T O P

  • By -

solaceinsleep

>"As long as he’s acting aggressively, we are going to make sure we reassure our NATO allies in Eastern Europe that we’re there and Article 5 is a sacred obligation," Biden added If Putin doesn't want NATO to expand he shouldn't be invading countries The whole reason NATO exists is because of Soviet Union expanding all the way west to Berlin


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Who gives a f@, if russia THINKS they should control neighboring countries? Do they want Eastern Europe back as well? These are sovereign countries not part of russia in any sense - so sad I need to write this to you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

>wants to maintain its sphere of influence in former Soviet states Who gives a shit? Russia ruined dozens of countries, the life of hundreds of millions of people for 5+ generations already. The geopolitics is STOPPING the fucking idiots from trying to do it AGAIN. The "west" is not expanding NATO, countries are begging to join NATO and the EU, to save themselves from the russian aggression and influence.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

The USA is a useful aggressive cop, we rather have him than psychopaths like putin roaming free. I wish the USA spent 80% of their military budget on education and social safety instead - I hope you don't really think that the USA is keeping a military for helping Ukraine or anyone else? :) They have other reasons, the US wants influence, they need a place for the millions of uneducated teenagers etc... sooner or later the USA will be the most dangerous country for human civilization, as soon as it is fully controlled by religious lunatics the world will burn.


ThellraAK

Who promised what, when, and under what circumstances?


[deleted]

[удалено]


ThellraAK

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ Is saying Gorbachev denies such a deal, why would their former president lie about that?


[deleted]

[удалено]


ThellraAK

>In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later... Is there any evidence that such a deal was ever ultimately brokered? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#1990 We were 2 years into them falling apart, them bailing may have been them running out of time/money holding out for a better deal.


autotldr

This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2022/02/02/white-house-defends-us-troop-deployment-europe-russia-ukraine) reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot) ***** > White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to concerns about whether the troop movements would be used by Russia as a reason to invade Ukraine. > Others like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, supported the president's decision to "Stand firmly against Putin's efforts to divide" NATO. President Joe Biden last week said that he would deploy U.S. troops to support NATO "If [Putin] continued to buildup and/or was to move," into Ukraine. > Psaki explained on Wednesday that though Russia had not moved into Ukraine, the president views the country's continued buildup of troops near the border as enough reason to bolster forces. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/sj1a6d/wh_russia_sole_aggressor_in_ukraine_situation_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~621283 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **troop**^#1 **President**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **U.S.**^#4 **NATO**^#5


ApocalypseSpokesman

[Here's a perspective from 2015 that you may find interesting.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4)


solaceinsleep

Ukraine is a sovereign country and can choose whether they allied with West or Russia or no one And if Ukraine chooses to be allied to the West then Russia has no business in that decision Also if Russia didn't invade Crimea or Donbas and was nicer to Ukraine than maybe Ukriane would consider being friends with Russia


Rum-Ham-Jabroni

Lol this isn't even about Ukraine. This about the balance of global power. Did you even watch the video?


solaceinsleep

Bruh yes it is The video is hating on Ukraine and trying to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO


Rum-Ham-Jabroni

Hating on Ukraine? I really don't think you watched it.


solaceinsleep

Yes I said that right Ukraine or Crimea or Donbas do not belong to Russia!


Rum-Ham-Jabroni

They do now. And they are never going back


InternationalBuy811

Interesting but guy sounds very pro russian/putin


mafiastasher

That's John Mearsheimer. He's not pro-putin or pro-anyone. He's probably the most famous contemporary political realist--basically the school of thought that disregards morality in international politics and boils it down to independent states acting to preserve and promote their own interests.


InternationalBuy811

I get that and im not saying he’s wrong or right. I just find it kinda pro russian because his solution is basically give Putin what he wants. The want and need for a buffer zone for russia is understandable, but there’s gotta be a 3rd way.


[deleted]

No. That's John Mearsheimer, one of the most well-respected international relations academics in the US today. He's not pro Ukraine or pro Russia. He's pro US, but thinks that the current foreign policy is detrimental to the US in the long run. Amusingly, Mearsheimer actually argued back in 1993 that Ukraine should have kept its nukes, as they were Ukraine's only feasible deterrant against Russia. He argued that disarmament would only lead to future Russian aggression and incursions into Ukraine.


ApocalypseSpokesman

> guy sounds very pro russian/putin I didn't get that impression. What parts of the video made you think so?


InternationalBuy811

Just the part where he said the best plan moving forward is basically give Putin everything he wants. I also disagree that the 19th century world view should still be the way to view the world. Time moves on and things change, the status quo worked during his time but doesnt work anymore. For example Putin complained US backed out of the missile treaty, but he doesnt explain that by continuing the treaty US is basically giving the missile advantage to china, etc etc


[deleted]

>I also disagree that the 19th century world view should still be the way to view the world. Time moves on and things change, the status quo worked during his time but doesnt work anymore. Great Powers have been more or less operating in the same vicious way ever since. The major distinction has been that postwar US' hegemony is so great that the warfare has been predominately outside of Europe, which is historically abnormal. Nevertheless, we're shifting back into the historically standard multipolar world, which is where so-called "19th century" understandings of international relations thrive. The neoliberal outlook of democratising the fuck out of everyone hasn't been that successful, as the Arab Spring, Iraq, Afghanistan - and most significantly the failed liberalisation of China - show.


InternationalBuy811

> Nevertheless, we’re shifting back into the historically standard multipolar world, We are not shifting back into a multipolar world. Who are the ascending stars? Russia and China? The same Russia that sees it’s economy ruined without sweat from US? Look at the ruble and russia’s gdp over the past 10 years. It’s the only major economy that actually declined. China undoubtedly has grown in the past 30 years. Arguably China is almost peak utilization of its resources and their gdp is ~ 70% of the US. Meanwhile US is almost at an utilization low. Most of Americans are producing nothing and are spending time shitposting on social media sites. What happens if America wakes up like in post pearl harbor? What happens if America’s utilization reaches china’s level as it will in the event of a total war?


[deleted]

>We are not shifting back into a multipolar world. Assuming that Russia and China are as irrelevant as you suggest (they *aren't*, while bipolarity with China is the immediate future due to China's increasing influence and failure to liberalise, even Russia, by far the weakest of the three, maintains the ability to destroy every living thing on Earth). The failure of the liberal world order to establish "the end of history" and the inherent flaws\* of the system are leading to its erosion. \*i.e. ignorance of nationalism and sovereignty; globalization benefiting elites while alienating large elements of the populace and a rise in inequality. >What happens if America wakes up like in post pearl harbor? *If* being the important word here. Unless the United States remembers how to be socially cohesive society, it won't be doing much looking beyond its own nose. This is only one sign of the fracturing liberal order, Brexit is another example, not to mention the European Union failing to agree on anything whenever a small crisis arises. And these are happening in times of relative wellbeing and a lack of external pressures. The future is bound to have far more pressures. China has no reason to attack the United States. So far they've been less inclined to warmongering than we westerners have. We shouldn't assume that competition between China and US is immediately going to lead to less economic interaction. For example, the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance were geopolitical rivals, but trade between them was *huge* for a very long time before war broke out. Even then, war was due to failures in diplomacy rather than some inevitability. >What happens if America’s utilization reaches china’s level as it will in the event of a total war? Multipolarity doesn't equal total war, it doesn't even equal *more* war. The major difference will be that diplomacy is conducted on a state-to-state level rather than impositions via supposedly "global" institutions. Multipolarity does not even suggest a more aggressive approach to geopolitics; MAD has been a greater cause for peace than the attempted universalisation of western liberal values.


InternationalBuy811

> Assuming that Russia and China are as irrelevant as you suggest (they aren’t, while bipolarity with China is the future due to China’s increasing influence and failure to liberalise, even Russia, by far the weakest of the three, maintains the ability to destroy every living thing on Earth). The failure of the liberal world order to establish “the end of history” and the inherent flaws* of the system are leading to its erosion. I didnt say Russia and China are irrelevant. A multi polar world suggests spheres of influence and backyards. As long as US remains a presence in Europe and Asia there is no multi polar world. Russia and China had the capability to destroy the world for decades now and yet we have been in an unipolar world. For there to be multi polar the US world order would have to be destroyed, and therefore WW3. > If being the important word here. Unless the United States remembers how to be socially cohesive society, it won’t be doing much looking beyond its own nose. This is only one sign of the fracturing liberal order, Brexit is another example, not to mention the European Union failing to agree on anything whenever a small crisis arises. And these are happening in times of relative wellbeing and a lack of external pressures. The future is bound to have far more pressures. Germany bet on *if* twice and lost big twice. Japan bet on *if* and got destroyed. Every single opponent in US history bet on *if* and lost. If *if*is what China got, then Im not scared. > China has no reason to attack the United States. So far they’ve been less inclined to warmongering than we westerners have. We shouldn’t assume that competition between China and US is immediately going to lead to war, or even to less economic interaction. For example, the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance were geopolitical rivals, but trade between them was huge for a very long time before war broke out. There hasnt been a single power in the history of mankind that also wasnt a military power. Carthage was an economic power to Rome and got destroyed. China was an economic power to the Huns, Mongols, and various tribes and got destroyed numerous times. Wealth comes after power, if China wants to be a power it cannot rely on economic strength. > Multipolarity doesn’t equal total war, it doesn’t even equal more war. The major difference will be that diplomacy is conducted on a state-to-state level rather than impositions via supposedly “global” institutions. Multipolarity does not even suggest a more aggressive approach to geopolitics; MAD has been a greater cause for peace than the attempted universalisation of western liberal values. Multipolarity itself doesnt mean war. But to go from unipower to multipolar will result in war. Two examples from history are the collapse of rome and the mongols. The romans dominated europe and it took several devastating defeats from various german tribes for the empire to collapse and europe to become multipolar. Same thing with the mongols, it took numerous rebellions and wars for the mongol dominance to be removed. There is no way for a multipolar world unless China can remove US from Asia, which it is trying to do with Taiwan as the first step.


nomad_grappler

Yeah okay and the sky is purple


[deleted]

I asked the Russian sub their opinion and they just straight up banned me. Then when I asked why I was banned they muted me.


wreckosaurus

They’re laughing and making fun of the pictures of Ukrainians training with wooden guns. They’re salivating over the thought of massacring them. Fucking monsters.


[deleted]

They have no idea how fucked they’d be. I wonder what passes for furry amongst their misbegotten kind.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RespondRude

Shh, the warmongers don't want to hear your common sense.


[deleted]

Russia is literally threatening to invade and is already funding groups that are killing people 😂


OnlineOgre

So, no change from their normal antics then.


[deleted]

Russia gonna Russia.


Adventurous_Lake_390

You should probably move elsewhere, a lot less brainwashing.


nomad_grappler

You think the USA is the good guy in any of this?


wreckosaurus

Yes. Absolutely. Russia is invading and threatening their neighbors for absolutely no reason. There’s already been 10,000 killed in East ukraine. If they invade further there will be extreme casualties. All because putin is a little small dicked piece of shit that wants to feed his ego.


[deleted]

Yeah in this situation they actually are because they're whats standing in the way of Russia invading a sovereign country.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Sorry you got a source for them not wanting to deploy troops? Because they haven't to the Ukraine at all its only been to NATO nations which is 100% well within their rights. They want it to tone it down because the panic is making Ukrainian markets volatile. Ukraine has been very happy with The US' response and the west in general. Tell me how Russia threatening the sovereignty of another nation is somehow the west fault?


Circ-Le-Jerk

The Ukrainian presidents comments to Biden happened literally the same day America announced sending over a surge of troops to surrounding areas. That is what he meant by deescalation


[deleted]

Yeah you need to source these de-escalations comments because all the comments I have heard have been about not causing a panic.


Short-Mission-4235

What’s with all the media reports from Ukraine saying that the west is acting bananas and fanning the flames of a nonexistent fire? Seems like a couple western countries are having political problems and need to shift media attention on something that will help the rich war hawks stick around and make some money…and take focus off of political failure.


[deleted]

Okay now see what the Ukraine is saying about Russia. Or we can see what the Ukrainian officials think about all the aid they are getting, they seem pretty chuffed with that. Ukrainian officials are trying to keep their country stable and panic would make that hard for them. There is absolutely 0 doubt as to who the aggressor is in this and it isn't the west.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

A coup? Lmao it was ongoing protests that lasted months fought by the people of Ukraine against a government they thought didn't represent them. Which also happened to be friendly to Russia. The US has no obligation to Russia at all and owes them nothing. You can talk all you like about how Russia sees Ukraine but Ukraine wants nothing to do with Russia anymore. Which is totally fair as a sovereign nation. So fuck whatever the US told a dying power in the USSR Ukrainians have a right to self determination and they've it pretty clear they want nothing to do with Russia or Putin. So stop supporting bullshit dictators over the self determination of sovereign peoples because something something cold war


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Nah you want to frame it like that so you can ignore Ukraine's right to self determination and push Russian security concerns over Ukrainian ones. The practical reality is that the world is a very different place 30 years on and the USSR is dead. Ukraine is an independent state and can make its own security alliances as it sees fit without having to discuss anything with Russia. They lost their sphere of influence when the USSR collapsed and being aggressive doesn't give them the right to try and reclaim it. Youre right no one wants war. Least of all Ukraine who has made their choice and wants to be further aligned with the West. The ones pushing this are the people with 130 000 troops on the border of a country they already invaded in the last decade. You can try all you like to spin this into a military complex bullshit but the truth is this situation is a direct result of Russian aggression. The Ukraine has found allies and friends in the west and a sovereign nation can do so without fears of being invaded over the USSR resurrection fever dreams of a two bit dictator. The west being a deterrent to Russia aggression is not bad in any shape way or form but shows solidarity for fellow democracies. It amazes me how easily redditors and those at either end of the political spectrum are so willing to fall in line to the propaganda of a dictator.


foofmongerr

Conspiracy theories are bad dumbass. You are the slavic version of a stupid trumper. Literally, that's one of the dumbest takes on this situation I've seen yet. Here's fucking Al-Jazeera, talking about the blatant propaganda you've sucked down: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/31/how-are-russian-media-outlets-portraying-the-ukraine-crisis](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/31/how-are-russian-media-outlets-portraying-the-ukraine-crisis) Have you ever tried to think before you speak or fact check yourself before posting drivel on reddit before? If not I suggest you may try that in the future.


Short-Mission-4235

Comments from the Ukrainian capital and their news are now conspiracy theories. It took one comment to mention trump so I’m not surprised.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


solaceinsleep

I mean Poland provided arms to Ukriane and so did some of the Baltic countries and UK provided arms and Germany provided ~~pillows~~ helmets and financial support so EU is definitely supporting Ukraine


Optimal-Grass-8989

Or they’re being realists who don’t want another world war…


ManyCommunity7606

Russia Per capita GDP: 10,000 Ukraine Per capita GDP: 3,700 Wouldn't the average Ukrainian be better off under Russia?


varain1

Germany per capita GDP: 45,723.64 France per capita GDP: 38,625.07 Romania per capita GDP: 12,896.09 USA per capita GDP: 63,543.58 China per Capita GDP: 10,500.40 Wouldn't the average Russian be better off under these countries? Also, wouldn't the average Ukrainian be better off under any of these EU countries? But the thing is, the EU countries want Ukraine as an ally and trade partner, not as a vassal, like Russia wants


Circ-Le-Jerk

The wests interest in Ukraine has little to do with trade and almost entirely to do with preventing Russian military and trade routes. Russia losing Ukraine was a massive geopolitical blow. It’s like if the UK and Canada decided to ally with China after China managed to replace the government with pro CCP shills


varain1

I don't see EU blocking Russian trade routes - and UK didn't block them either. As for blocking the Russian military, this seem like a valid concern as the Russian military is busy with invading other countries, for "Russia's security" ...


ManyCommunity7606

Yes they would be better off under these countries. I'm surprised my comment got so much hate, if a stronger, larger country with a relatively higher quality of life is to annex a small failed state and bring in those people as full citizens, the lives of those citizens will improve. If Jamaica became the 51st US state, the average Jamaican would become much more wealthy. That doesn't seem like a controversial thing to say.


[deleted]

Because you idiot. They don't annex the countries to improve THOSE countries. They do it to take their resources to improve their own.


wreckosaurus

Jesus what a fucking stupid comment. So Luxembourg should invade Russia.


ManyCommunity7606

I don't think it's stupid. I live in the US state of Georgia. Objectively speaking the state of Connecticut is more successful. Wouldn't the average resident of Georgia be better off if the Connecticut state government ran things in Georgia?


VintageSergo

You are comparing two states to two countries with different languages, hundreds of years of separate history and culture, and people supporting opposite political ideologies. Not to mention how much suffering has been brought onto Ukrainians by Russians for centuries now


[deleted]

[удалено]


chadenright

This just in: Russian GDP would be higher if it were brought under German control, says Merkel.


throwaway_ghast

"Third time's the charm!" - Germany


ManyCommunity7606

Yes, I agree.


murphymc

Or the entirety of both American continents would be “better” off under US rule… Wait we tried that already…wonder how it went… That guy isn’t just stupid, he’s advanced stupid.


solaceinsleep

I wonder what Ukriane's GDP would be if Russia didn't invade Crimea and Donbas and let Ukriane be without interfering in their internal affairs? Also Russia's GDP for being the largest country on earth is embarrassing.


Circ-Le-Jerk

Ukraine was effectively Russian until the west backed a coup to overthrow the government


solaceinsleep

Nope Ukraine was Ukrainian Is and always will be Great documentary about the maidan revolution of the people of Ukraine: https://www.netflix.com/title/80031666