How is that ! The Russian republic inherited the U.S.S.R's military superpower status and its nuclear weapons. It is the only country on earth which can wipe out the U.S. and Europe several times on its own without blinking an eye.
So? What does that have to do with the rights of sovereign states on their borders? Do you think their might means nothing could or should be done to prevent their military expansionism?
Why cant the U.S. and NATO stick to smaller and less lethal countries like Iraq, Libya , Afghanistan and Serbia !
Why should they? You want countries like Ukraine to just be swallowed up by Russia without any recourse?
Your argument here seriously is "we should let Russia do what it wants because Russia is powerful". That's it. That's your argument. It's cowardly appeasement, all the way down.
This is just propaganda churned out by western media owned capitalist institutions.
Ah, the old trifecta of spurious insinuations. When in doubt, just call anything that disagrees with you (or proves you wrong) either "propaganda" or a result of "western media" or something something "capitalism". Or, all three! If you can get away with it.
Truth is that new weapons markets and sales are needed, and the reason for going down on the promises made to Gorbachev " not to expand an inch eastward. "
There was never any formal agreement, nothing in any treaty that was signed to that effect. Gentlemen's agreements don't really count when it comes to geopolitics, and the reality of the situation is that denying a sovereign state the right to free association without control by their neighbours is essentially a pro-authoritarian position.
I don't care about some vague statements or pinky-promise placation. I care about what is actually right and what is actually good. It is right and good that Ukraine have indepedence from Russia and be able to join whatever military alliances it wants. If Russia has a problem, it can swivel. It's not like Russia
broke several major agreements and treaties by invading Ukraine. But, apparently, some promise made decades ago that never made its way into any actual treaty matters more than that. Ho hum, I guess.
The more the passion generated, the more the war is extended. I am sure the propagandists are rofl seeing the way they keep duping the public on paying exhorbitantly for wars thousands of miles away, when money is needed at home for affordable healthcare, housing and education and other amenities which are free or cheap in other welfare countries and even in Russia.
Yeah, I agree, it totally sucks that this war
that was started by Russia is costing so many lives and distracting global funds that should be put to much better use elsewhere. But they did start it, and helping protect Ukraine is the right thing to do. I guess we'll just have to keep supporting it until Russia finally retreats and pays reparations.
Remember , a long unsuccessful war is more profitable than a short successful war.
Alleging that this war is about profits is asinine and absurd. Russia started it. If you don't want war profiteers to profit off of war, maybe you should
blame the people who started a war. Is your position that war should NEVER be engaged in, because people profit from it?
What about the U.S. bullying its latin american neighbors and invading many countries of the world which is too numerous to describe !
I also dislike and disagree with that.
Because I have what's called "ideological consistency". You may have heard of it. It's why, when people make arguments like "The USA has no right to intervene with sovereign states" and then, in practically the same breath, make statements like "NATO should never have expanded eastward and Ukraine should never have applied because Russia told them not to" it kind of rings hollow to me. Almost as if the person saying these things doesn't REALLY care about foreign interventionism or hegemonic power structures, they just care about being anti-America.
You're not an anti-imperialist, so stop pretending to be. You're making us genuine anti-imperialists look bad.
