What was that article 
Asking us to be objective when the source uses language like "US' hysteric hype of potential war".
ALL countries warned about a war breaking out, ofc they did, Russia invasion of Ukraine started in 2014.
And countries, including the US, have been sending weaponry to Ukraine for free so the argument doesn't hold. (beyond it just being idiotic in the first place)
Why is everyone trying to blame the war on anyone except Putin.
What an idiotic article.
No, Putin has been open about wanting to invade Ukraine after the illegal annexation of the Crimea. I don’t get how people still try to turn into a “but the nato provoked it mimi” situation. The Ukraine president warned about Russia for more than a year and people act as if it happened out of nowhere when there are several other examples such as Georgia
The US has provoked more wars than any other country since the World War II.
this part is true
well in war only the arms dealers win...
even if countries are giving Ukraine weapons and whatnot those arms dealers still get paid!!!!
Global Times is a CCP propaganda outlet - so consider the source.
the US has done a lot of shit they should be criticised for but I think the constant tendency of many countries to blame everything on "the West" is dangerous and stifling societal growth. It allows numerous dictatorships and autocratic governments to do whatever they want to their population, or to their enemies without being held responsible by their allies or population, because everything they do is just "a response" to the ominous powers in the West. Without accepting any responsibility for how they similarly elicit responses there - if the West ignores Russia in their expansion projects they show weakness, they don't care about suffering countries, they are too buddy-buddy with dictators to care about human rights. If they intervene, they're at fault for whatever conflict arises. There's no winning in this narrative. And if the dictator gets blamed, he's a victim of Western propaganda. His population too, for good measure. Nobody is ever held responsible for their own actions.
It's a fact the US profits over death and destruction across the globe being the largest arms manufacturer in the world. Indeed the Ceo of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon admitted how a conflict in Ukraine would be a boon for business back on January before Putin made his move into Ukraine.
In response to the missile strikes in Yemen last month which killed civilians and the prospect of future conflicts in Europe/SCS, CEO of Raytheon Greg Hayes casually said the quiet part out loud 'We just have to look to last week where we saw the drone attack in the UAE, which have attacked some of their other facilities. And of course, the tensions in Eastern Europe, the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there. So I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it.”
Global Times is a CCP propaganda outlet - so consider the source.
its literally a .cn website lol they would get taken down if they weren't
also they're owned by The People's Daily (人民日报） That has been there since the founding of the PRC and directly owned by the CCP
It's a fact the US profits over death and destruction across the globe being the largest arms manufacturer in the world. Indeed the Ceo of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon admitted how a conflict in Ukraine would be a boon for business back on January before Putin made his move into Ukraine.
In response to the missile strikes in Yemen last month which killed civilians and the prospect of future conflicts in Europe/SCS, CEO of Raytheon Greg Hayes casually said the quiet part out loud 'We just have to look to last week where we saw the drone attack in the UAE, which have attacked some of their other facilities. And of course, the tensions in Eastern Europe, the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there. So I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it.”
seriously, do you do anything here other than distract with all kinds of sidetracking from Putin's responsibility? First it was racism, then it was islamophobia, now it's arms dealers across the world, what's next? Zelensky was once the voice of Paddington Bear, a clear sign of being a secret agent for the UK? I hope they pay you well. An arms dealer saying war is good for business is like a potato farmer saying drought is bad for his.
At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of a hand full of people making the decisions for and deciding the lives for 7 billion people.
No government is right in this situation. The US did not act alone and neither did Putin. Everyone has ulterior motives, and are treating the lives of others like chess pieces (like a game), so the powerful can stay in power and the rich can grow richer.
Display More
Yikes, lol. Grammarly would destroy my writing. 
Yikes, lol. Grammarly would destroy my writing.
Surprisingly a lot of the blue and green colored notifs are actually suggestions but they are often effective suggestions.
also side note, since grammarly implemented AI, they started having a witch hunt against passive voice (a totally valid writing style) and I am not for it lol I often correct grammarly more than grammarly corrects me lmaoooo.
Edit: Also have confidence in your writing. If you need breaks take it. A piece of advice I heard is that when you take a needed distraction, your subconscious still works the problem. It'll come out great, guarantee it. If not, put up a bunch of jane austen audiobooks in the background on your breaktime and then your mimicry neurons will start guiding your essay to be a bit more like Austen -- that is to say you might sound a bit posh but at least the writing would come out with a proper posture.
seriously, do you do anything here other than distract with all kinds of sidetracking from Putin's responsibility? First it was racism, then it was islamophobia, now it's arms dealers across the world, what's next? Zelensky was once the voice of Paddington Bear, a clear sign of being a secret agent for the UK? I hope they pay you well. An arms dealer saying war is good for business is like a potato farmer saying drought is bad for his.
It's the responsibility of the world's superpower that is the US to negotiate a ceasefire with Putin and stop the never ending expansion of NATO which triggered this conflict in the first place. Have you been living under a rock for the past few days? How is it not racism or Islamophobia when African refugees are being mistreated and the so called impartial western media is implying that the lives of Ukrainian refugees are worth more than that of the middle east because they're 'civilized' white Europeans or are you in denial of this racist narrative?
Surprisingly a lot of the blue and green colored notifs are actually suggestions but they are often effective suggestions.
also side note, since grammarly implemented AI, they started having a witch hunt against passive voice (a totally valid writing style) and I am not for it lol I often correct grammarly more than grammarly corrects me lmaoooo.
Edit: Also have confidence in your writing. If you need breaks take it. A piece of advice I heard is that when you take a needed distraction, your subconscious still works the problem. It'll come out great, guarantee it
reminds me of Word which started the witch hunt against the passive voice ("consider revising" remember that?) decades ago lol
some robots taking over the world films/books should totally include that as an easter egg, they don't bitch enough about the passive to be realistic
No, Putin has been open about wanting to invade Ukraine after the illegal annexation of the Crimea. I don’t get how people still try to turn into a “but the nato provoked it mimi” situation. The Ukraine president warned about Russia for more than a year and people act as if it happened out of nowhere when there are several other examples such as Georgia
i've been trying to stay out of this topic because i feel for both nations, regular people are the only one who will suffer and lose everything in the end. politicians will be well, safe and sound.
i will say this - 1999 nato ILLEGALLY bombed my country, but back then it was called intervention, and now what russia is doing is called invasion. next; kosovo's self-proclaimed independence was recognized by america and the vast majority of eu countries. countries that didn't recognize it are slovakia, romania, greece, cyprus and spain, why? because they are all in the same situation, they all have their own kosovo.
annexation of the crimea is illegal, but the self-proclaimed independence of kosovo is legal. get it? did i mention that americans now have a military base in kosovo?
there's no principle in politics, just interests, don't try to find the logic and justice. what is allowed to me isn't allowed to you.
i feel for ukranian people, i really do, i know what they're going through. i wish all of this to end soon, my heart is breaking for them, i cannot even watch the news.
How is it not racism or Islamophobia when African refugees are being mistreated and the so called impartial western media is implying that the lives of Ukrainian refugees are worth more than that of the middle east because they're 'civilized' white Europeans or are you in denial of this racist narrative?
I think the did botch the delivery on that one and had let their biases through
but I think they meant that Europe hadn't had a war in so long its surprising. But yea implying that others weren't civilized is still pretty racist.
Overall, When the powerful ones get in to a fight, its the weak ones that take the hit.
Display Morei've been trying to stay out of this topic because i feel for both nations, regular people are the only one who will suffer and lose everything in the end. politicians will be well, safe and sound.
i will say this - 1999 nato ILLEGALLY bombed my country, but back then it was called intervention, and now what russia is doing is called invasion. next; kosovo's self-proclaimed independence was recognized by america and the vast majority of eu countries. countries that didn't recognize it are slovakia, romania, greece, cyprus and spain, why? because they are all in the same situation, they all have their own kosovo.
annexation of the crimea is illegal, but the self-proclaimed independence of kosovo is legal. get it? did i mention that americans have a military base in kosovo?
there's no principle in politics, just interests, don't try to find the logic and justice. what is allowed to me isn't allowed to you.
i feel for ukranian people, i really do, i know what they're going through. i wish all of this to end soon, my heart is breaking for them, i cannot even watch the news.
The Nato and the Western countries did a lot of crimes and they should be talked about. (Edit: deleted it bc I switched it up)
The Kosovo part does not make sense when the annexation of Crimea was against the contracts of Russia and Ukraine, so I don’t get why you would force a comparison.
For me it is whataboutism when people pull the “but xy did xx” card or allegedly say that the US forced Russia to do this. No one forced Russia to do this. This Invasion which it is and a lot of countries world wide see it likewise. Also Europeans have every right to prioritize their own incidents and problems - especially in such situations. Also, the idea that politicians are all corrupt, is not true. Ukraine is for a lot of people in Europe a sign of democracy and freedom against the old dictatorship of the UdSSR. Russia is in every sense wrong and the UN votes underline that this is seen worldwide. I won’t sit here and act as if everyone is or was innocent but you don’t have to be an angel to know what’s wrong. We can talk about several topics at the same time but people are basically doing relativism and are indirectly mocking people who are suffering under the current circumstances.
the US has done a lot of shit they should be criticised for but I think the constant tendency of many countries to blame everything on "the West" is dangerous and stifling societal growth. It allows numerous dictatorships and autocratic governments to do whatever they want to their population, or to their enemies without being held responsible by their allies or population, because everything they do is just "a response" to the ominous powers in the West. Without accepting any responsibility for how they similarly elicit responses there - if the West ignores Russia in their expansion projects they show weakness, they don't care about suffering countries, they are too buddy-buddy with dictators to care about human rights. If they intervene, they're at fault for whatever conflict arises. There's no winning in this narrative. And if the dictator gets blamed, he's a victim of Western propaganda. His population too, for good measure. Nobody is ever held responsible for their own actions.
Exactly, this situation is only because the West tolerated a lot of bullying by dictatorships and the appeasement policies due to the backlash of the cold war (rightfully) and its aftermath.
Actually it does make a lot of sense if you compare Kosovo to Donetsk and Luhansk rather than Crimea. Civil unrest occured in former Yugoslavia which led a population to declare its independency. The international community recognized the newfound Kosovo state immediately.
Similar thing happens in Donbas and all of a sudden, no it doesn't count. Because the West says so. Russia calls out the West's double standard. Is it cynical? Yes. But that's the precedent that has been sent.
Actually it does make a lot of sense if you compare Kosovo to Donetsk and Luhansk rather than Crimea. Civil unrest occured in former Yugoslavia which led a population to declare its independency. The international community recognized the newfound Kosovo state immediately.
Similar thing happens in Donbas and all of a sudden, no it doesn't count. Because the West says so. Russia calls out the West's double standard. Is it cynical? Yes. But that's the precedent that has been sent.
That’s true. It’s a conflict that has been going on since 2014 and this was heavily discussed even in my country. You have a lot of examples of regions within countries wanting to be a sovereign state (e.g Catalonia, Scotland etc.) in Europe overall and it’s fair to discuss whether the countries can interfere but I think this example in context of this war are as we Germans say two pairs of different shoes. That’s why I find this example not comparable in that sense since no reason would make this war reasonable and that several states - not only from the West - see it like this as well, underlines it
Nah, many countries were already on alert for years. Georgia and Ukraine previously were attacked by Russia so they have history of these outbursts. Everyone including USA was wary over Ukraine weeks ago, no one provoked Putin to go mental, he brought it in himself. Even threatened to use nukes.
Plus USA didn't need to provoke, they start their own wars for fun all the time and run their own war economy either selling arms or profiteering from war.
Nah, many countries were already on alert for years. Georgia and Ukraine previously were attacked by Russia so they have history of these outbursts. Everyone including USA was wary over Ukraine weeks ago, no one provoked Putin to go mental, he brought it in himself. Even threatened to use nukes.
Plus USA didn't need to provoke, they start their own wars for fun all the time and run their own war economy either selling arms or profiteering from war.
so you and the others are essentially rooting for Russia to invade Ukraine and kill innocent people because you hate the US. The enemy of my enemy and so on and so forth. That's great. No wonder we're headed straight for WW3 with mindsets like these.
I guess I can stop worrying about climate change though, humanity is gonna destroy itself long before the planet does.
so you and the others are essentially rooting for Russia to invade Ukraine and kill innocent people because you hate the US.
That's not necessarily true. KAMlTRUTH , and doesitneedsaying, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I read, neither of you were rooting for the Russian invasion but were pointing out that The US and NATO definitely has more dirt on themselves than they make it out to look like through the media.
I think ya might have @'d the wrong person... its spelled KAMlTRUTH (the "I" is actually a lowercase "L")
That's not necessarily true. KAMlTRUTH , and doesitneedsaying, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I read, neither of you were rooting for the Russian invasion but were pointing out that The US and NATO definitely has more dirt on themselves than they make it out to look like through the media.
meh, it's the same sentiment, you just need to read between the lines. These users have done nothing but post things that either blame the US for the conflict or paint the Ukrainians as racist nazis and evil, that pretty much is obviously meant to absolve Russia of any wrongdoing.
<reserved for reply, currently in class, but I have a reply in the works>
sassily there are things to be read between the lines but not what you have said. This world has been gripped by Zero-Sum policy and therefore Zero-Sum thinking. Just because the US and Ukraine are being criticized (Neither of them used Nazi nor Evil when describing the US or Ukraine) doesn't mean that the Russian invasion was justified. The fact that Either country could have scandals and past "evil" actions and the fact that they are not mutually exclusive means that either side could have blood on their hands. Its just whose blood that currently matters is Ukrainian blood on Russian hands.
Your thinking can be turned on its head as well. For all the criticizing on russia, are you saying that the US hadn't committed acts that can be viewed as unjust or "evil" as well? The United states itself has a long past steeped in invasion, warcrimes(before warcrimes were able to be prosecuted) racism and a whole slew of other actions that are fundamentally morally wrong.
KAMlTRUTH and doesitneedsaying have differing views from the western society and that doesn't necessarily mean their views are wrong. Just because one draws a spine of a book and another draws the cover of a book and the third draws the book open to a certain page doesn't mean any one of the three artists are wrong in labelling their pieces having books in them. The three drawings may not even have any shred of visual similarity but all three are accurately portraying a book.
I learned this lesson the hard way, having stepped over countless people's views, invalidating others and saying "there is only one truth to anything and everything. Everybody else is wrong and invalid in their views."
I grew up fiercely Patriotic to America, even living in two parts in Arcadia, literally translated to "paradise" and the nicknamed "bubble city" of Irvine. There were more to the world out there, not just in terms of land, skin color, culture, food, but also history. History of wrongs done and then kicked under the rug by the stronger power.
My point is, and the TL;DR summary is, In terms of history, politics, even human interaction, nothing is mutually exclusive. I criticize some mistakes that others done not because I haven't done it yet and therefore has the moral high ground, but I criticize those mistakes precisely because I have done them I have seen it not only being done, but also the harm that comes of it.
Not everything is mutually exclusive or black/white or on/off as you think.
For further reading, The wikipedia article on "zero-sum game" is a good place to start. Not everything is a zero-sum game.
That's not necessarily true. KAMlTRUTH , and doesitneedsaying, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I read, neither of you were rooting for the Russian invasion but were pointing out that The US and NATO definitely has more dirt on themselves than they make it out to look like through the media.
Correct. I have never once 'rooted' for Russia invading Ukraine so that user is putting words into my mouth at this point. I did however point out that NATO's expanding eastwards was provocative and exposed US's objective of shutting down Nord Stream 2 to cut off Russian gas to Europe. Where was the lie?
Correct. I have never once 'rooted' for Russia invading Ukraine so that user is putting words into my mouth at this point. I did however point out that NATO's expanding eastwards was provocative and exposed US's objective of shutting down Nord Stream 2 to cut off Russian gas to Europe. Where was the lie?
You called Ukraine's governmment a coup government installed by the US, said that the US and UK were the ones behind the war rumors - pity that Putin did actually invade - said Russia was going in to defend their minority from the Ukranian genocide, called the US/NATO evil for imposing "censorship" by blocking Russian websites (highly ironic tbh), called the Ukranians islamophobic racists and in all your many posts have not uttered a single sentence in support of Ukranian sovereignty or even a note of sadness over the invasion. It's obvious you're pro-Russia/Putin's actions, you don't need to state it explicitly to make that obvious.
and if NATO's "expansion" eastwards is provocative, what is Russia's expansion into their old territory? The one that's actually happening right now while the other is mostly speculation. You keep bringing up reasons to defend Russia's invasion while not acknowledging that Ukraine had obvious reason to fear Russian aggression in the first place. As evidenced by past and current events.
I see plenty of holes in your arguments so here I am pointing them out. This is not an attack on you but a clarification that I hope will illustrate some fallacies or misunderstandings in your argument.
You called Ukraine's governmment a coup government installed by the US,
Regardless, The Maidan Revolution in 2014 did see a new government take power in Ukraine, heavily supported by the US. Just like that Ukraine went from rabidly anti-west to rabidly anti-russia. It is hard to say whether or not the US initiated but they certainly participated.
Russia was going in to defend their minority from the Ukranian genocide
The Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts both have Russian minority populations pushing 1 million ethnic russians (38.2% and 39.1% respectively) and the Russian language holds firm majority (74.9% and 68.8% of speakers, respectively). Further the 2014 Donbas referendums (despite disputed voracity) had seen the Donetsk Oblast vote 89.07% in favor of independence and Luhansk Oblast vote 96.2% in favor of independence.
Right after the Referendums, The new Ukrainian government issued what was effectively a cease-and-desist letter to disarm or face an Anti-Terrorist Operation. Naturally the separatists did no such thing and so on the fifteenth of April of the year 2014 the Ukranian followed up on their ultimatum by announcing the start of their anti-terrorism campaign. The governments that arose from the referendums, legitimate or not likely appealed for a long time coming to Russia for help in removing the Ukrainian military there that were on the Anti-Terror Campaign, considering the sudden counteroffensive and the Russian tank incursion on June 11th, 2014 (Sources 1, 1imgAlt below "pasted-from-clipboard.png", 2).
(my theory begins here)
Although Pan-Slavism is a fringe political ideal in the modern world, its points are certainly front and center on Putin's mind, with his ideal of restoring Kievan Rus a main rhetoric of his recent remarks. Likely the "leaders" that came to power because of the Donbas referendums used the ideal to "protect the fellow slavs" to appeal to Russia, pointing out the large minority of Ethnic Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Although the idea of genocide deviates from reality, one can trace how It could look like the Ukrainian military was somehow persecuting and overriding the will of the people in that area.
and if NATO's "expansion" eastwards is provocative, what is Russia's expansion into their old territory?
NATO's task for a long time was guarding against the threat perceived to be posed by the Warsaw Pact and the USSR such that when the two dissolved in 1991, they had to even reevaluate their purpose in the world.
NATO and Russia eventually even built up a cooperation agreement called the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) but a laundry list of Conflicts easily shook that one apart. (sources 1, 2)
Thus, Russia likely felt threatened that a military organization that was historically and currently against a lot of Russian actions was spreading and would share more border with Russian land with a possible inclusion of Ukraine.
Russia's expansion into "old territory" is certainly provocative in its own right, as you know.
You keep bringing up reasons to defend Russia's invasion while not acknowledging that Ukraine had obvious reason to fear Russian aggression in the first place. As evidenced by past and current events.
Those reasons are ones that can be used in Russia's defense, yes, but weren't being used in Russia's defense. The acknowledgement of Ukrainian fear is plentiful in this thread already and is irrelevant to their point, if I read correctly.
Those reasons are ones that can be used in Russia's defense, yes, but weren't being used in Russia's defense. The acknowledgement of Ukrainian fear is plentiful in this thread already and is irrelevant to their point, if I read correctly.
they were brought up in Russia's defense though. The thing is that US past trangressions are simply not the point of the current crisis - if users constantly bring up Russia's claims as to why they had to invade without questioning them, blame the US/West for the invasion and cannot bring themselves to condemn Putin/Russia in a single statement while bringing up all kinds of negative stuff about the West and Ukraine, then they're not being neutral. It's ridiculous to claim to be neutral while painting a picture of how the US forced Russia to invade into a country that's full of islamophobic racists and an illegitimate government anyway. It's actively painting the invasion as the correct thing to do, the understandable, smart course of action. That's not neutrality that's being 100% in line with Putin's official reasoning (his private ones may differ).
they were brought up in Russia's defense though. The thing is that US past trangressions are simply not the point of the current crisis - if users constantly bring up Russia's claims as to why they had to invade without questioning them, blame the US/West for the invasion and cannot bring themselves to condemn Putin/Russia in a single statement while bringing up all kinds of negative stuff about the West and Ukraine, then they're not being neutral. It's ridiculous to claim to be neutral while painting a picture of how the US forced Russia to invade into a country that's full of islamophobic racists and an illegitimate government anyway. It's actively painting the invasion as the correct thing to do, the understandable, smart course of action. That's not neutrality that's being 100% in line with Putin's official reasoning (his private ones may differ).
They aren't neutral, they're arguing a third side.
The easiest analogy I can think of here is the Jenga tower.
What those points were bringing up was that the US had a hand in removing the blocks and destabilising the tower. but according to the rules of the game , although russia and the US had removed blocks, Russia was the one that removed the last block before tipping the tower.
in the real world that is true. Although Both sides had a hand in destabilizing the situation, but ultimately Russia decided to invade and that's on Russia.
Correct. I have never once 'rooted' for Russia invading Ukraine so that user is putting words into my mouth at this point. I did however point out that NATO's expanding eastwards was provocative and exposed US's objective of shutting down Nord Stream 2 to cut off Russian gas to Europe. Where was the lie?
They said it themselves; they were never supportive of the Russian invasion. They were pointing out that not just Russia had a hand in the whole fiasco.
I need you to read this post, I don't think you've read it through.
Display MoreThey aren't neutral, they're arguing a third side.
The easiest analogy I can think of here is the Jenga tower.
What those points were bringing up was that the US had a hand in removing the blocks and destabilising the tower. but according to the rules of the game , although russia and the US had removed blocks, Russia was the one that removed the last block before tipping the tower.
in the real world that is true. Although Both sides had a hand in destabilizing the situation, but ultimately Russia decided to invade and that's on Russia.
They said it themselves; they were never supportive of the Russian invasion. They were pointing out that not just Russia had a hand in the whole fiasco.
no, you are the one arguing a third side (or a both sides argument, if you will), which is fine. And you are still acknowledging Russia's role. Which those users haven't done, so they're strongly condemning one side but not the other, the one that's actually started the invasion. So yes, whether they admit it or not, they're obviously picking one side, and it's the side of the invader in this case.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
