Posted on 04/28/2022 9:54:32 AM PDT by Az Joe
Plus, there is the whole issue of Russia being a nuclear power. Nobody with an ounce of common believed that NATO members - most of which had made massive military cutbacks and barely have any offensive capability anyway - were suddenly going to roll east to invade a nuclear-armed Russia to conquer Moscow.
It's absolutely absurd, and any remotely honest person not looking to make excuses for Putin knows it.
“What, specifically, was Russia afraid of that justified that invasion?”
So you left off a couple of significant points.
1) If it was free people making the decision why were the Nazi Asov sniper goons shooting innocent people in the streets in the Maidan revolution?
2) Why was Victoria Neuland with our State Department on a recorded call during the revolution okaying the decision for the new Uke leader? This was a regime change move by the US like we regime changed Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a whole host of other countries — and most recently Pakistan. Why heck, Xiden even publicly advocated for regime changing Russia.
“What, specifically, was Russia afraid of that justified that invasion?”
Who said Russia was afraid?? Russia observed the actions of an aggressor and decided do draw a line — which was crossed.
Russia saw:
-Expansion of NATO in the 90s from 12 countries to 30 with several countries on their border
-Attempt to recruit Georgia into NATO in 2008 after a US deep state regime change
-Talk of inviting Ukraine into NATO
-US regime change or attempted change over many years through the use of force in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria
So, let me ask you. If China put missiles on the southern border of Canada and norther border of Mexico what do YOU think we would do? Would we sit back and wait for them to light the fuse?
I think I know the answer. Look at the Cuban missile crises for an the answer. Better yet, look at the hissy fit and red lines Australia (backed by the US) has drawn over the recent CCP and Solomon Island agreement. How about the pot calling the kettle black?!
So, your question, why did Russia invade? They saw an aggressor with a history of regime change and invasion making moves to take action (like missiles in Cuba or on our border). They took action and who can blame them for looking out for their country?
They used the same logic we used to invade or take military action in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
That’s the answer to your question.
Agreed
What "aggressor"??? NATO didn't attack any other country. Didn't threaten or coerce a single one of them in any way. Each country that joined NATO essentially begged to join. That's how NATO expanded, not by "aggression".
So what exactly was Putin worried about? That he'd get drunk one night, accidentally call the Secretary General of NATO and beg to join, and that he'd wake up the next morning and find that Russia was now a member of NATO too?? Because that's about the only "threat" that NATO presented to Russia.
Until this invasion, NATO had been an alliance in decline. There was less cooperation among member states, and defense spending had been declining for a long time. No objective observers of the NATO alliance would honestly believe that either the organization or the member states had the slightest interest in ever invading Russia, or that they even have the capability of doing so.
And that's not even mentioning the ultimate trump card of Russia possessing a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons with which it could obliterate any nation that invaded Russia.
“No objective observers of the NATO alliance would honestly believe that either the organization or the member states had the slightest interest in ever invading Russia, or that they even have the capability of doing so.”
Uhh??? NATO going from 12 to 30 countries. Verbalizing an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO. Encouraging Georgia to join NATO. For all practical purposes NATO is the US. And the US has invaded and/or or attempted regime change in numerous countries — including our own, by the way. Now you may not call that aggression but any sane person calls it aggression.
By the way, I did observe you declined to answer the question about CCP missiles on our border. That would be aggression as well in case you don’t recognize it.
“And that’s not even mentioning the ultimate trump card of Russia possessing a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons with which it could obliterate any nation that invaded Russia.”
Sure. That’s called not looking past the nose on your face. Russia fully realizes that the use of nukes has a high probability of destroying them in turn — as in MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Give them a little credit, will you?
They’ve got nukes and the means to deliver them. In fact, more than we do. That’s probably why NATO/US has not moved into Ukraine. Both sides know that to do that can easily lead to potential massive strikes and destruction on both sides.
Let’s give credit to the Ukes, though. They got a whopping big return on their investment of “10% for the big guy.” A billion dollars to stop the Hunter investigation (remember the Biden video?). They know how to run a good scam. A few million in payoffs for $5B in free money/aid. Not too shabby.
Good point. gotta love the mental gymnastics involved in holding these views simultaneously:
1. USA shouldn’t be footing the bill for keeping NATO going while Germany and others aren’t pulling their weight at all
2. Putin just couldn’t stand NATO getting more dangerous by virtue of small states with bugger all money, modern weapons or nukes stretching the NATO budgets even more thinly.
The last time Article 5 was invoked (9/11) it cane with a clarification that Article 5 is more about responding to international terrorism and asymmetric war.
“The commitment to collective self-defense embodied in the Washington Treaty was entered into in circumstances very different from those that exist now... But it remains no less valid and no less essential today, in a world subject to the scourge of international terrorism”
Does Putin think of his Russia as an international terrorist state? Or does he think he is the new Stalin in the old USSR?
They are literally the only two reasons why he could feel worried about NATO expansion.
If Putin truly believed that NATO was an aggressive organization looking for an excuse to invade Russia, he never would have risked giving them that excuse by invading Ukraine.
1. Because when you’ve got 2 million free people angry about something, you inevitably have lunatic fringes and criminals exploiting it.
If you go down the route of saying all protesters are the same and the presence of a lunatic fringe invalidates the protest, then you invite “sauce for the gander” and we know what that leads to. Cancel culture.
Libtards trawl through MAGA crowds for known bad apples. They only have to spot one neonazi in a MAGA hat, in a crowd of thousands, and bingo, they’re getting all excited about “MAGA = Nazis.”
Doesn’t make them right does it?
Azov had 900 neonazis in it. Putin puffers would have you believe that they were representing the values and wishes of 880,000 people angrily protesting the Putin-Yanukovych stitch up. They’re no better than libtards claiming all MAGA is racist.
2. Not familiar with the facts in that but it could be evidence of malfeasance OR a nothing burger.
If I had a President who fled his country and is governing from exile after embezzling a billion dollars and selling it out to Putin, and an interim who is actually doing the job of acting president pending fresh elections, at some point I’d have to tell that country’s diplomats which of the two presidents is the one we’re going to talk to.
Putin obviously had that choice and to this day he says Yanokovych is Ukraine’s rightful president even though Yanukovych wouldn’t win an Ukrainian presidenial election after the stunt he pulled in 2013. I reckon he would even struggle to win a simple majority in Donbass. Nobody likes a turncoat.
Neuland rejected Yanukovych who’d already abdicated, and endorsed his replacement. I really don’t see how it would’ve been sensible to follow Putin’s lead and recognise the abdicator.
A third option is, the stolen election scenario. Neuland picked a side because of a conspiracy, not because it was the rational choice. If that’s what you think happened, frine... my simple question is, does it actually matter that it was a conspiracy if a totally rational decision making process would’ve led to the exact same decision?
The only person dragging anyone into a conflict is the warmonger Putin. But you support him, so it’s obvious all your posturing is just posturing.
I support no one in this conflict. You should not be supporting anyone either.
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.