Ukraine

[Hades]

I was not defending Russia but equating Russia with the U.S., and you just unwittingly supported my argument.

Just to be clear comparisons to the US aren't in Russia's interest for its a comparison they shall lose.

One factor is that Russia escalated far beyond what the US did. Unlike Russia the US doesn't want to physically wipe countries out and annex their territories. In fact unlike Russia the modern US hasn't done any illegal annexations in their unjust wars.

Most of America's wars are formed on shaky ground indeed but not even the US has it as a motive for war that they just can't accept that their enemies are independent countries. No American argument argued ''This country used to be owned and terrorized by us so therefore we have the right to own and terrorize it again!''

The US isn't overly concerned with civilian casualties. Yet unlike with Russia civilian casualties are collateral damage rather than something they maliciously strive for. And while the US had it share of war crimes they don't put up torture camps in literally every village they occupy.

And the modern US doesn't have the goal of enacting ethnic cleansing in the areas they control. Russia does have the end goal of ethnic cleansing in Ukraine.

The Russian army and government are far more unjustified in their actions, far more corrupt, far more illegitimate and far more psychotic than the Americans could ever hope to be.

Right, as if nothing happened before 2014:

I recall Russia parading the Ukrainian president around as their puppet and openly had him betray Ukraine for Russia. I also recall them poisoning one of the Ukrainian presidents before the puppet just because they considered him annoying. Before 2014 Russia was just as much the aggressor as before 2014. Every single escalation in this conflict came from the Kremlin.

 

[Ag3ma]

Meanwhile, the same keep calling their countries "liberal, capitalist democracies".

You may certainly query whether liberal democracies are as liberal and democratic as you would like. However, at bare minimum, in relative terms they tend to be substantially more liberal and democratic than any alternatives. (I presume you are not questioning "capitalist".)

 

[ralfy]

If you're making any comparison between this and the extensive sanctions introduced following Russian invasion/annexation, you're onto a loser. You said the only purpose of sanctions was to "break Russia". It's entirely relevant to point out they were taken in direct response to Russian invasion.



Yes, that was sort of my point: that these actions tend to be taken after Russia invaded and annexed a huge chunk of Ukraine in 2014, and began funding a proxy insurgency also in 2014.



That's not what you're doing, though. You're excusing and justifying Russian invasion, and parroting their war propaganda. There's nothing "unwitting" about pointing out how you're treating the two very, very differently.



Not in Ukraine, it isn't: Russia has the longest history of aggression in Ukraine by a gigantic margin. It is Russia that is the sole foreign country to have military bases in Ukraine prior to 2014. It is Russia that flooded Ukraine with Russian weaponry and funded insurgents, alongside disguised Russian troops, for 8 years. It is Russia that has attempted to dominate and browbeat Ukraine since the days of Empire, which it now wishes to resurrect. Russia has been brutalising Ukraine for longer than the United States has existed-- tankies tend to forget, but Russia was a European colonial Empire alongside the worst of them, and its current government intends to continue and restore that ignominious, racist dominance of its neighbours and subjects.

The sanctions were meant to break Russia because the U.S. and the West had been manipulating Ukraine much earlier.

That manipulation started long before 2014.

I'm not excusing Russia. What I'm saying is that Russia is no different from the U.S., and in various cases the latter is even worse.

Manipulation of Ukraine started with Clinton in the 1990s.

Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine

The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the

www.counterpunch.org

Not only that, but the military industrial complex and Wall Street that's profiting from arming Ukraine is also profiting from arming Israel.

And that's not surprising, because it's also been arming Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, made deals with both Iran and Iraq, did similar in Latin America and parts of Asia, and so on.

That's part of the basis of

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO YEMEN – Zoltán Grossman

Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

 

[ralfy]

Just to be clear comparisons to the US aren't in Russia's interest for its a comparison they shall lose.

One factor is that Russia escalated far beyond what the US did. Unlike Russia the US doesn't want to physically wipe countries out and annex their territories. In fact unlike Russia the modern US hasn't done any illegal annexations in their unjust wars.

Most of America's wars are formed on shaky ground indeed but not even the US has it as a motive for war that they just can't accept that their enemies are independent countries. No American argument argued ''This country used to be owned and terrorized by us so therefore we have the right to own and terrorize it again!''

The US isn't overly concerned with civilian casualties. Yet unlike with Russia civilian casualties are collateral damage rather than something they maliciously strive for. And while the US had it share of war crimes they don't put up torture camps in literally every village they occupy.

And the modern US doesn't have the goal of enacting ethnic cleansing in the areas they control. Russia does have the end goal of ethnic cleansing in Ukraine.

The Russian army and government are far more unjustified in their actions, far more corrupt, far more illegitimate and far more psychotic than the Americans could ever hope to be.



I recall Russia parading the Ukrainian president around as their puppet and openly had him betray Ukraine for Russia. I also recall them poisoning one of the Ukrainian presidents before the puppet just because they considered him annoying. Before 2014 Russia was just as much the aggressor as before 2014. Every single escalation in this conflict came from the Kremlin.

Indeed. I remember one interview early on in the invasion where a former U.S. military official pointed out that if that were the U.S. the war would have ended on Day One because the U.S. would bomb Ukraine back to the Stone Age. Reminds me of what it did in Iraq and Vietnam.

The U.S. does not want to annex territories because it needs other countries to keep using the dollar. That's why it uses its war machine to set up hundreds of military installations in the world to protect the "freedoms" of the human race, and then uses the IMF-WB to set up financial loans and aid with strings attached via structural adjustment policies.

This explains why it has the largest military budget of all countries and has been manipulating and engaging in "police action" in many countries for decades:

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO YEMEN – Zoltán Grossman

leading to deaths that make Russia and China look like rank amateurs:

Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

The difference is between it and its military rivals is that it considers itself a liberal democracy and a "beacon" of freedom worldwide, while all rivals are "tyrannies."

The two tools to accomplish these are Wall Street, which manages the assets of the 10 pct of Americans which own 70 pct of the total wealth of the country, and the military industrial complex, which it arms and involves collusion between the the government, its military, and industries to sell armaments to various groups worldwide (the U.S. is the no. 1 arms dealer in the world) and to profit from such.

That's why the U.S. has been at war for much of its existence:

The US Has Been at war 225 out of 243 years since 1776

The American history of overt and covert foreign interventions dates back to 1811, when it had invaded Chile, just a year after this South American country had gained independence from...

www.thenews.com.pk

as it thrives on conflict, and after WW2, profits heavily from it as well.

Meanwhile, conflict also keeps rivals like Russia and China weak and most countries dependent on the dollar for trade, which is what the U.S. needs to continue decades of voodoo economics needed to binge on borrowing and spending, much of which is needed to finance the same military industrial complex, with costs passed on to the unwitting public drenched in consumer spending:

Krugman and the Pied Pipers of Debt

Investors are celebrating an incipient “recovery,” but the interventions that were responsible for it are sowing the seeds of a more violent contraction...

seekingalpha.com

and mass entertainment and propaganda sold to them by the same rich:

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

www.businessinsider.com

The same thing happens elsewhere, with food processing, pharma, energy, the defense industry, and banking controlled by few corporations, and the 90 pct of the U.S. population beholden to the richest for credit.

Part of that propaganda involves depicting other countries as barbaric, evil, tyrannical, and so on. Meanwhile, the country plays both sides, e.g., arming Israel but also Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, refusing to recognize Taiwanese sovereignty to appease China, which is a major trading partner, and then arming Taiwan to keep China off-balance, etc.

 

[ralfy]

You may certainly query whether liberal democracies are as liberal and democratic as you would like. However, at bare minimum, in relative terms they tend to be substantially more liberal and democratic than any alternatives. (I presume you are not questioning "capitalist".)

The U.S. is so only in name. In reality, it's an oligarchy that operates in the same way as its rivals. Hence, we have "liberals" who act like neocons:


and fellow "liberals" who turn out not to be only puppets but even tyrannical ones:

Zelenskyy wants Ukraine to be ‘a big Israel.’ Here’s a road map.

By adapting their mindset to mirror aspects of Israel’s approach to security challenges, Ukrainian officials can tackle their own critical challenges with confidence.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

while making deals with those who really rule the U.S.

Zelenskyy, BlackRock CEO Fink agree to coordinate Ukraine investment

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink have agreed to coordinate investment in rebuilding Ukraine, Kyiv announced Wednesday

www.cnbc.com

Reminds me of one Chinese expert asked by Pilger in The Coming War on China to state briefly the difference between China and the U.S. He replied by saying that China is ruled by the Communist Party while the U.S. is ruled by Wall Street.

 

[Silvanus]

The sanctions were meant to break Russia because the U.S. and the West had been manipulating Ukraine much earlier.

So if that's the sole reason, why were the sanctions taken in direct response to Russian invasion and annexation?

I'm not excusing Russia. What I'm saying is that Russia is no different from the U.S., and in various cases the latter is even worse.

Elsewhere, perhaps. Not with Ukraine. Russian interference and manipulation in Ukraine has always utterly dwarfed that of every other country. They're the ones who bought and paid for the Ukrainian head of state. They're the ones who openly poisoned Ukrainian politicians (both of these were before 2014, by the by). They're the ones who operated the only foreign military bases in the country. They're the ones who operated an insurgency for 8 years. They're the ones who sent disguised troops over the border. They're the ones who invaded and annexed twice. So yeah, America has manipulated Ukraine for its own interests. Yet nothing the US has done in Ukraine even approaches a hundredth of what Russia has been doing for decades with impunity-- and for centuries if we're being honest.

Manipulation of Ukraine started with Clinton in the 1990s.

Oh dear. Manipulation and domination of Ukraine by foreign hegemons goes back a lot further than 1990. It goes back further than the US ever existed. And Russia has always been the prime culprit, in the era of Imperial chauvinism.

Not only that, but the military industrial complex and Wall Street that's profiting from arming Ukraine is also profiting from arming Israel.

And that's not surprising, because it's also been arming Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, made deals with both Iran and Iraq, did similar in Latin America and parts of Asia, and so on.

"The military industrial complex makes money from sales, therefore all military actions-- even defensive ones-- are automatically wrong". Nope, try again. Russia remains the one actually invading here. And it is Russia that flooded Ukraine with weaponry before the US ever did, arming its proxy insurgents to the teeth and dragging the proxy war out for 8 years.

 

[Ag3ma]

Reminds me of one Chinese expert asked by Pilger in The Coming War on China to state briefly the difference between China and the U.S. He replied by saying that China is ruled by the Communist Party while the U.S. is ruled by Wall Street.

Ah, genocide denier John Pilger. Always good for a laugh, or sigh, or eyeroll.

One might note that John Pilger was free to wander the West whilst savaging its governments in his polemics. I wonder what would have happened to him if he'd tried that in China or Russia? And therein lies a lot of the truth of how liberalism differs, which certainly elements of the left refuse to seriously address (as well as countless other issues like LGBTQ+ rights, and more). They only seem to have two responses: the first are vague and superficial rhetorical flourishes passed off as wisdom such as that you have presented there, the second is listing a stream of Western deficits and just not addressing the deficits anywhere else.

 

[ralfy]

So if that's the sole reason, why were the sanctions taken in direct response to Russian invasion and annexation?



Elsewhere, perhaps. Not with Ukraine. Russian interference and manipulation in Ukraine has always utterly dwarfed that of every other country. They're the ones who bought and paid for the Ukrainian head of state. They're the ones who openly poisoned Ukrainian politicians (both of these were before 2014, by the by). They're the ones who operated the only foreign military bases in the country. They're the ones who operated an insurgency for 8 years. They're the ones who sent disguised troops over the border. They're the ones who invaded and annexed twice. So yeah, America has manipulated Ukraine for its own interests. Yet nothing the US has done in Ukraine even approaches a hundredth of what Russia has been doing for decades with impunity-- and for centuries if we're being honest.



Oh dear. Manipulation and domination of Ukraine by foreign hegemons goes back a lot further than 1990. It goes back further than the US ever existed. And Russia has always been the prime culprit, in the era of Imperial chauvinism.



"The military industrial complex makes money from sales, therefore all military actions-- even defensive ones-- are automatically wrong". Nope, try again. Russia remains the one actually invading here. And it is Russia that flooded Ukraine with weaponry before the US ever did, arming its proxy insurgents to the teeth and dragging the proxy war out for 8 years.

The U.S. pushed for NATO expansion during the early 1990s and "shock therapy" for the former Soviet republics. Officials were warning of the effects of expansion from Kennan onward but Clinton, Dubya, and others did not listen:

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-provoked-and-why-that-matters-if-we-want-peace

The basis of that expansion, together with U.S. military expansion on a global scale, is the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which essentially called for a new American imperialism, and the point that the world has to be unipolar, with the U.S. on top and ruling over everyone else. That's also why previous doctrines were aligned to it, and pushed for the same combinations of neoconservatism and neoliberalism. For example, the Kirkpatrick Doctrine called for U.S. support of Third World dictatorships which supported the U.S., and that's exactly what happened.

Meanwhile, shock therapy (which was also promoted by the writer of the article shared above), which is part of the Washington Consensus, spelled disaster for Ukraine, while Russia was able to reverse its effects only when Putin came to power. Its real goal is to keep other countries economically weak and dependent on the dollar, thus allowing the U.S. to borrow and spend heavily, which is what it was doing via voodoo economics started in the early 1980s and continued by each admin after.

That's why Biden's current actions resemble those of previous U.S. Presidents, regardless of political party:


The same War Machine that arms Israel is also arming Ukraine, as well as Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and others. Together with that the U.S. argues that all its is rivals are evil, genocidal, tyrannical, and so on, similar to Reagan's "evil empire" narrative and Dubya's point of an "axis of evil." The U.S. is exempted because of the same Wolfowitz Doctrine stated above:

American exceptionalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What's never said is that the ones who push and profit from that are the 10 pct of Americans that own 70 pct of the total wealth of the country:

The richest 10% own 70% of the country’s wealth

The wealthiest Americans control a growing slice of the wealth pie.

finance.yahoo.com

and are also financing the banks and companies that want to take advantage of the same weak countries, including Ukraine, that own much of pharma, energy, banking, food processing, and even media in the states, and that fund the same military industrial complex that arm countries in proxy wars and profit from the same.

 

[ralfy]

Ah, genocide denier John Pilger. Always good for a laugh, or sigh, or eyeroll.

One might note that John Pilger was free to wander the West whilst savaging its governments in his polemics. I wonder what would have happened to him if he'd tried that in China or Russia? And therein lies a lot of the truth of how liberalism differs, which certainly elements of the left refuse to seriously address (as well as countless other issues like LGBTQ+ rights, and more). They only seem to have two responses: the first are vague and superficial rhetorical flourishes passed off as wisdom such as that you have presented there, the second is listing a stream of Western deficits and just not addressing the deficits anywhere else.

That's versus the same U.S. that insists that genocide is taking place in China and then refuses to recognize Taiwanese sovereignty in order not to anger its trading buddy China. Who is the U.S. kidding?

Also, that's the same U.S. that continued to buy uranium from Russia until recently, arms Israel but also Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt for profit, manipulated Ukraine and has been using it against Russia, worked with Russia over Afghanistan and then went against Russia over Syria, armed both Iraq and Iran and then used Iraq to attack Iran, after which it tried to make deals with Iran using Contras and drug money, then invaded Iraq to control oil resources there for Israel. It's similar to what it did in Afghanistan, and later with NATO members, where it propped up Islamic fundamentalists to counter the Soviets, then let the same attack the moderate leftist Kabul government, then went against the same fundamentalists using Northern Alliance drug pushers and rapists, and then abandoned them to the same fundamentalists.

Defintely always good for a laugh, or sigh, or eyeroll, but I think the latter's most appropriate:

Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

Finally, you got at least one thing right: liberalism is concerned with superficial rights like those involving gender. Other than that, the same "liberals" will happily deal with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others. After all, when money talks....

 

[Silvanus]

The U.S. pushed [...]

So, another wall of text regurgitating stuff that's already been said and addressed, without even acknowledging the points made.

 

[Ag3ma]

They only seem to have two responses: the first are vague and superficial rhetorical flourishes passed off as wisdom such as that you have presented there, the second is listing a stream of Western deficits and just not addressing the deficits anywhere else.

And then as if to prove the point:

That's versus the same U.S. that insists that genocide is taking place in China and then refuses to recognize Taiwanese sovereignty in order not to anger its trading buddy China. Who is the U.S. kidding?

Also, that's the same U.S. that continued to buy uranium from Russia until recently, arms Israel but also Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt for profit, manipulated Ukraine and has been using it against Russia, worked with Russia over Afghanistan and then went against Russia over Syria, armed both Iraq and Iran and then used Iraq to attack Iran, after which it tried to make deals with Iran using Contras and drug money, then invaded Iraq to control oil resources there for Israel. It's similar to what it did in Afghanistan, and later with NATO members, where it propped up Islamic fundamentalists to counter the Soviets, then let the same attack the moderate leftist Kabul government, then went against the same fundamentalists using Northern Alliance drug pushers and rapists, and then abandoned them to the same fundamentalists.

Finally, you got at least one thing right: liberalism is concerned with superficial rights like those involving gender. Other than that, the same "liberals" will happily deal with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others. After all, when money talks....

Again, this is very typical of the moral squishiness of some the left when convenient. "Superficial rights", for homosexuals to love without fear of persecution and jail. For (mostly) fair and transparent trials. Like in the anti-Iraq war protests when some on the left formed an alliance with Muslims, and when one of their leaders was questioned about the very regressive attitudes of some of those Muslim groups regarding women, basically said women's rights could be thrown under a bus. It goes to people like Pilger who equivocate over massacres when it doesn't suit their big picture, apologising for Russia over invading Ukraine, and frankly, there are a ton of leftists who either deny China is mistreating Uyghurs or trivialise it.

In a way, it's extraordinarily valuable for you to point out the gross hypocrisies of the West, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, you can also have your own hypocrisies called out in return, which in a way includes the comfort of criticing your own county that tolerates dissent, whilst defending those that wouldn't if you tried it there.

 

[Hades]

The U.S. pushed for NATO expansion during the early 1990s and "shock therapy" for the former Soviet republics. Officials were warning of the effects of expansion from Kennan onward but Clinton, Dubya, and others did not listen:

This narrative ignores a very important thing. It ignores that Russia's neighbors actively wanted NATO membership because they're terrified the rogue state next door is going to destroy them yet again. NATO expansion wasn't naughty America striving forth with Imperialistic glee. Its the European countries themselves wanting to join NATO to protect themselves against imperialism.

A country like Poland has already been destroyed and terrorized by Russia twice, one of which only ended pretty recently. Why wouldn't they seek protection from Russia to avoid getting destroyed and terrorized a third time? Same with Ukraine. If Russia loudly insists that they will never ever accept that Ukraine is a sovereign country then why shouldn't they seek ways to protect themselves?

Sure Russia might get ''mad'' about it becoming far harder to oppress their neighbors but its frankly none of their business. Whether an eastern European country wants to join NATO is up to NATO, and its up to that particular country. Russia shouldn't have any place in the discussion. By pretending Russia's opinion should be taken into account we humor Russia's delusion that it ought to own eastern Europe and that the sovereignty of those countries should be handed to the Kremlin.

 

[ralfy]

So, another wall of text regurgitating stuff that's already been said and addressed, without even acknowledging the points made.

You didn't address any of them.

 

[ralfy]

And then as if to prove the point:





Again, this is very typical of the moral squishiness of some the left when convenient. "Superficial rights", for homosexuals to love without fear of persecution and jail. For (mostly) fair and transparent trials. Like in the anti-Iraq war protests when some on the left formed an alliance with Muslims, and when one of their leaders was questioned about the very regressive attitudes of some of those Muslim groups regarding women, basically said women's rights could be thrown under a bus. It goes to people like Pilger who equivocate over massacres when it doesn't suit their big picture, apologising for Russia over invading Ukraine, and frankly, there are a ton of leftists who either deny China is mistreating Uyghurs or trivialise it.

In a way, it's extraordinarily valuable for you to point out the gross hypocrisies of the West, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, you can also have your own hypocrisies called out in return, which in a way includes the comfort of criticing your own county that tolerates dissent, whilst defending those that wouldn't if you tried it there.

First, it's "moral squishiness," followed by "gross hypocrisies." The difference is that Russia is supposed to behave in a barbaric way because it's a tyranny. What's the excuse of the U.S.?

 

[Silvanus]

You didn't address any of them.

I pointed out how Russian intervention and manipulation of Ukraine has both drastically outweighed that of any other country, and also predated that of the United States. That is directly relevant to your attempt to justify Russian invasion by invoking US manipulation. You didn't address it.

I pointed out that significant sanctions on Russia were only taken in direct response to Russian invasion and annexation. That is directly relevant to your argument that sanctions served no purpose but to "break Russia". You didn't address it.

Regurgitating a list of American abuses doesn't counter this. Its waffle.

First, it's "moral squishiness," followed by "gross hypocrisies." The difference is that Russia is supposed to behave in a barbaric way because it's a tyranny. What's the excuse of the U.S.?

The US (just like Russia) doesn't have an excuse for acting barbarically. This is why honest and moral people condemn them for their invasions and thefts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.

But this is a thread about Ukraine. The US hasn't invaded Ukraine. Russia has, twice, in a naked imperial land-grab, launching the largest European war since WW2, and killing more people in 1 year than the US killed in a decade in Syria. And so honest and moral people condemn them too, staying consistent.

Tankies on the other hand will endlessly deflect, deny or handwring as soon as the perpetrator is flying the right colour flag; your principled opposition to barbarism only goes so far, it seems, depending on who's taking part.

 

[ralfy]

This narrative ignores a very important thing. It ignores that Russia's neighbors actively wanted NATO membership because they're terrified the rogue state next door is going to destroy them yet again. NATO expansion wasn't naughty America striving forth with Imperialistic glee. Its the European countries themselves wanting to join NATO to protect themselves against imperialism.

A country like Poland has already been destroyed and terrorized by Russia twice, one of which only ended pretty recently. Why wouldn't they seek protection from Russia to avoid getting destroyed and terrorized a third time? Same with Ukraine. If Russia loudly insists that they will never ever accept that Ukraine is a sovereign country then why shouldn't they seek ways to protect themselves?

Sure Russia might get ''mad'' about it becoming far harder to oppress their neighbors but its frankly none of their business. Whether an eastern European country wants to join NATO is up to NATO, and its up to that particular country. Russia shouldn't have any place in the discussion. By pretending Russia's opinion should be taken into account we humor Russia's delusion that it ought to own eastern Europe and that the sovereignty of those countries should be handed to the Kremlin.

It's the same storyline for China: it's a rogue state, too. So is Iran. And yet the U.S. eagerly trades with China, buys uranium from Russia, and even arms and works with Saudi Arabia. It also set up or supported all sorts of dictatorships worldwide for its personal gain, not to mention engage in wars over oil and to control various regions:

Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

And for what reason? To keep the dollar propped up?

 

[ralfy]

I pointed out how Russian intervention and manipulation of Ukraine has both drastically outweighed that of any other country, and also predated that of the United States. That is directly relevant, since you were attempting to justify Russian invasion by invoking US manipulation. You didn't address it, just regurgitating another list of American evils.

I pointed out that significant sanctions on Russia were only taken in direct response to Russian invasion and annexation. That is directly relevant to your argument that sanctions served no purpose but to "break Russia". You didn't address it.

Mearsheimer gives a lot of detail on that in this lecture from almost a decade ago:


And it reveals that Russia intervened and manipulated Ukraine, and Ukraine, a co-founder of the Soviet Union, was also attacked by Poland and others, and worked with the Nazis.

Does that mean that the U.S. had every right to manipulate both and other former Republics after the Union dissolved?

Opinion | This Is Putin’s War. But America and NATO Aren’t Innocent Bystanders. (Published 2022)

Russia’s president is trying to hide his poor leadership by becoming a nationalist avenger.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Silvanus]

And it reveals that Russia intervened and manipulated Ukraine, and Ukraine, a co-founder of the Soviet Union, was also attacked by Poland and others, and worked with the Nazis.

Does that mean that the U.S. had every right to manipulate both and other former Republics after the Union dissolved?

Failing to see the relevance of this bizarre history lesson. Nothing gives the US the right to manipulate or bully a sovereign country.

Nothing gives Russia that right, either, yet Russia was doing so much more heavily, and earlier, which you fawningly defend.

 

[Hades]

t's the same storyline for China: it's a rogue state, too. So is Iran. And yet the U.S. eagerly trades with China, buys uranium from Russia, and even arms and works with Saudi Arabia. It also set up or supported all sorts of dictatorships worldwide for its personal gain, not to mention engage in wars over oil and to control various regions:

That's nice and all but that doesn't respond to anything I said, which was that NATO expansion isn't so much US Empire building as it is Russia's neighbors all having every right to consider Russia an utterly untrustworthy existential threat, and that the modern Kremlin does nothing to suggest otherwise.

 

[Ag3ma]

Ukraine, a co-founder of the Soviet Union

Let's be more accurate here. Ukraine opposed the Bolshevik revolution and declared independence, and in response the Russian Bolsheviks invaded it and forced it to join the USSR. (Then the Soviets starved a few million Ukrainians for good measure.)