Posted on 04/28/2022 9:54:32 AM PDT by Az Joe
“How, exactly? And I’m asking for a rational response that makes logical sense, not simply someone’s subjective view.”
As you know, this issue is a highly charged political issue. In order to have a rational understanding, you must dig down into the weeds yourself and clearly NOT get your information solely from the main stream, western media. Why? Because they are not independent in their reporting in any way. There is a very good reason they are called “fake news.”
I have spent time with my own research in the weeds and am 100% convinced that our government continues to lie to us about this (and many other issues) with full support of the media.
The root of this problem goes back to the US interfering in Ukraine in 2014. The deep state launched a regime change in that country via a coup. That coup is called the Maidan Revolution.
So, Russia looks around and sees NATO doubling in size over the last 20 or so years and expanding to his border, the US invading in country after country, interfering in sovereign nations for regime change, expansion into Ukraine and concluding there is a likelihood they will be next in the US and NATO crosshairs. In fact, Biden has stated publicly he wants regime change in Russia. All of this indicates a threat to Russia. Putin anticipated an existential threat to his country and took action. That’s the bottom line.
Rather than attempting to explain all of this, here are some excellent sources that will give you another view. This view is the opposite of what you hear from our political class and the western media.
Cato Institute On Maidan Revolution
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy
Professor John Mearsheimer — Why is Ukraine the West’s Fault?
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4?t=127
Social Media/You Tube Channels & Reports
The Duran
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheDuran
Alex Christoforou — Daily Posts & Comments
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6cF_2V1vNKx-nFdGd8cOcA
The Dive with Jackson Hinkle
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdKWfPLO_Emwqd8HnTOeJkw
The New Atlas — Former US Military Comments On Military Issues
Very Thorough Reporting With Reference Material
Excellent recent update: https://youtu.be/sAtdynekZNQ
YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVkSF37pPXkZbElFjBwUsEA
You can listen to the very shrill voices on FR and other sources or listen to both sides and come to your own conclusion. That’s the reality.
“You’re just a warmongering NeoCon.”
This is the equivalent of a leftie saying “you’re just a racist!” now. All it means is that the person saying it has lost the argument.
“... to gang up on American ex-pats living in Mexico yet were loyal to the U.S. These ex-pats were being constantly under attack, given formal recognition and acceptance by Mexico to these Nazis, to run rough shod over Americans living in Mexico.”
If that hypothetical scenario were real, the ex-pats would just leave Mexico and return to the US. Rather quickly I imagine.
Which is why nobody really believes Russia’s flimsy excuses that they need to invade Ukraine (or Crimea, or Moldova, or Georgia, etc, etc) to protect Russians. They could just offer these Russians refuge right across the border, but they don’t, because then they would lose their excuse to invade and conquer territory.
No, it means I’m done talking to him.
It also is a response to being called a Nazi sympathizer, and other names. It’s from numerous threads.
Are you a Veteran?
Do you like it when people question your allegiance to your country?
Don’t bother answering.
I am well aware of both sides of the argument about 2014, and don't really care about them either way. Under the terms of the Budapest Agreement signed by Russia, Russia had no right to intervene in the internal affairs of Ukraine period. It had no legal right to the Crimea nor to the Donbass period, regardless of the presence or preferences of any ethnic Russian minorities. Certainly, Russia itself has zero respect for the self-determination rights of any ethnic minorities within its borders.
Which goes right back to the original question I asked. What, specifically, was Russia afraid of that justified that invasion? Was Russia somehow worried that it would magically become a member of NATO itself despite its wishes?
What amazes me is how many people ignore the declaration Putin himself wrote last year about Ukraine. He said Ukraine was basicay a fake country, with no history, and should be part of Russia.That's what this war is about. NATO is relevant only as to the timing, because Putin knew that he couldn't invade Ukraine once it became a member of NATO.
All those Russia apologists out there talk about Russia's fear of being invaded from the west, etc.. That's a bunch of crap as well - no nation has invaded a nuclear armed country since nukes were invented, and for obvious reasons. Putin know full well that NATO was never going to invade Russia. He just used that as propaganda to justify his military adventurism.
What you may believe and what the realities are, are quite different. You see, many Russians were born in Ukraine, as it was for many centuries, a part of Russia. Especially Eastern Ukraine.
You should view these ex-pats as becoming so by way of land historically belonging to the U.S., suddenly becoming a part of Mexico, like say Texas, to put it more like what is occurring in Ukraine today. That these ex-pats, like these Russians, have lived there over many generations and that is their home. For them their home is part of Russia.
If you had even an inkling of history with regards to Ukraine, you wouldn't have answered so flippantly.
I made myself a target of the Fascist Russian pigs on this forum.
Go back to sucking Faildamir Putin off.
“The root of this problem goes back to the US interfering in Ukraine in 2014. The deep state launched a regime change in that country via a coup. That coup is called the Maidan Revolution.”
Er... Your timeline is wrong, and the regime change was approved by Putin’s man in Ukraine hours before he absconded to Moscow with over s billion dollars that he’d looted.
The actual chain of events was this:
On 17th December 2013 Putin met with Yanukovych (the then Ukrainian president.)
Yanukovych had spent the previous ten months working on the preliminaries for an EU Free Trade Association. Ukraine are the time was flat broke and was in danger of defaulting on its payments to Russia for its fuel. Putin had a solution. Bin the EU deal and join Russia.
Even that proposal violated the Budapest Memorandum.
Yanukovych was from the Donbass, so was always quite pro-Russian. But even our Russian friends who escaped Eastern Ukraine say, he handed Ukraine’s sovereignty over to Moscow.
Yanukovych was expected to sign the EU paperwork, purely for better trade. He had a big majority in Parliament, across parties and even from Russian MPs, supporting that arrangement.
With absolutely no warning he decided not to sign it. No debate.
Then the MPs and media found out that he’d actually done a deal with Putin that effectively addressed the debt issue by giving the Kremlin a hand in the management of Ukraine’s finances.
To understand Euromaidan, you need to understand that this outraged just about every Ukrainian who wasn’t a pro Putin separatist.
Imagine Biden formally handing over the Treasury directly to Soros, on Soros’ orders, despite a written contract in the public domain sauing “I, Soros, will never try to buy or bribe an American President.”
If that happened in America, forget peaceful protests outside the Capitol. You’d have a massive revolt on your hands.
And so, Euromaidan was what Ukraine’s free people did when they realised Yanokovych had literally sold the country out.
Can anyone call the Jan 6th protests an insurrection, and expect to be taken seriously by any patriot? Course not. And that is why Euromaidan needs a far more balanced view.
There is one person who’d really love it if more people did delegitimise Euromaidan though: Putin. He just doesn’t like being told by free patriots that he doesn’t own them.
“You should view these ex-pats as becoming so by way of land historically belonging to the U.S., suddenly becoming a part of Mexico...”
Yeah, well, that’s not the scenario you came up with, so too bad. Think it through a little more carefully next time.
Yes, of course they are just excuses. But most people don’t think rationally, they think emotionally. They come up with the opinion they like, and then find a way to rationalize it afterwards. This is as true for the majority of conservatives as it is for the majority of lefties, just with lefties that majority is almost a complete and total majority.
So people are ignoring that Russia’s justifications are just excuses because it is convenient for them to ignore it. They need rationalizations to justify their position, Russia is happy to provide those rationalizations for them so they don’t have to come up with them on their own, and as long as they don’t allow themselves to stop and think critically, they’ll continue on like that until reality slaps them in the face a few more times.
We're supposed to change our behavior because Russia supposedly "feels" threatened, even though objectively, the idea that Russia was going to be invaded by NATO is absurd on its face.
No, you need to think about the real life reality going on over there, you cheerleader for stupidity. You are not doing the Ukrainian people any favors by your cheer leading for Ukrainian Nazis. You are getting people killed, and dragging me and a lot of others around the world into a possible major conflict erupting as a result.
The Fascists always bring out the NAZI's never mindful of the irony.
How would you feel if the ChiComs invited Mexico into their “security arrangement” and stationed troops and missiles there?
Check the date. The article was written before the invasion Einstein.
Smarten up.
“Russia’s stance was based on a 1999 charter signed in Istanbul by members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which includes the United States and Canada.
The charter says countries should be free to choose their own security arrangements and alliances but goes on to say that they “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states”.”
huh?
Ah. An article from February.
http://www.lerctr.org/~transit/healy/offsides2.wav
As for the substance of it, we need to get out of all those treaties (and NATO). Let the Europeons deal with the Russians.
Would you trust NATO?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.