I am not convinced Russia is not the agressor.
I more or less am. Obviously invasion is a violent act but I laid out in my last post provocations and threats to Russia from NATO/Ukraine proxy. USA and NATO have engaged in numerous acts of aggression against those that are no threat to them just in my adult life. Libya (no threat) - destroyed. Iraq (no threat) - regime toppled and long-term occupation. Afghanistant (no threat) - invasion and long-term occupation, got lost on way to Saudi Arabia apparently. Then there are less overt hostile actions, colour revolutions in Ukraine, using military threat to suppress resistance or supplying arms to aggressors (Saudi and Yemen, for example) or air support of Al Quaeda terrorists in Syria. And finally the very real effects of the economic warfare on Russia, Iran, et al.
It is unarguable that the USA and NATO are hostile and
aggressive (the key part) actors. And that bringing Ukraine into a military alliance with it is a hostile act towards Russia that is a direct and real threat to Russia's existence. Your position to me reads like a person saying that a wrestling match is non-violent because 'yes, he's going to put his arm around the guy's neck but until the oxygen is actually cut off it's not aggression'. Aside from all the ways the USA has actually been aggressive and actually backed acts of violence by its proxies, I do not consider lining up for a violent act something one should simply wait for.
We may not agree with this but I think my case is pretty damn supportable. I don't consider Russia to be the primary aggressor in this conflict simply because for most people the cameras only started rolling four weeks ago at the point Russia took action; or because people want to say putting a gun to someone's head (preparing groundwork for military forces and missiles on Russia's border) is distinct from pulling the trigger.
The USA is known hostile and has clear history of initiating aggressive acts overt, covert and economic. You don't keep waiting for the final blow like the "This is fine" dog.
Sure, NATO did interfere in politics and delivered arms to the Ukies, expecting a war, but Russia has no reason to invade besides "waaa we can't have a bordering country join NATO".
See it's that little "waaa" baby characterization of Russia that I reject as any kind of sensible discussion. Russia has CLEAR reasons that Ukraine joining NATO is a real threat. The USA has been pursuing a strategy of nuclear primacy for over a decade. They have a policy goal of being able to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike that the opposing party could not retaliate from. Read the article I've attached to this post, re-published in Foreign Affairs over ten years ago. In fact, I'd really recommend anyone who can spare ten minutes read it - it's that good. Russia isn't going "waaa" as you suggest. Ukraine joining NATO or in any other way allowing US bases in its borders is massive. Don't dismiss it. And yes, it is an act of aggression just like that wrestler putting his arm around your neck but just hasn't started squeezing, yet. By the time he does, you've given up your chance to stop him.
I have heavy doubts of the "Russian Victim" narrative. The thing is, I fail to find any source acknowledging other than people (that happen pro Russia in this war) mention this at all.
I've yet to see a proper source or mention of it before this war.
For real? You're responding with the above to my comments on shutting off the water to Crimea? Or the shelling in breakaway republics or the ultranationalist violence against ethnic Russians?
@A_throwaway_name62919 made a much better response about how Ukraine was not obliged to provide water to the people there. That's a supportable viewpoint. I don't agree with it because using the shutting off of drinking water as a political weapon is abhorrent to me. It's not like Ukraine was saying: "okay, but we're going to demand some payment for the infrastructure on our side" or similar. It was "no right to self-determination for you, go thirsty". But they made a logical argument. You're actually going to dispute state-backed or tolerated harm on ethnic Russians in Ukraine and Crimea? That's absurd.
There's no doubt Zelensky is corrupt. But I don't think either leaders have the interests of the people living in Ukraine.
Sounds like you're conceding my point that one corrupt government is much like the other. What is in the interests of the average Ukranian is peace and Zelensky and the West could have brought that about by allowing the people of Crimea self-determination, negotiating something peaceful in the disputed regions - or at least trying. And shelving trying to form a military alliance with a power hostile to Russia and with a proven track record of military aggression.
Yea I see that being the case, and a lot of bankers will make money off of this, but I'm pretty sure Biden's presidency has anything to do with this.
??? The President of the USA, who largely determines the USA's foreign policy, has nothing to do with this? This is a cash-cow for American arms manufacturers. The Ukraine has been used to launder money for years by leading figures in the Democrat party. And foreign war has been used as a scapegoat and diversion from problems at home since at least Roman times. Over and over. The Biden presidency is facing high inflation, potentially catastrophic border policies, soaring energy costs and a potential massive devaluing of the dollar (some would argue this has already happened given how much money has been printed in the last decade). There is
every motivation to encourage a limited foreign war. Hillary would have done it five years ago if she'd won the presidency.
NP. Hopefully unlike most of the slanging match going on here, this is a civil disagreement.
Honestly, after how valuable the Covid thread here was for information, it's disappointing how Kiwi's are gibbering at each other in this one.
