It’s 17th in population globally, putting it in the 80th percentile of countries.

Russia invaded Ukraine essentially on the same legal premise that was used by NATO and the US to carpet bomb Yugoslavia.

Murdering civilians is what war is all about. The Israelis are killing far and away more civilians and the globalists aren’t opposing Israel. The US refuses to even keep track of civilians killed for the most part.

So no it’s not either of those.

Also, the antagonism against Russia started many years before they launched the SMO. So it’s not actually the war that created the animosity.

Try again.

LOL. This is just willful ignorance at this point.

Downvoters need to stop malding and start making arguments

Downvoters need to stop malding and start making arguments.

Don’t forget that the combined US domestic police budgets (ignoring prisons) is something like the 3rd largest military budget in the world and now the Immigration and Customs Enforcement budget is on par with that.

The US isn’t building that much violent force because of culture. They do it because they are constantly deploying violence for their own benefits and gains.

Which stands in stark contrast to literally every other nation with the exception of the former Western European colonial powers.

I think I realized something. Only America has such a massive military budget that they need to find excuses to use it. They don’t care about the costs in money, material, people, diplomacy, or reputation.

Combine that behavior with the projectionism and fear that underpin the white empire, and people like you just assume Russia is always looking for an excuse to use its military.

What you don’t seem to understand is that no country other than the US is looking for the excuses for war. They are dangerous, they are expensive, they kill people who could be working or trading or researching, they stretch your national defenses and leave you vulnerable, they cost you diplomatic relationships even when you’re in the right, and they direct economic output towards a black hole of wealth destruction instead of towards wealth creation and public benefit.

Only the US, with its absolutely massive military budget is OK with that.

Russia doesn’t want war. It does not benefit from being sanctioned, from shrinking its diplomatic support, from reducing its political influence, from losing able-bodied citizens. In the Russian calculus, this particular act must have been so important it would be willing to take these risks.

And no, it’s not for a land grab like you empire-brained fools keep saying. Russia doesn’t have sufficient population to hold, control, and exploit a country as large as Ukraine let alone any more of Europe. The only way it can gain wealth from other nations is through alignment with the leadership of those nations, and launching a war is a sure fire way to ensure that even if they installed an aligned leader that the people would be anti-Russian for a long time, destroying years of opportunities to benefit from a Russian puppet regime.

Stop imagining every country has the same behavioral profile as the psychotic sociopathic West and start understanding that, like it or not, Russia, China, Iran, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc are motivated first and foremost by keeping their countries whole, safe, healthy, self-determined, and prosperous.

Go ahead. Make your educated case based on your research on how Putin is Stalin 2.0.

I’ll wait.

Zelenskyy is the fall guy, the guy chosen for his ability to act and improv which makes him capable of appearing to lead while being led. The Ukrainian government since 2014 has been a puppet of America, right up to today. As much as you think it’s Trump and Republicans discarding Ukraine, it’s the US strategists doing it because it’s not effective for their purposes anymore.

Yes, attack the source because you can’t attack the content.

Do you comment like this on every single article posted on Lemmy from:

NPR BBC Al-Jazeera WaPo NYT Newsweek Reuters AP HuffPo Washington Times SF Gate Wall St Journal The Atlantic The New Yorker CNN NBC ABC Fox

Or is it only Fox and RT?

Yeah, so that’s mostly spin.

First, NATO is a defensive alliance that has been used offensively multiple times. The very first time was by Clinton, who was critical to the discourse around structural security for Europe and the RF as the USSR dissolved, and he used it to launch a devastating invasion of the last remaining communist nation in the region - Yugoslavia. A clear show of force and willingness to commit war crimes.

The liberals argue that point by saying there was a genocide/ethnic cleansing going on, but then refuse to show any evidence of it in the numbers, and refuse to explain why NATO was dropping depleted uranium bombs in high density civilian urban areas.

Therefore the idea that NATO is defensive is suspect, but also the idea that NATO being defensive should give it a free pass is massively problematic.

For example. You think you understand MAD, the framework that keeps us all safe from nuclear war. But are you aware that the USA has been trying to undermine MAD for decades on the premise that it ought to be able to launch a nuclear strike without fear of retaliation? How would they do that?

Well, first it needs major first strike advantages. It achieves his by having very short times from launch to impact, which requires proximity. Then it needs diversity of paths, which requires encirclement. And finally it requires anti-missile asymmetry, which requires both proximity and encirclement.

By having defensive anti missile capabilities inches from its opponents, while it’s opponents can achieve no such thing, the USA can undermine MAD. This is inherently an offensive capability. You understand this pretty well because you understand why certain types of body armor are illegal for civilians. Body armor is “purely defensive” but what it enables is devastating offense.

So yes, if NATO was ONLY installing anti missile capabilities around Russia that would be enough. But that’s not all they were doing.

Right before the Maidan coup was Ukraine’s first ever join exercise with NATO. Through the following years those exercises would include Trident exercises, which saw nuclear forces training for strikes on Russia including nuclear bombers. Those exercises also included a simulated invasion of Russian territory.

Defensive simulations of defensive invasions?

No. The reality is that the Western claptrap that NATO is both purely defensive and also that pure defense cannot be a cause for intervention are both spurious and cynically deceptive primarily meant to be consumed by citizens of NATO countries to maintain an xenophobic fever that can be leveraged in times of need for public support of Western barbarism.

Incapable of imagining the end of capitalism, liberals become a death cult that increasingly fantasizes about nuclear armageddon

This is Russia Derangement Syndrome or what we used to call Russophobia.

Russia a) has zero intent to invade the rest of Europe, b) has zero capability to invade the rest of Europe, c) gains absolutely nothing by invading the rest of Europe, d) creates incredible strategic weakness by invading the rest of Europe, and e) alienates not only European markets but would even alienate its own allies

Russia cannot and will not invade the rest of Europe. Anyone fear mongering to the contrary is selling something.

The demands are very clear. They have been very clear for years. This isn’t Al Qaeda against the empire. This is a proxy of the empire refusing to stop being a proxy even after it’s been demonstrated that the only path is dearmament and surrender. Instead of dealing with reality, they would rather deliberately kill civilians. Not for political purposes, but just out of spite.

Hmmm, interesting

I heard that standard diplomatic protocol is the longest serving diplomat speaks first.

I’m sorry, do you trust Ukrainian sources? American sources? NATO sources?

UN, get your own shit together. What did you do about the Haiti sexual violence committed under your own fucking flag

Squeee!