That vid was uploaded 1 day ago

The Western media I linked above don't even mention the problems they reported anymore or say it's not a problem just like the guy in your video, lol

But hey nice try

Justified has nothing to do with US, Ukraine, Russia, Israel, Gaza or any other place. the word has nothing do to with any conflict. If you remove the word justified i have no problem with the statement you made. Offensive realism is a good expression.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 9 2024 10:23am

Your conflating NATO actions prior to Russia's invasion with events after the invasion.
NATO are not firing missiles at anyone.
Macrons comments are for a domestic audience primarily but also serve to allow strategic ambiguity. Which should have been done sooner to provide a vector of deterrent.

NATO is a defensive alliance. A majority of the European NATO members were closely tied to Russian supply of energy, threatening Russia made no sense.
Putin was not threatened by NATO. He was and is interested in a Russian sphere of influence in Ukraine; Blaming NATO expansion is a convenient ploy.

The war in Ukraine is the defining war in the decline of the "Russian Empire".



Great addition to the discussion debunked junior. Post a map.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Mar 9 2024 10:25am

You lost it again, blatantly supporting Western propaganda

We all know that Western media reported on far right neo nazis in Ukraine and after the invasion they all made a 180 and now report the exact opposite (there are very few / it's no problem)

lmao

This post was edited by Djunior on Mar 9 2024 10:32am

Nato is supplying the bombs that Ukraine (and Israel) is dropping. therefore they are indirectly involved. i.e. its a Proxy war. I dont know for Ukraine but it came out that if the US stopped sending bombs to Israel, Israel would run out of bombs within 2 weeks. While your position is Nato is a defensive alliance the fact remains that in 2014 the status quo changed in Russia's sphere of influence when Ukraine was pulled out of it, and it became a forward base of the US. While you can then make a statement that there was no intention to attack Russia, it can be argued that the attack was the events of 2014 (removing the pro russian government and subsequently progressing policies to align further with the West (Nato etc etc).

all of this is a background to the situation, whether you agree with the background or not it is more realistic to debate what happens next noting we have all had years now to land on our position as to how this war came about (and yet still disagree).

Would you care to give us an opinion as to how and when the war will end, or would you like myself or others to give our opinion on this first?

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 9 2024 10:41am

I mean they literally are, nato's little green men are on the ground in ukraine firing missiles



Macron is sabre rattling about world war 3, so much for that 'defensive alliance'



NATO went into his backyard and overthrew his most strategic buffer state with a color revolution. Again, and I don't think you're grasping this: Russia wasn't being threatened by NATO, Russia was under attack by NATO. If a crazy person on a subway swings a pipe around, I feel threatened. If a crazy person on a subway swings a pipe into my head, I feel, well, nothing at that point. The status quo ante was Ukraine as a stable sovereign legitimate democracy within Russia's sphere of influence. America swung a pipe into that.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Mar 9 2024 10:52am

At bold, I want to say false, but maybe its more accurate to say yes and no.
NATO is supplying non lethal aid. Countries that are also NATO members are supplying military aid. So there is a distinction.

Saying NATO missiles are landing in Moscow, is blatantly false.
Saying NATO is supplying military aid is also false.
Saying countries that are also in NATO are supplying weapons would however be accurate.

As referenced by Serhii Plokhy, (who if anyone was not aware as I was not until watching the Lex Friedman interview, is the quote - "professor of Ukrainian history at Harvard University, where he also serves as the director of the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute")
As referenced Finland has now entered NATO doubling the border between Russian and NATO if not more; So if the issue was distinctly NATO, it would be right to consider this move would be a huge provocation to Russia and potentially mean an invasion of the Nordic countries? Well, no.
So the nuance could be that Ukraine is intrinsically more important to Moscow, or that the eastern part of Ukraine specifically is geopolitically more valuable to Moscow. Probably true; Either way, NATO is not the motivating factor here. That is plainly obvious.
Continuing to deny this I believe is dishonest. At least to the extent that no reasoning can disprove what I have just expressed as the truth.

Lex also asks Plokhy about the potential "end" of the war. His answer is very interesting and I would tend to agree with it.
At this point the Russians may consider it worthwhile to push for as much territory as possible. Perhaps hoping that a slowdown of aid to Ukraine will allow for more gains.
Crucially Putin added the 5 Ukrainian oblasts to the RF as part of the Russian constitution. Unless that is changed, which could theoretically be possible following a political change inside Russia, then there won't be a cessation of fighting until Russia can control those regions.
Any potential ceasefire or armistice would only be a temporary undertaking. Until the point that Russia felt its military could accomplish retaking Kherson and all of the Donbas, Luhansk oblasts.

False. False. And false.

what do you mean by Nato is not supplying lethal aid? Is this a semantic's thing?



This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 9 2024 11:09am

Exactly that.