I take that as a yes

I never denied that geopolitical considerations play a large role in the US or NATO approach to this conflict, so I don't really get why you think this is a big gotcha?!

What I reject is the idea peddled by you that the West was aggressively pushing for Ukrainian NATO membership, or that NATO is trying to encircle and trap Russia, with the long-term goal of invading and "genociding" them.
In reality, the US would love for the European front to be calm and stable so that it can fully reorient its forces and attention toward China.

Speaking of which: doesn't it give you pause that FAR and away the biggest geopolitical winner of this war has been China (and to a lesser degree India and Saudi Arabia) while Ukraine, Europe, Russia and the US are all worse off?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 1 2024 05:29am

Meanwhile in Kharkiv

You're still peddling the "Putin bad dictator" and "we the good guys" narrative while it's abundantly clear that this is simply cold war aftermath (geo-politics) with NATO trying to grab whatever it can despite the fact that Russia has drawn a line in the sand.

@bold literally no one here is claiming NATO has the long term goal of exterminating all Russians and it would be impossible because ultimately those 6K nukes would be fired if that would be the case. Another one of your wild straw mans.

• Putin is indeed a dictator and he is indeed evil.
  
• We have far from a clean slate, but yes, we are the better/less evil guys in this conflict.
  
  
• NATO did not try to grab Ukraine while it could back in 2007 because many major members were against it. Likewise, NATO was not pushing the Swedes or Fins to join, they only became members when they themselves were asking for it. And that's in spite of Finland having a long border with Russia and allowing NATO to station troops and missiles in striking distance of Russia's second-largest city (which also happens to be Putin's hometown and power base). In reality, if NATO was this aggressive force looking to strategically encircle Russia, Finish NATO membership would have always been more valuable than Ukraine's.
  
  
• Russia has no moral or legal right to draw a line in the sand which robs other countries of their sovereignty. They might in the end be able to enforce their red line via sheer force, but this doesn't give their actions legitimacy.

Look here:


This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 1 2024 05:48am

"Putin evil" is for the Russian people to decide and only them.

"we the good guys" killed a couple hundred thousands Iraqi civilians and support the Gaza massacre unconditionally (when mentioned these are shamelessly called Whataboutisms)

These are used again and again as an excuse to support Ukraine with the one and only real goal: Profit for NATO at the expense of Russia. That's the only truth here and nothing else. (Geo-politics)

Lastly you're having a discussion with me, not with another user who may have said things I don't agree with. Once again, eradicating Russia isn't even an option due to those 6K nukes and I've never argued that it would be.

In 1941, you'd probably have gone "Hitler being evil is for the German people to decide and only them".


Iraq was two decades ago, so it doesn't necessarily mean much when it comes to who are the good or bad guys in the current conflict. If you wanna go back this far, we can also point out the people killed by Russia in Syria or Chechnya. Also note that many members of the pro-Ukraine coalition (e.g. Canada, France and Germany) were not part of the Iraq War.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 1 2024 07:45am

You're comparing Putin to Hitler which is a garbage argument. I don't even need to address this.

Two decades ago is a real short period and nothing you say will erase that black page in Western history. That's "the good guys" right there blowing up Iraqi civilians and laughing about it.

It was not my intention to draw a moral equivalence between Putin and Hitler. It was just the obvious example to illustrate that your argument of "only the citizens of a country have the right to assess the leader of their country" is logically faulty and ridiculous in practical terms. Even more so since you yourself brought up the Iraq War in literally the next sentence. By your own logic, it is only up to the US electorate whether GWB was a bad guy - and they opted to reelect him in 2004. By your own garbage logic, it is therefore not fair to argue that his actions were evil.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 1 2024 08:11am

You don't even get what I'm pointing out, lol

I mentioned that you (as an obvious outsider because you don't live in Russia) called Putin an evil dictator which is none of your business.

US citizens (not outsiders) obviously loved him for wiping Iraq off the map.