this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
52 points (100.0% liked)
Europa / Europe and the EU + EEA
1229 readers
47 users here now
A community for all things to do with Europe as well as the EU/EEA.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is not what I stated. I am against what Putin has done. I can be against that while also pointing to historical evidence that the US has been involved in similar projects throughout the world, usually with catastrophic consequences for civilian populations. Are you then to claim the US is a paper tiger as well since it has failed to succeed in small countries? Of course it isn't, because there is more context. To pretend Russia is on its knees is ignorance. Only people spoon fed pro-war propaganda believe such things. Just like the US, Russia doesn't expend its most advanced & expensive weaponey in conflicts like this because those are reserved for conflict with the likes of the US. What Ukraine has done well though is make Putin weaker in terms of the opinion of the Russian people, like Iraq & Afghanistan did in the US for those politicians.
You should think about what the actual result of this war escalating looks like though, not just for Ukraine but for the US and other nuclear powers. It isn't pretty & maybe that is something you're willing to move forward with. That doesn't mean there aren't strategies for helping Ukraine, or that Russia shouldn't face consequences, but if you think pushing NATO next to Russia is a good idea then I hope you fully understand what the consequences likely are. It won't make them weaker, but will only give people like Putin more power in the future.
5k military deaths in 20 years of bullshit in Afghanistan. How many Russians dead after 3 in Ukraine? Yeah, totally the same. The US failed on metrics other than military might.
Lolwat. The US uses its own wars as an excuse to show off the latest and greatest. Russia doesn't use the latest and greatest because they can't mass produce it. How many fucking SU-57s do they have? How many T-14s? They're pulling out mothballed soviet vehicles.
HEY IVAN, CAN YOU THINK OF ANY REASONS WHY A COUNTRY NEXT TO RUSSIA MIGHT WANT DEFENSIVE ALLIANCES AGAINST RUSSIA? Maybe if they didn't invade basically every country next to them, they wouldn't be so worried eh? I'm trying to get the point through your thick skull but you dodge it like your life depends on it. Sure, the US has done fucked up shit, but literally no sane interpretation of the relationship between the US, NATO, and Ukraine justify an invasion. Like you keep talking about NATO like that means anything. Why does putin give a shit if they're next door if he isn't expecting an invasion?
And again, GOOGLE. BUDAPEST. MEMORANDUM.
First, there is no accurate reporting of how many Russians have died. Some estimates are 1 million, while others are 1/4 of that total. It doesn't matter though because if Russia launches its 5,000+ nukes, then you will no longer be questioning if it has a strong military.
You clearly have no understanding of how US military projects work then because its latest & greatest are always under secrecy to prevent other countries from trying to replicate its technology, just like most countries developing their own weaponry. Really, it would do you wonders to maybe just watch a little history lesson about the cold war.
There you go with trying to claim my name is Ivan, which to you may feel like a burn but only shows me the weakness of your argument. It is clear you took the bait like a good messenger for the MIC. I already said, if you want escalation then go for it. I already condemned Putin, but you're not satisfied with that. No, everyone must beat the same war drum as you for you to claim they're not a Russian agent, the same war drum that despite what Putin did being wrong, still risks a major nuclear conflict that you seem to think we should ignore.
You mean the same memorandum that the US argued in 2013 is "not legally binding?" The one that the US broke according to your standards, before Russia?
Nobody smart actually thinks a million Russians are dead. That's a misinterpreted casualty number. The number is in the hundreds of thousands, yes, but you shifted focus to avoid my point.
When I said latest and greatest, then referred to the SU-57, that was a context clue that I'm referring to unclassified stuff, not secret stuff. But again, pivot to avoid the point.
Also completely avoiding NATO expanding as a direct result of Russian imperialism several times.
Saying "I don't like what Russia is doing BUT" followed by paragraphs of why everything is the fault of the US and NATO and why Ukraine should roll over is not a condemnation. It's just disguised russian apologia. You don't have to cheer on decades of war in Ukraine, you just have to stop laying the fault at the feet of everyone except Russia.
All that in conjunction with you dodging the actual points like neo dodging bullets is... Weird. Nitpicking and pivoting like you do is classic tankie shit, but I'm not sure that's you. Either way, stop literally justifying imperialism because nukes. He won't push the button because Russia will cease to exist if he does.
According to your standards the entire US is North Korea apologists. I never once made an excuse for Putin, and consistently condemn his actions, all I'm saying is that the risk of a major nuclear confrontation is a major factor when considering what options the US should respond with. There are other means to protect Ukrainians & to hurt Russian interests. It doesn't exactly look good when you have a country that has consistently advocated for & funded a genocide in one region (Gaza), telling another country what it is doing is morally wrong. If you want to win over the basic & inherent interests of people all over the world, like those in Russia to stand up to Putin, then how about stop giving them hypocritical inconsistencies to point out.
And so would much of the US. Do you really think NATO is just about defense? NATO is I'd argue equally an offensive agency, which is fine from my perspective, but if a anti-American, pro-Russian offense agency was talking about providing defense in Mexico, you can't argue that it would not be a substantial risk of escalating tensions & engagement. Look at what happened in Cuba for example. America has been engaged in proxy wars against Russia for almost a century. To act like there isn't a possibility of him pushing the button when they're on his border is ridiculous.