this post was submitted on 31 May 2023
-2 points (41.7% liked)
Europe
3923 readers
29 users here now
Europa
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not really sure what those backgrounds are supposed to signify in this context. The original point, in case you missed it, was that a former high level US official openly stated that this is a proxy war.
That's not how this works, what he says obviously carries weight given his status, and most importantly what he said is the truth. If you're trying to claim that the former US ambassador doesn't know what he's talking about, then surely academics such as John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky do. They happen to agree with him.
That's a false narrative and I've provided you lots of sources explaining why in detail. Please spend the time to educate yourself on the subject.
Perhaps you're not aware of what the Minsk agreements are?
Very convenient of you to forget that prior to annexation of Crimea, the west sponsored a coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine after which point a civil war started.
The part where Ukraine was committing war crimes against the civilian population of Donbas which western outlets such as CNN openly reported on https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
Ah yes, you'll ignore all the history and the context for the war. That's how we know that you're not actually arguing in good faith here. Also, I'm not defending anything here. What I'm doing is explaining why the war happened and the role NATO played in creating the situation that led to the conflict.
Even when this was true - this would have been a inner Ukrainian affair.
Is this in your eyes a justification for breaking the Budapest Memorandum and invading another country?
NATO running a coup in a country is not an inner Ukrainian affair.
As you are flooding and evading, I'll try to break this down a bit....
You are again diverting and misleading.
I wrote:
You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.
Did Russia honour the Budapest Memorandum?
I'm doing no such thing.
Russia honoured the Budapest Memorandum right up to the point when NATO ran a coup in Ukraine in 2014 which caused a civil war. I wonder why you would ignore this important context...
So an invasion and annexation of parts of another country is justified, when there is a coup? (There wasn't, btw. )
There was and it's a well documented fact. Meanwhile, the invasion was modelled on the precedent set by NATO invading Yugoslavia. NATO recognized independence of the breakaway regions and had them invite NATO for assistance. Russia did exactly the same thing in Donbas.
You could not find a more reputable source? Greyzone author, really?
And it is news to me, that NATO troops were in Yugoslavia. Got a source for that? Or again a lie by you as the background of western politicians?
You could not come up with a better counter argument than ad hominem I see. And just how ignorant are you? https://shape.nato.int/ongoingoperations/nato-mission-in-kosovo-kfor-
Ad hominem? Not really. I contest his neutrality. It’s a partisan publication.
You wrote about the breakup of Yugoslavia and the NATO invasion. What has KFOR to do with that?
You're using ad hominem to dismiss the content of the article. KFOR is the NATO force that is currently occupying Serbia that is left over from the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. Are you seriously so ignorant that you do not know about the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia?
There was no NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. There was a very controversial aerial intervention by NATO after ethnic cleansing by Serbian troops in Kosovo. But that is not an invasion. After that there was a UN peace keeping campaign and administration.
please stop spreading misinformation here https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/01/the-exoneration-of-milosevic-the-ictys-surprise-ruling/
Your source is about a judgement about the involvement of Milosevic in the war crimes in Bosnia. In case you don’t know, there is a difference between Bosnia and Kosovo.
The original judgment was the justification for the NATO invasion.
Which invasion?
The one you keep denying happened.
Give me one source about a NATO invasion, it must have been all over the news. In case you don’t know, an invasion is defined by troops on the ground. When were NATO troops in Yugoslavia before KFOR?
It's pretty hilarious how you keep digging yourself in here. NATO attacked Yugoslavia, including civilian infrastructure, for 78 days. That's an invasion, and the fact that it was done from the air doesn't change this fact. One has to be completely intellectually bankrupt to try to pretend otherwise.
Invasion : an act of invading especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion
Newspeak on your side?
You are grasping for straws. I mentioned the bombing and I was on the streets against it.
People reading this thread will know who's grasping at straws here.
Have you already asked Merriam-Webster to change the definition?
I love how you just cherry picked a definition and now pretend it's the sole one. Here's one from Britanica for you: the act of entering a place in an attempt to take control of it. You keep on digging though.
That is how it works. He has no political weight, he was a trophy ambassador. And your Mearsheimer and Chomsky are, let's say, "controversly" discussed.
🤣