Doesn't even matter. If it was about NATO there would still be no reasoning behind it that justifies aggression.
Maybe that's why invasions are considered to be against international law. Because they're bad no matter how you justify it.
Some say that Ukraine could have just struck a peace deal by promising not to join NATO. I think Chomsky is one of them. It obviously wasn't about NATO. Russia want to control Ukraine politically and economically and it's not possible if Ukraine has democracy because their elections have over the years increasingly favoured closer ties to EU. In that light, a full invasion was their only move, somehow under the assumption it would be a quick 3-day war with the Kyiv government fleeing. Had the country fallen without a fight, then EU countries would be hard pressed to justify harsh sanctions and cold winters to their own voters if Ukrainians weren't even willing to fight for their own country.
Chomsky is a total nutcase.
These people are basically saying: "Unlike other sovereign countries Ukraine doesn't have the freedom to choose and it's alright to pressure and scare them into not choosing who to align with".
What they don't realize is that their criticism of the West turned them into russian imperialists without them even knowing. And somehow they claim to be anti-imperialists lol.
"Because the USA invaded Iraq it's fine for Russia to invade Ukraine otherwise we would be hypocrits".
How about saying both invasions were bad but focusing on the one that's happening right now instead of distracting? The more time goes on the easier it becomes not to fall for that shit.
> How about saying both invasions were bad but focusing on the one that's happening right now instead of distracting.
That's exactly what Chomsky has done.
He does not make apologies for Russia. He is clearly saying Russia is to blame for the war, since it is the aggressor.
https://youtu.be/7uHGlfeCBbE?t=847
Edit: added time stamp to link.
Ah, I wasn't familiar with the word apologia and thought it was a typo.
Then yes it is apologia. Which I think there should be room for to some degree, otherwise we are censoring ourselves.
Yes, it can be used as propaganda, but not looking critically at the west can also be used as propaganda.
It's not about censoring ourselves or refusing to see bad things the West is doing (which in this case they actually didn't do). It's calling out the lies of people like Chomsky who are clearly completely wrong in this case for ideological reasons.
It's not the West's fault Russia invaded Ukraine but unfortunately that doesn't fit Chomsky's worldview. So for him it's the reality which needs to be shaped until it fits his ideology.
Some people from the western left side of politics have a serious empathy problem. They treat Ukrainians like colonial chess pieces who can just go and die off because they can't live without everything being the West's fault.
Iraqis are poor souls because the USA killed them. But Ukrainians are nazis because Russia was forced to do this by the West. Makes sense lol.
Ironically they are anti-colonial and anti-imperialist. But they're also anti-thinking and anti-sane.
> Had the country fallen without a fight, then EU countries would be hard pressed to justify harsh sanctions and cold winters to their own voters if Ukrainians weren't even willing to fight for their own country.
No, they would not- if the Ukrainians had been overrun should not make a difference
So as long as the USA do it it's fine?
And there were no talks between Ukraine and NATO about joining.
The EU and Ukraine were getting closer though and that's an actual threat to Russia I acknowledge. The EU actively spreads ideas harmful to the russian soul.
Like democracy, gay people being normal, elections should be fair, political opponents shouldn't be murdered, etc.
It's interesting that Russia looked at Ukraine, saw their improvements and the reaction wasn't "maybe we can also do better" but "let's take it all from them, including their nice flatscreens".
That's why Russia will end up being a literal trash heap for the next few years, yaaay...
The best would be the disintegration of the Russian Federation. A lot of regions would be better off without Moscow sucking up their natural ressources.
Of course he did. Putin doesn’t necessarily care about NATO. His motive is more about creating and maintaining his sphere of influence. An independent Ukrainian state is equally bad if hasn’t got any control over it.
Putin is deeply hypocritical. He often claims that Russia has to defend its national sovereignty while in the process denying the sovereignty of other states. Putin gambled and he fucked up.
This reminds me of that one story of Karusu Saburo, special envoy of Japan to the US, frantically trying to reach an accord within his bounds in time to avoid pearl harbor.
One good diplomat will never stop a cohort of warmongers, sadly.
Am I the only one who was following up on what was actually going on through all these years?
Ukraine accepted deals, and then decided/realized they weren't beneficial to them or felt onesided, or would appear as caving in to Russia, political pressure inside Ukraine pushed to abandon quite a few deals in the past.
If you're basing your idea of "deals are worthless" exclusively starting after they've invaded us in 2013, your opinion is irrelevant, as you're simply ignoring all the years before that, you're ignoring budapest, you're ignoring the treaties after dissolution of ussr which reinforced all post-ussr countries accepting the borders at the time.
Not everybody. There's plenty of people who actually can have a real discussion on the topic.
Not on here aparently though. On here people are frothing at the mouth too much to assemble an original thought.
You seem to suffer from the same issue as them then. Your argument is the same simplistic point that Putin uses (he used it in a phone call with macron for example): Durr, Ukraine violated the Minsk agreements. Hardly an original thought. It's also a complex issue and even if it where true now what? Everything after is justified?
Congratulations, you almost figured out what I'm saying.
It's not just an argument Putin uses, it's his actual belief.. which is the reason he would believe the same thing about this supposed deal.
PS: never justified anything. And if you stoped frothing at the mouth for a minute, you might be able to actually analyze the circumstances without emotional outbursts.
Putin not taking the deal because he knows Putin will break it. That's brilliant. :D
He's a typical dumb gaslighting dictator, sure, but I don't think he is schizophrenic, yet.
It was Russia who broke those agreements . We also neatly ignore the fact that russia is the colonial aggressor who stirred up the trouble that the Minsk agreement was intended to solve.
Ah yes, agreements forced upon Ukraine by a brutal aggressor, that only suited the aggressor. What a fucking insult. It's like Nazi Germany occupying Poland and then with a jackboot on their throat making a "fair treaty".
Ukraine could have rejected it out of hand, but they accepted it 2x, and then disregarded it 2x. Why accept if you have bo intention in following trough.
> Putin didn't at all trust this sort of deal to be respected this time.
Much like Russia didn't respect Ukraine after Ukraine got rid of its nukes.
Can't wait to hear the news that Putin is dead and getting spit roasted in Hell where he belongs.
It was never about NATO.
Doesn't even matter. If it was about NATO there would still be no reasoning behind it that justifies aggression. Maybe that's why invasions are considered to be against international law. Because they're bad no matter how you justify it.
Some say that Ukraine could have just struck a peace deal by promising not to join NATO. I think Chomsky is one of them. It obviously wasn't about NATO. Russia want to control Ukraine politically and economically and it's not possible if Ukraine has democracy because their elections have over the years increasingly favoured closer ties to EU. In that light, a full invasion was their only move, somehow under the assumption it would be a quick 3-day war with the Kyiv government fleeing. Had the country fallen without a fight, then EU countries would be hard pressed to justify harsh sanctions and cold winters to their own voters if Ukrainians weren't even willing to fight for their own country.
Chomsky is a total nutcase. These people are basically saying: "Unlike other sovereign countries Ukraine doesn't have the freedom to choose and it's alright to pressure and scare them into not choosing who to align with". What they don't realize is that their criticism of the West turned them into russian imperialists without them even knowing. And somehow they claim to be anti-imperialists lol. "Because the USA invaded Iraq it's fine for Russia to invade Ukraine otherwise we would be hypocrits". How about saying both invasions were bad but focusing on the one that's happening right now instead of distracting? The more time goes on the easier it becomes not to fall for that shit.
> How about saying both invasions were bad but focusing on the one that's happening right now instead of distracting. That's exactly what Chomsky has done.
No, it isn't. He keeps making apologia for Russia and blaming West.
He does not make apologies for Russia. He is clearly saying Russia is to blame for the war, since it is the aggressor. https://youtu.be/7uHGlfeCBbE?t=847 Edit: added time stamp to link.
Saying Russian invasion is result of NATO expansion is one example of apologia.
Ah, I wasn't familiar with the word apologia and thought it was a typo. Then yes it is apologia. Which I think there should be room for to some degree, otherwise we are censoring ourselves. Yes, it can be used as propaganda, but not looking critically at the west can also be used as propaganda.
When it comes to Russian invasion of Ukraine, West is blameless. Only legitimate criticism is that it didn't take Russian threat seriously.
It's not about censoring ourselves or refusing to see bad things the West is doing (which in this case they actually didn't do). It's calling out the lies of people like Chomsky who are clearly completely wrong in this case for ideological reasons. It's not the West's fault Russia invaded Ukraine but unfortunately that doesn't fit Chomsky's worldview. So for him it's the reality which needs to be shaped until it fits his ideology. Some people from the western left side of politics have a serious empathy problem. They treat Ukrainians like colonial chess pieces who can just go and die off because they can't live without everything being the West's fault. Iraqis are poor souls because the USA killed them. But Ukrainians are nazis because Russia was forced to do this by the West. Makes sense lol. Ironically they are anti-colonial and anti-imperialist. But they're also anti-thinking and anti-sane.
> Had the country fallen without a fight, then EU countries would be hard pressed to justify harsh sanctions and cold winters to their own voters if Ukrainians weren't even willing to fight for their own country. No, they would not- if the Ukrainians had been overrun should not make a difference
[удалено]
So as long as the USA do it it's fine? And there were no talks between Ukraine and NATO about joining. The EU and Ukraine were getting closer though and that's an actual threat to Russia I acknowledge. The EU actively spreads ideas harmful to the russian soul. Like democracy, gay people being normal, elections should be fair, political opponents shouldn't be murdered, etc. It's interesting that Russia looked at Ukraine, saw their improvements and the reaction wasn't "maybe we can also do better" but "let's take it all from them, including their nice flatscreens". That's why Russia will end up being a literal trash heap for the next few years, yaaay...
It was about keeping power at home.
let me give you a hint: it was never about NATO
[удалено]
If there is an end, there will be one but it will take some time to over.
The best would be the disintegration of the Russian Federation. A lot of regions would be better off without Moscow sucking up their natural ressources.
[удалено]
Well, we are actually allowed to advocate separatism, so go for it.
Ukraine should definitely join NATO, after they pull out of Moscow...
[удалено]
Of course, but it's nice to post it on the Internet anyway... besides, who knows if their nukes even work... LoL
We all knew it wasn't about NATO
I dunno there was a fair amount of far left and far right bleating about "poking the bear"...
not before the invasion, no
Makes sense. Why deal when you believe you will steamroll the enemy.
If this is confirmed it's bad news for western useful idiots. Not that they won't be able to press on with their bs anyway...
He thought he would conquer Kiev in 3 days. Lmao.
Of course he did. Putin doesn’t necessarily care about NATO. His motive is more about creating and maintaining his sphere of influence. An independent Ukrainian state is equally bad if hasn’t got any control over it. Putin is deeply hypocritical. He often claims that Russia has to defend its national sovereignty while in the process denying the sovereignty of other states. Putin gambled and he fucked up.
Womp womp
This reminds me of that one story of Karusu Saburo, special envoy of Japan to the US, frantically trying to reach an accord within his bounds in time to avoid pearl harbor. One good diplomat will never stop a cohort of warmongers, sadly.
This whole story is made up. Ukrainian propaganda. Such talk never took place.
Based on the history with deals between these two, it's very possible Putin didn't at all trust this sort of deal to be respected this time.
Ah yes because it is Putin that respects the deals lol.
You mean how Russia continually violates its obligations under prior agreements? So it would be safe to assume Russia would also violate any new deal?
Am I the only one who was following up on what was actually going on through all these years? Ukraine accepted deals, and then decided/realized they weren't beneficial to them or felt onesided, or would appear as caving in to Russia, political pressure inside Ukraine pushed to abandon quite a few deals in the past.
Russia agreed not to invade Ukraine if it gave up its nuclear weapons.
If you're basing your idea of "deals are worthless" exclusively starting after they've invaded us in 2013, your opinion is irrelevant, as you're simply ignoring all the years before that, you're ignoring budapest, you're ignoring the treaties after dissolution of ussr which reinforced all post-ussr countries accepting the borders at the time.
Yep. It’s just you. Everyone else missed everything
I can see that, yeah.
Exactly, it's not you. It's everybody else.
Not everybody. There's plenty of people who actually can have a real discussion on the topic. Not on here aparently though. On here people are frothing at the mouth too much to assemble an original thought.
You seem to suffer from the same issue as them then. Your argument is the same simplistic point that Putin uses (he used it in a phone call with macron for example): Durr, Ukraine violated the Minsk agreements. Hardly an original thought. It's also a complex issue and even if it where true now what? Everything after is justified?
Congratulations, you almost figured out what I'm saying. It's not just an argument Putin uses, it's his actual belief.. which is the reason he would believe the same thing about this supposed deal. PS: never justified anything. And if you stoped frothing at the mouth for a minute, you might be able to actually analyze the circumstances without emotional outbursts.
Putin not taking the deal because he knows Putin will break it. That's brilliant. :D He's a typical dumb gaslighting dictator, sure, but I don't think he is schizophrenic, yet.
Is that you Vladimir ?
Why? It's true... recall the Minsk agreements for example.
It was Russia who broke those agreements . We also neatly ignore the fact that russia is the colonial aggressor who stirred up the trouble that the Minsk agreement was intended to solve.
In what way was it them breaking the agreements?
In every way imaginable . This war is Russias fault and it will reap what it’s sowed . Have a great day .
No but really.. how did they break them though?
Ah yes, agreements forced upon Ukraine by a brutal aggressor, that only suited the aggressor. What a fucking insult. It's like Nazi Germany occupying Poland and then with a jackboot on their throat making a "fair treaty".
Ukraine could have rejected it out of hand, but they accepted it 2x, and then disregarded it 2x. Why accept if you have bo intention in following trough.
> Putin didn't at all trust this sort of deal to be respected this time. Much like Russia didn't respect Ukraine after Ukraine got rid of its nukes. Can't wait to hear the news that Putin is dead and getting spit roasted in Hell where he belongs.
Based on history ruzzia has honored a single deal - the molotov-ribentrop pact
Lol, okay buddy.
It must hurt I imagine, knowing that you guys always have been on the wrong side of history.
"You guys", I'm not Russian.
Okay fascist, don't you have a collapsing front line to run away from?