Time is on the side of the Russians in Ukraine and the Chinese on pretty much anything else when it comes to confronting the US empire.

But ever since the ceasefire in Lebanon and the fall of Assad I can’t help but feel that the Palestinian cause is getting worse every day. No one is lifting a finger for them except the Yemenis and it only seems that the Zionist fucks are getting closer to their objectives.

Civil war in “Israel” when? True Promise 3 when (lol)?

It doesn’t help that some of the loudest voices cheering for Assad’s fall where Palestinians and that sectarism is strong against Shia’s…

  • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    Chechnya. Georgia. Ukraine. They are also using coercive tactics against several others in order to cause chaos and disruptions to their societies. Of course those countries are going to look to someone for help. If Russia really wanted to prevent more countries from going NATO…all they need to do is drop the aggression. People feel safer when they aren’t being threatened with political extortion or the possibility of invasion.

    Again, can you demonstrate that Russia has used more coercive tactics, chaos, disruptions, and corruption for geo-strategic advantage than the West has used since 1991? If you want to go back further than that, let’s include the much more sordid record of the US overthrowing governments left, right, and center around the world. The military dictatorships, the death squads, etc. The point I’m making is that the West, particularly the US since the end of WWII, is in no position to claim cleaner hands than Russia, and least of all use that claim to justify their actions as being more well-intentioned than Russia’s.

    And I would love to hear your rationale for why NATO even poses an “existential threat” to Russia. There have been no plans to invade. No moves to take their territory. Most NATO countries were active trade partners with Russia up until they invaded Ukraine. So, what “threat” is Russia even responding to?

    If countries next door to yours which are allied to a major historical foe (known for using underhanded tactics to manipulate and overthrow governments and for starting major wars) having missiles, including nuclear ones, pointed at you is not a threat, I’m not sure what you would consider a threat. For comparison, the US nearly completely lost its shit when tiny Cuba had a handful of Russian nukes located there. If you can’t see why Russia would be extremely concerned about a powerful, armed anti-Russia coalition immediately next door to them, I don’t think there’s much point in continuing the discussion.

      • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        You’re trying to twist my words into something they’re not. That part of the conversation was relating to your assertion that Russia was so threatening that it justified NATO expansion. I see that you also didn’t address the second part of my last post, about why Russia would feel existentially threatened by that same NATO expansion.

          • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            From NATO’s own mouth:

            In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

            Despite their claims that NATO had/has any purposes other than as a Soviet deterrent, that was its main purpose and as such it should have been dissolved or fundamentally restructured after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But no, it continued on and now its main role continues to be as an anti-Russia alliance.

            Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe - maybe the nuclear missiles aren’t pointed at Russia and ready to be launched at the press of a button, but do you think that the US keeps over 100 nuclear weapons (by 2021) in 5 European countries for anything other than to use it against Russia at short notice?

            It seems that you just can’t see things from Russia’s perspective. I ask again, how would the US react if Mexico had Russian-controlled nuclear weapons based there and Canada started moving to join the same “defensive” alliance? This is not whataboutism, but to illustrate that NATO is understandably seen by Russia as a major threat to their national security. Does their perspective not matter?

              • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                Yes, I’ve mentioned multiple times in this thread including in the discussion with you that the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. NATO should’ve rightfully been dissolved a short time after that.

                You keep moving around and not addressing my questions. Let me simplify it: would you feel threatened by an adversarial nation from a different continent across an ocean placing a bunch of nuclear weapons in a country neighboring yours? Yes or no?

                  • turtle [he/him]@lemm.eeEnglish
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    The first and primary reason for NATO existing: “deterring Soviet expansionism”. Distance makes a lot of difference. 30 minutes for a missile from the US to reach Russia. 2-3 minutes for one from Europe to reach them. That’s enough of a difference for people to get into bunkers or not. You are being disingenuous in not admitting that bringing nuclear weapons across an ocean and placing them next door will be perceived as very threatening, regardless of whatever explanations are given. Think about how asymmetric that power is too. The US reaches Russia in 2-3 minutes with their nuclear weapons, while it would take Russia 30 minutes to do the same. It means Russia would effectively be largely wiped out before they would have a chance to return fire to the US.

                    Since you’re just not willing to admit that such “defensive” moves can feel very threatening to another country despite evidence and logic, there’s no point in discussing further.