I’m sure the tens of thousand of dead russian troops and all those displaced russian families prefer that to just gaining trust with others, resulting in the end of support for Ukraine and a quick surrender. Appatently getting people killed is better than doing everything you can to end end the conflict.
Russia literally did everything possible to try and avoid this conflict for 8 years prior. Ending the conflict without achieving the objectives would be sheer idiocy as anybody who is not a complete imbecile would understand.
The global majority understands why this war happened and the role the west played in creating the conditions for the war, as well as the role it plays in perpetuating it today.
The objective is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes a threat to Russia and that NATO expansion stops. that’s the objective that is being achieved.
The question is which states, but having no clue regarding the subject you’re opining on it’s not surprising that you wouldn’t understand that. Maybe if you spent your time actually learning things instead of trolling then you’d understand the strategic importance of Ukraine. Maybe go read up on WW2 sometime and see which path the nazis took to Russia then.
There is no such thing as “de facto” NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.
Buddy, if some organisation exists that has members, there will always exist “de facto” members (ones that support the organisation to a large extent, but are not also de jure members), de jure members (members that don’t do anything) and both (the rest).
The organisation can make PR about how it has “partners” and the like, but that does not change a thing.
Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a “de facto” member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?
NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous “de facto” members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a “de facto” member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.
I see reading comprehension isn’t your strong point, but that should be no surprise at this point.
These findings have caused some surprise and even anger in the West. It’s difficult for Western thought leaders to comprehend that two-thirds of the world’s population is just not lining up with the West in this conflict. However, I believe there are five reasons why the Global South is not taking the West’s side. I discuss these reasons in the short essay below.
Over the past year the number of countries actively condemning Russia has fallen from 131 to 122, as some emerging economies have shifted to a neutral position. This US- and EU-led bloc, which represents about 36% of the global population, has exhibited a strong level of collaboration on sanctions, as well as solid military and economic support to Ukraine.
U.S. officials point out that 141 of 193 countries at the United Nations voted to condemn Russia after the invasion and that 143 voted in October to censure the Kremlin’s announced annexation of parts of Ukraine. But only 33 countries have imposed sanctions on Russia, and a similar number are sending lethal aid to Ukraine.
The reality of the situation is that the west finds itself completely isolated.
“Building trust” is an abstraction that covers many many activities. The fact that Russia did many things that could have built trust but didn’t is completely lost on you, so you have no ability to question WHY trust wasn’t built as a result of the actions taken. Because if you DID question why, you would see that Ukraine’s transition to a right-wing Euro-centric government entailed it being Russophobic and part of the European project to dominate Russia.
Russia was building trust for years beforehand. Putin spoke twice in the Bundestag for example, the goal was a free trade zone from Lisabon to Wladiwostok. Russia also asked to join NATO. It got declined both times.
Even when the coup happened in Ukraine, Russia attempted multiple diplomatic initiatives to deescalate the situation.
Do you know who always escalated? Who was always pushing for conflict? Hint: It wasn’t Russia.
The difference is that the military industrial complex in the west is privately owned, which creates the perverse incentive for profit from war. Meanwhile, Russian military industry is predominantly state owned and operating it is a cost for the state.
Nowhere did I say that you have to choose one. Russia is a capitalist state that mirrors the west in many of the worst ways. However, it’s a well documented fact that Russia did in fact try to avoid this war.
Although true. The root is that no super power likes another super power or its proxies on their borders. Russia does not and stated as such for decades. Hell, China literally helps fund the NK government and puts up with it, so it does not have SK, and its American bases on its south border. The USA put an embargo on Cuba for over 60 years because they put Russian weapons 90kms from Florida and Cuba would not capitulate. So much for the Cubans and the USA’s hypocrisy to memory hole this fact.
Yet somehow many Americans are so blind to not understand that Russia does not want Ukraine as an USA puppet next to them, which they would be. They see it as a clear and present danger --whether others see it or care, does not matter-- just like how the USA saw Cuba. I think we can all agree that Putin is a despot but to not see and understand of just how obvious Super power Geopolitics works or only see the one side of the issue because it is convinient is quite the statement on USA propaganda and the ongoing push for expanding of the Monroe Doctrine as status quo. Operation Condor comes to mind.
Super powers actually care little about smaller countries if they so not fit or push their specific geopolitical interests. No exceptions. Despite the real loses of human life, to the American government the Russia/Ukraine conflict is a but proxy war meant to weaken Russia for its own geopolitical goals. Some politicians stated as such already, despite the previous humanitarian PR. Calling any of this so-called Russia propanda as a way of side stepping by some, does not make it any less correct. Sadly.
I’m sure the tens of thousand of dead russian troops and all those displaced russian families prefer that to just gaining trust with others, resulting in the end of support for Ukraine and a quick surrender. Appatently getting people killed is better than doing everything you can to end end the conflict.
Russia literally did everything possible to try and avoid this conflict for 8 years prior. Ending the conflict without achieving the objectives would be sheer idiocy as anybody who is not a complete imbecile would understand.
Everything except building trust, it seems.
And who said anything about not achieving objectives? Unless the objective is to get people, both Russians and Ukrainians killed, I guess.
Building trust from whom, pretty much everybody outside west is on Russia’s side:
The global majority understands why this war happened and the role the west played in creating the conditions for the war, as well as the role it plays in perpetuating it today.
The objective is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes a threat to Russia and that NATO expansion stops. that’s the objective that is being achieved.
Remind me again how many member states NATO had before the invasion, and how many it has now?
The question is which states, but having no clue regarding the subject you’re opining on it’s not surprising that you wouldn’t understand that. Maybe if you spent your time actually learning things instead of trolling then you’d understand the strategic importance of Ukraine. Maybe go read up on WW2 sometime and see which path the nazis took to Russia then.
Sweden and Finnland, both already being de facto NATO members beforehand… You’re not too informed baout this international politic thingy, aren’t you?
There is no such thing as “de facto” NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.
Buddy, if some organisation exists that has members, there will always exist “de facto” members (ones that support the organisation to a large extent, but are not also de jure members), de jure members (members that don’t do anything) and both (the rest).
The organisation can make PR about how it has “partners” and the like, but that does not change a thing.
Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a “de facto” member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?
NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous “de facto” members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a “de facto” member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.
https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/das_eda/aktuell/dossiers/konferenz-zum-frieden-ukraine/Summit-on-Peace-in-ukraine-joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework.html
Quite a lot of non-western countries on that list, including the global south.
And yet as links I provided clearly show vast majority of the global south supports Russia. You keep on coping though.
Your links actualy don’t show that the “vast majority” spports Russia. And the reason is simple: because they don’t. As can also clearly be seen in e.g. UN votes: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/24/un-tells-russia-to-leave-ukraine-how-did-countries-vote.
I see reading comprehension isn’t your strong point, but that should be no surprise at this point.
The reality of the situation is that the west finds itself completely isolated.
Ah, you define support as “not actively opposed”? That is an incredibly low bar.
Again, the UN vote clearly shows that the countries don’t support Russia or think what the country does is right.
The fact that poor countries arw in no position to sanction anyone does not mean they support Russia.
Removed by mod
Sorry @yogthos@lemmy.ml, but I’m with @twinnie@feddit.uk on this one.
He clearly intellectually bested you with his superior, meritocratic, totally sound and valid argument of you being a Russian bot.
😆
Yeah, sure NATO expanded altruistically to protect Russia’s neighbours. Imagine actually believing that.
“Building trust” is an abstraction that covers many many activities. The fact that Russia did many things that could have built trust but didn’t is completely lost on you, so you have no ability to question WHY trust wasn’t built as a result of the actions taken. Because if you DID question why, you would see that Ukraine’s transition to a right-wing Euro-centric government entailed it being Russophobic and part of the European project to dominate Russia.
Russia was building trust for years beforehand. Putin spoke twice in the Bundestag for example, the goal was a free trade zone from Lisabon to Wladiwostok. Russia also asked to join NATO. It got declined both times. Even when the coup happened in Ukraine, Russia attempted multiple diplomatic initiatives to deescalate the situation.
Do you know who always escalated? Who was always pushing for conflict? Hint: It wasn’t Russia.
War is a business for everyone not just for the US. World leaders seek money and wealth and war grants it
The difference is that the military industrial complex in the west is privately owned, which creates the perverse incentive for profit from war. Meanwhile, Russian military industry is predominantly state owned and operating it is a cost for the state.
Rich people get richer peasants get poorer, i don’t see much difference.
The difference is pretty clear from the number of wars US and Russia have been involved in actually.
You don’t have to chose one. Side with people and not with the rulers
Nowhere did I say that you have to choose one. Russia is a capitalist state that mirrors the west in many of the worst ways. However, it’s a well documented fact that Russia did in fact try to avoid this war.
Although true. The root is that no super power likes another super power or its proxies on their borders. Russia does not and stated as such for decades. Hell, China literally helps fund the NK government and puts up with it, so it does not have SK, and its American bases on its south border. The USA put an embargo on Cuba for over 60 years because they put Russian weapons 90kms from Florida and Cuba would not capitulate. So much for the Cubans and the USA’s hypocrisy to memory hole this fact.
Yet somehow many Americans are so blind to not understand that Russia does not want Ukraine as an USA puppet next to them, which they would be. They see it as a clear and present danger --whether others see it or care, does not matter-- just like how the USA saw Cuba. I think we can all agree that Putin is a despot but to not see and understand of just how obvious Super power Geopolitics works or only see the one side of the issue because it is convinient is quite the statement on USA propaganda and the ongoing push for expanding of the Monroe Doctrine as status quo. Operation Condor comes to mind.
Super powers actually care little about smaller countries if they so not fit or push their specific geopolitical interests. No exceptions. Despite the real loses of human life, to the American government the Russia/Ukraine conflict is a but proxy war meant to weaken Russia for its own geopolitical goals. Some politicians stated as such already, despite the previous humanitarian PR. Calling any of this so-called Russia propanda as a way of side stepping by some, does not make it any less correct. Sadly.
Apparently in the mind of the west, Ukraine and Zelensky in particular it is…
Those talking points don’t feel humiliating to say in the context of the interview you’re replying under?
Do you have human feelings?