Well imagine if China were to make a military pact with Mexico and started delivering "defensive" weapon systems to them. There would be protests, sanctions, meddling and attempts for regime change, and if those didn't work there would be invasion.

For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.

[–] rdri@lemmy.world -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Imagine justifying real war by imagining things.

For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.

These sentences don't make sense as the response for the quotation.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Do you live in some alternative reality where the US didn't invade Irak and Afghanistan? And is bombing countries all over the world for whatever reason? Oh let me guess that is TOTALLY different!

[–] rdri@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We all live in a reality where the US did invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And here is the thought process of me trying to understand your reasoning behind mentioning these events in current context:

The US asked many times for Iraq and Afghanistan to not try to oppose them. According to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan bombed its own citizens (who call themselves the people of the US) for several (at least 8) years and finally the US decided to intervene.
But in fact it must have been caused by someone else, like China or Russia. They provided Iraq and Afghanistan with weapons and/or proposed them the place in alliance against the US, which is why the US didn't have a choice.
From the very start of those invasions, the whole world decided to stand against the US and provided Iraq and Afghanistan with all the weapons and resources they could need in order to protect themselves. Massive sanctions were applied against the US to stop its war machine.
The US massively increased pressure on free speech and started to jail its own citizens who speak against the war. This also caused at least 1 percent of the US population to migrate elsewhere.
Because this all (or at least some of it) happened with the US, there is no problem in assuming that it would be fine to happen with other country (like Russia) and nobody should say a word against that country's right for protecting its interests.

If this is what really happened then you are correct and this not "totally different" but exactly the same.

But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of "injustice" towards Russia.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of “injustice” towards Russia.

Geography? Hey wait, you're trying to trick me! If I explain the differences I loose the debate!

My point is that from Russia's point of view (true or not) NATO is a hostile military alliance that has slowly been encircling Russia for the past decades. Russia's protests were ignored so after the 2014 coup supported by literal Nazis (from their point of view) they started to use military interventions. US / EU / NATO did double down on arming Ukraine with weapons so they saw themselves "forced" to invade.

I'm not excusing any of this - but these choices and events made this war predictable and inevitable. I'd go so far and say that if Putin hadn't invaded Ukraine he would have been deposed by the militaristic powers he cultivated. It's like poking a bear and then crying foul when he eats your face.

Thus my example about China arming Mexico. The US would react in the exact same way, and we have ample historical evidence for that. And it's not my point that this excuses anything, it's that these things are predictable so we do carry a responsibility to deescalate, demand negotiations so Ukraine gets their land back while Russia gets security guarantees. But judging by the complete troll answer in Tuckers Putin interview that isn't in the cards right now.

But there was no resistance to this geopolitical "gambit". And now everyone is presenting a completely false version of history.

[–] rdri@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

My point is that from Russia's point of view

You don't know what you're talking about. Putin's point of view does only represent a sad guy who lives in lies and outside of real information from the outside world. Real Russians have almost no interest or connection to their own country and decisions "it" makes. They're only trying to survive. They only know about NATO from state media. There was even an interview (possibly not one) that NATO gave for Russians to make them understand what's really happening. But state media is not interested in such things or would have called it all lies. Logic they force on citizens is always twisted and there is no point in last 10 years at least where I could say Russians actually had a point of view of their own.

NATO is a hostile military alliance that has slowly been encircling Russia for the past decades

It also expanded last year. When do you think Putin will hit Finland? Why did he not protest before that happened? Oh right, you only want to describe Russia's point of view, not the logic behind it.

The quote is also not much different from something like "NASA has been slowly washing people's brains for past decades". You can't seriously explain someone's actions while assuming it's fine for them to be out of touch with the reality.

US / EU / NATO did double down on arming Ukraine

You sure? They have been arming Ukraine before the invasion? Did they also not arm the rest of Europe? Putin allowed that?

I'm not excusing any of this - but these choices and events made this war predictable and inevitable

I'd ask you to provide sources on this. Are there any reputable experts or otherwise sources that correctly predicted the war? Are there so many of them to call it obvious? Why was it not at all obvious to Russian citizens at the very least?

Thus my example about China arming Mexico. The US would react in the exact same way, and we have ample historical evidence for that. And it's not my point that this excuses anything, it's that these things are predictable so we do carry a responsibility to deescalate, demand negotiations so Ukraine gets their land back while Russia gets security guarantees.

We have historical evidence for something that never happened?

Where is the logicality in your comments? Did you mention the US invasions to Iraq and Afghanistan to say how they were predictable? That some other countries could prevent those from happening by giving the US security guarantees?

Why not mention how Poland provoked Hitler to start the world war, according to Putin?

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I doubt many here will defend the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of these invasions should have happened, BUT no they are not the same. In case of Afghanistan the US supported the Northern alliance in a pre-existing civil war. Iraq was lead by a brutal dictator who had been involved in wars of aggression (Kuwait) and genocide (Kurds).

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

I could list some of Russia's justifications for invasion, but they are just as flimsy as the US justifications for killing hundreds of thousands of people and devastating many countries.

My point isn't to justify Russia or the US, it's pointing out without a popular push for peace these wars will keep happening. Instead we're seeing a completely brainwashed majority scream for total war and just eat up the propaganda.