The ACTUAL reasons for russias invasion to ukraine
Post number #851412, ID: 672a82
|
The following video is 100% free from ANY propaganda: https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
Post number #851482, ID: 59091f
|
is my cereal 100% free from propaganda
Post number #851613, ID: e1f817
|
Oh shit, a familiar western voice. I'm going to believe everything he said.
Post number #851883, ID: c5d300
|
>>851613 Oh shit, actual facts. I', going to complain about the voice.
Post number #852038, ID: e1f817
|
>>851883 Imagine taking the word "voice" literally when talking about politics
Post number #852119, ID: 1d9de8
|
TL;DW anyone?
Post number #852121, ID: b68e27
|
>>852119 Oil/gas dominance in Europe, Strategic positioning. I've seen the video, but it's been a while.
Post number #852124, ID: 1d9de8
|
>>852121 Yeah that checks out, thanks.
Post number #852140, ID: e27b85
|
The interesting question is: Why does the russian government (and many russians) see the west/the NATO as a threat? Attacking russia would be madness. Unlike most other victims of NATO members aggression russia isn't a puppet-dictatorship, no ex-colony and (most important) it has nuclear weapons. Attacking the northwest of Ukraine was a horribly stupid decision. No one in the west would have really cared if they only took the southeast.
Post number #852303, ID: 994775
|
>>852140 My understanding of US foreign policy is the CIA goal is not about attacking but instead is about destabilizing other regions. If NATO can expand closer to Russia then it can expand CIA influence. But to me, it's a lame excuse for Russia to invade
Post number #852351, ID: 7b6fc1
|
>>852303 Well, I think the growing opposition in Belarus and riots in Kazakhstan made the little man in the gremlin a bit nervous. To be honest I'm sceptical if the USA/the west currently can offer a better alternative for russian people. Most of the latest "democracy exports" failed horribly. I would even question if this is seriously a goal of western foreign policy. In the end the "free" and "open" societies only work by offshoring their shit to lesser developed countries.
Post number #852355, ID: 7b6fc1
|
Usually to countries that can offer cheap ground resources, labour and some basic production with low environmental standards (=good profit). From time to time they're also nice to have a testing ground for new weapon technology. No one in the western politics really cared about some muslims and non-white people being killed. But killing white, christian people is another story. By attacking Ukraine Pitler broke this unwritten rule of western "foreign policy ethics".
Post number #852422, ID: a60ef2
|
>>852355 agree with most except the last part. I don't see people clamoring to save the Argentinians or South Africans from poverty. Ukraine would've been left to rot too, since Slavs are lower on the white people hierarchy. Nobody would cared either when Georgia was invaded, it's just that this war is made in the direction towards Europe.
Post number #852529, ID: 8e82a2
|
>>852351 If you look at it in black & white, no. I don't think the west will be able to offer anything Russia can stomach. Theres too many cultural and economic logic differences.
But if you consider it a sliding scale, yea, western influence is probably a good thing.
There's a video floating around twitter right now of some ukrainian grandmas laughing about the fact that the russian soldiers were surprised by indoor toilets.
Total number of posts: 14,
last modified on:
Sat Jan 1 00:00:00 1649928546
| The following video is 100% free from ANY propaganda:
https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=If61baWF4GE