The American ambassador in Kabul, Adolph “Spike” Dubs, was kidnapped and killed on Valentine’s Day 1979. He had been the American charge d’affaires in Moscow. The killing bore the hallmarks of a political murder. “His death certainly seemed to involve the responsibility of the Afghan government, and probably the Soviets,”
If you bothered to read your own article, it says Russia started it.
More than anything, this is all just war mongerers going war mongering. Just like how Winston Churchill personally funded the defence of Nazi war criminals, all because no one wanted to go and invade the USSR with him immediately after WW2. They're all cunts, simply chasing profits and propping up an industry of death.
The US didn't encourage Russia to invade Ukraine, that was already their goal. Just like the US' invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan weren't motivated by others but their own desires.
If that's your take away from the article what else is there to tell you. Meanwhile, it was absolutely not the goal of Russia to invade Ukraine, and they spent eight years trying to get the west to see sense. But of course, if you ignore all the history and reality then you end up with an idiotic narrative.
No, it was the goal of Russia to conduct a "military exercise" all within Russia's borders.. And then they invaded a foreign nation. You are defending liars.
No, I'm telling you basic facts of the situation which are well documented and plenty of western experts such as Chomsky, Sachs, and Mearsheimer agree on. You are either horribly misinformed about the subject you're discussing or just trolling.
The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict.
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people such as yourself are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?
It sounds like you're basically saying that, if someone threatens you with violence unless you adhere to their demands, not adhering to those demands is justification for that violence. So you should give up your lunch money under the threat of a bully, and the bully is right either way - in taking your lunch money, or beating you up for not giving it up willingly.
My argument is that all violent thugs are cunts. Plain and simple. There is no valid justification for violence, unless it is to prevent a direct threat of violence against yourself.
That is to say, if someone comes at you with a weapon and clearly indicates they're going to kill you, it is reasonable to kill them first. "Expansion of NATO" does not, in any way, meet this bar.
To take the analogy further, NATO is merely a group of countries banding together and saying they won't let bullies get away with being violent cunts. If the bully wants to attack one of them, they will all respond together and overwhelm the bully. The bully is now just cowering and crying fowl merely because they're now the smaller, more vulnerable one. When the group is actually making no threats whatsoever, other than to rightfully defend themselves and prevent harm against themselves.
So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?
No, the argument is that NATO is an aggressive alliance that has been invading and pillaging countries for decades that continues to expand and encircle Russia. This isn't my argument, this is the argument from countless scholars, historians, and politicians.
My argument is that all violent thugs are cunts. Plain and simple. There is no valid justification for violence, unless it is to prevent a direct threat of violence against yourself.
Oh you mean the way NATO invaded Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan?
To take the analogy further, NATO is merely a group of countries banding together and saying they won’t let bullies get away with being violent cunts. I
Given the actual history of NATO, it's a group of countries that have been invading other countries for decades and destroying them. The fact that you ignore this fact clearly demonstrates that you are not arguing in good faith here. I have nothing more to say to you.
No, the argument is that NATO is an aggressive alliance that has been invading and pillaging countries for decades that continues to expand and encircle Russia. This isn't my argument, this is the argument from countless scholars, historians, and politicians.
That is not what you have presented, neither in your comments nor the sources you have linked.
I have nothing more to say to you.
You haven't said anything of significance here, just useless regurgitated rhetoric. You may as well be spitting out ejaculations from the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
I asked you to present reasons why the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was justified. All you have said is "people in the West said Russia would do it" as if that justifies literal genocide.
I do not endorse NATO, nor any military organisation. You endorse Russian military. Yet, you have shown no reasonable grounds to endorse their hostile invasion of a foreign country.
That is not what you have presented, neither in your comments nor the sources you have linked.
This is a well known fact that's beyond dispute.
You haven’t said anything of significance here, just useless regurgitated rhetoric.
I've provided you with history and the context, as well as numerous resources from respected scholars. Meanwhile, you're the one who's been regurgitating useless rhetoric here.
I asked you to present reasons why the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was justified. All you have said is “people in the West said Russia would do it” as if that justifies literal genocide.
I'm sorry to see that you lack reading in the reading comprehension department.
You endorse Russian military.
Where?
Yet, you have shown no reasonable grounds to endorse their hostile invasion of a foreign country.
No, I've explained to you in detail how NATO created the situation for the war. Yet, it's plainly clear that you don't care about facts and just keep regurgitating nonsense here. I'm sure you'll leave another content free reply so enjoy having the last word.
Just because you make that statement doesn't make it true. In reality, the very fact that you would call something "beyond dispute" points to a disingenous argument on your part. There's always a devil's advocate argument to be made.
If you were arguing in good faith you would recognise this and try to get me to see your point of view. Instead, you're creating a show for those that blindly support you, in an attempt to turn them against me and get me to shut up. You are trying to fight me, trying to defeat me, rather than trying to prove me wrong.
This is an argument of ideas, not a fight between two people. The more you try to fight me, the less value your ideas have.
I’ve provided you with history and the context, as well as numerous resources from respected scholars. Meanwhile, you’re the one who’s been regurgitating useless rhetoric here.
Your "respected scholars" aren't unanimously respected - particularly in the fields you quote them in, which are not their specialty.
I'm just calling out bullshit where I see it, there's no parroted rhetoric from me.
I’m sorry to see that you lack reading in the reading comprehension department.
Yay, personal insults, that means you win!
You endorse Russian military.
Where?
You did not explicitly endorse them, but you gloss over obvious failings and objective evils, and divert to praise instead. The implication is that you support Russia and stand against anyone who Russia is against.
Meanwhile, I call out Russia, I call out NATO, I call out Ukraine. I dig my heels in the sand and call out bullshit in all directions. Fuck the war industry and those that profit from death.
No, I’ve explained to you in detail how NATO created the situation for the war.
You have completely avoided commenting on Russia's motive for invading Ukraine, a foreign country that Russia has no justification in occupying - nevermind any justification for killing civilians.
Yet, it’s plainly clear that you don’t care about facts and just keep regurgitating nonsense here. I’m sure you’ll leave another content free reply so enjoy having the last word.
Again, making false statements as if they are fact. I have finally left another comment, but that's only because I could not let such bullshit go unchallenged.
Nonetheless, I do have some respect for you. I've even offered an olive branch here and there where I agree with your sentiment. However, you have completely ignored this, with a clear implication that you have an agenda to push.
Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true. In reality, the very fact that you would call something “beyond dispute” points to a disingenous argument on your part. There’s always a devil’s advocate argument to be made.
One has to utterly lack any intellectual integrity to dispute the fact that NATO has invaded and destroyed many countries. Calling an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression defensive is the height of intellectual dishonesty. This isn't some argument of ideas, it's a basic verifiable fact, and what you're doing here is just sophistry.
Your “respected scholars” aren’t unanimously respected - particularly in the fields you quote them in, which are not their specialty.
Scholars such as John Mearsheimer are in fact respected by the vast majority of their peers, and geopoliticis is in fact their specialty.
I’m just calling out bullshit where I see it, there’s no parroted rhetoric from me.
Nah, you're just generating bullshit here.
You did not explicitly endorse them, but you gloss over obvious failings and objective evils, and divert to praise instead. The implication is that you support Russia and stand against anyone who Russia is against.
That's infantile reasoning. It's perfectly possible for adults to understand reasons and motivations of others without endorsing them.
Meanwhile, I call out Russia, I call out NATO, I call out Ukraine. I dig my heels in the sand and call out bullshit in all directions. Fuck the war industry and those that profit from death.
No you don't, you're regurgitating a false narrative and ignore basic facts of the situation.
Again, making false statements as if they are fact. I have finally left another comment, but that’s only because I could not let such bullshit go unchallenged.
This itself is a false statement.
However, you have completely ignored this, with a clear implication that you have an agenda to push.
It's actually quite clear that you yourself have an agenda to push, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility that the west bears in creating the conditions for the conflict, and in prolonging it to this day. Maybe do some self reflection.
One has to utterly lack any intellectual integrity to dispute the fact that NATO has invaded and destroyed many countries.
To quote you, "Where?" Where did I say that?
You're making disingenuous arguments and personal insults again. You aren't presenting ideas - presumably because you know your ideas are lacking - instead you're trying to attack me personally.
Calling an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression defensive is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
I haven't said they don't attack others, you haven't offered enough detail for me to critique that point over any specific events. You've mentioned a few countries, but I'm sure you know it's far more nuanced than that. Instead, you're just parroting bullshit rhetoric. This is real dishonesty on your part.
Nonetheless, it must be said that aggressive actions do not invalidate genuine defense. Not that NATO is defending in regards to Ukraine. NATO is not involved, even if countries that are in NATO are involved.
Countries that are in NATO are feeding weapons to Ukraine. They're doing this not because they are in NATO, but because they are financing their local war industries. For example, the UK is providing arms not as donations, but as bilateral aid agreements - Ukraine is supposed to pay them back eventually. Meanwhile, the terms of these agreements almost certainly favour the UK (as all bilateral aid agreements always favour the country giving), such that, financially, they are "selling" the weapons at above market rates, albeit as a long term loan. Even though in the future Ukraine will almost certainly not be able to repay the debt, it means that the current UK government can fiddle their books to make it look like they haven't raped the country's finances as much as they have. Writing off the debt is a future UK government's problem.
Meanwhile, Russia gets away with squandering the Russian peoples' money even more than any other government in the world, financing things like Putin's estate near Gelendzhik. Throw out all the marble, who cares, it's not Putin's money. Throw all the young country men's lives away in Ukraine, they're not Putin's people, who cares.
Scholars such as John Mearsheimer are in fact respected by the vast majority of their peers, and geopoliticis is in fact their specialty.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
That’s infantile reasoning. It’s perfectly possible for adults to understand reasons and motivations of others without endorsing them.
Again, personal attacks. You're not making meaningful arguments, you're just following a playbook. How many pages do you have left? When will you actually present an argument that's on topic?
No you don’t, you’re regurgitating a false narrative and ignore basic facts of the situation.
Please, present the facts. Put your balls on the table. Bullet points can be given with a - in front of them
Like this.
This itself is a false statement.
What's false? The fact that I finally replied to you? Do you actually have something meaningful to say?
It’s actually quite clear that you yourself have an agenda to push, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility that the west bears in creating the conditions for the conflict, and in prolonging it to this day. Maybe do some self reflection.
I haven't refused to acknowledge anything, I've called out the west. What I haven't acknowledged is your interpretation that "People said Russia would attack if the West behaved as they did, thus Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine" as any sort of a reasonable argument.
Please, present a reasonable argument for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I've asked too many times now.
I wish you’d follow your own advice.
Man, I'm always trying. I don't get it right every time, but I keep trying.
I dunno where your downvote and my upvote came from, but you have my upvote for replying to my comment and for not downvoting me. I appreciate the discussion regardless.
You said "Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true", perhaps clarify which statement you're referring to then, because based on the thread that's the statement I made that you're disputing.
Nonetheless, it must be said that aggressive actions do not invalidate genuine defense.
Once again, an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression is not defensive regardless of what it says or what the initial motivations were. It's a demonstrably aggressive alliance with a demonstrated history of aggression.
The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic fact says volumes.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
You made claim that the scholars I reference are not respected geopolitical experts. When I point out a specific geopolitical expert I'm referencing you start going off about name dropping.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact that the argument you present is infantile.
Please, present the facts.
I have, go back and read this thread where I've presented the facts already.
What’s false? The fact that I finally replied to you? Do you actually have something meaningful to say?
I've explained why it's false.
I haven’t refused to acknowledge anything, I’ve called out the west. What I haven’t acknowledged is your interpretation that “People said Russia would attack if the West behaved as they did, thus Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine” as any sort of a reasonable argument.
Nice straw man there.
Please, present a reasonable argument for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I’ve asked too many times now.
I have done so repeatedly. You are either incapable of understanding of what I wrote or you're unwilling to. Either way it's clear that further discussion is pointless.
