How so? The United States is involved in this conflict, is calling for sanctions, and so forth.
And?
Is your point that sanctions are good and the US should have been sanctioned over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or is your point that sanctions are bad and that the US has no right to sanction Russia? If you're being consistent, what is the consistent line?
That I leave that up to them is neither logically nor morally inconsistent. Different things, including but not limited to their relations to me, are different.
Have you considered that perhaps your country just isn't as special and important and exceptional as you like to imagine it is?
Do you not see that measuring world events by the way they impact on you is not only inconsistent, it's indicative of the kind of supreme arrogance the world tends to expect of Americans. You live literally on the other side of the world to these events. Your "relationship" to them is completely unimportant, because you aren't meaningfully affected. You're even less affected than I am.
My government could have acted differently to prevent this crisis-- mostly by not acting at all.
Who cares? Your government isn't special.
I don't think you see that this is just American exceptionalism. It's the other side of the "shining city on a hill" nonsense of the American right. America is not uniquely imbued with either virtue or responsibility, it is not the yardstick against which all other states and governments should be judged. There is no more stereotypically American trait than assuming the defining quality of any person, government or event is how it relates to America.
We were supposed to have recognized that revanchism is a predictable result of treating a defeated adversary like shit, right?
No.
There are many lessons that could be learned from the events that led to the second world war. But the idea that the Entente was responsible for those events through its exceptionally harsh treatment of the defeated central powers is a lie. It's a piece of blatant Nazi apologism and a common theme in Nazi propaganda. Not tolerating it here.
Ah, there it is. It's not about principle. It's about power.
I don't think that's ever been controversial and I'm actually confused as to why you're bringing it up. Who do you think you arguing with?
Were you under the impression that I believe the US government only acts out of altruistic principles, or indeed that any government does?
They tried to join NATO and the EU themselves!
This is not true.
no, the United States offset spending with bonds
Not what I said.
It's actually pretty funny that you would accuse me of having an "Americentric view" and then describe how all of these supposedly independent countries are beholden to the United States because they don't have their own significant military forces!
Imagine believing that the capacity for military force is the definitive measure of political autonomy..
Americans, am I right?
Does it, actually? Or are you just more aware of one than the other because one is deemed relevant by Western warmongering press and the other inconvenient to certain narratives, downplayed, and possibly more sophisticated in its methods?
We get it, you're on Twitter, and you think that substitutes for any real experience or understanding of the world outside the Untied States. We're not all burdened with your particular impediment.
Yanukovych turned toward Russia in large part because the IMF was offering terribly punishing terms.
Yanukovych led a pro-Russian party with close ties to United Russia before becoming president. He didn't turn towards Russia, he turned away from the EU because Russian officials told him to, threatened a reduction of trade (sanctions) and offered debt relief. That was the stated explanation given by his own government.
What's your opinion on debt trap diplomacy today? Still negative, or has it flipped?
"
www.abc.net.au
