riiiight, an article written by a russian shill: Leonid Ragozin
Wow, what an amazing and well thought out counterpoint. Bravo!
Everything I Don’t Like is a Russian Plot: A Baby’s Guide to Geopolitics
Yeah, we’re definitely not pointing the finger at the right people.
Whatever happened to NATO’s guarantee for Ukraine’s security if they got rid of their nukes?
So… Russia?
Also, if only there could be more than one country stabbing the other in the back.
The Russian bots and trolls are out hard here. Not you, the others throwing shit at you
weird way to say the USA https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Lol, they’re calling you out!
We encourage you to explore this report and its accompanying research brief. However, because Russian entities and individuals sympathetic to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine have mischaracterized this research in recent weeks, we also encourage you to explore this helpful resource on Russia’s “firehose of falsehood” approach to propaganda and our research on “Truth Decay,” which is a phenomenon that is driven in part by the spread of disinformation.
Ah yes, imagine being gullible enough to fall for the disclaimer that people have “mischaracterized” their research that just happened to describe the exact scenario and benefits for the US. 🤣
The United States is the only reason that Ukraine is in war with Russia.
ukraine was a pawn and was convinced that things would be better if they joined nato.
Whatever happened to NATO’s guarantee for Ukraine’s security if they got rid of their nukes?
russia is the correct and only answer.
ukraine was literally no threat to russia. no ‘western’ or european nation is a threat to russia if russia would just gtfo and quit invading its neighbors.
ukraine is not a threat to anyone, but the united states is and ukraine let the united states fool it into thinking they could join the american side despite geopolitical hazards like russia and trump or warning signs from history like latin american; the middle east; or europe after ww2.
NATO encroachment is a threat to Russia.
Not really.
It’s a threat to Putin, who is the greatest threat to Russia.
Just look at how many Russians are dead for his war.
Take a look at Libya to see what happens when NATO helps depose the leader.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that’s relevant at all.
You’re literally talking about how NATO is a threat to Putin, the leader of Russia.
I’m just saying, look at Libya to understand what happens next.
Global affairs are more complicated than you think.
If you’re stupid enough to think that the same results will happen every time NATO gets rid of a leader, then I can’t help you.
You need more life experience.
Whatever happened to NATO’s guarantee for Ukraine’s security if they got rid of their nukes?
Russia is the correct and only answer only if you’re utterly clueless of history and geopolitics.
Oops, what’s this?
Oops. what’s this?
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-russia-nato/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
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”
Somehow history began AFTER I was born crew
