan upset the balance of power and Russia acted to seize it back.
The advantage to people who explain is that they can predict what's going to happen in the future, as opposed to people who try to justify or rationalize, who can predict what they want to have happen in the future. Its why Mearsheimer said Russia would invade when nobody believed him.

Oh no Mearsheimer is not justifying anything but Putin has been trying to; And the implication is that NATO expansion was a threat to Russia, which has debunked now on multiple levels.

I think people hold Mearsheimer on a pedestal because his theories resonate with them and explain actions that they wish to consider justified.
Ironically many of the same people deride the US or its allies for acting in their own self interest while maintaining Russia's actions are totally justified because offensive realism is accurate.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Mar 9 2024 10:19am

Debunked? Macron is talking about sending NATO troops to kill Russian soldiers, NATO missiles are striking cities inside Russia.
NATO reached its hand inside Russia's trousers and stuck a thumb up its butthole before Putin straightened up, NATO expansion wasn't threatening Russia with a color revolution, it was already wounding Russia, the blow was already dealt.
We're not talking about a preemptive war on a hypothetical justification