Official NATO nerrative.
Things are heating up in the Donbass
- Thread starter holdover
- Start date
Official NATO nerrative.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Speak for yourself.
Robin
Robin
Yankees go home.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
NATO are not the ones who invaded Ukraine, bombed and shelled it's cities and mined it's farms.
There are exactly zero people left in Ukraine who welcome the "help" the Russians have provided.
History doesn't begin on Feb. 2023.
There were two revolutions a civil war and broken agreement as a result of U.S. involvement before Russia made the move.
Opposition is still in Ukraine, if there was none, there wouldn't be a need to silence it.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
None of that involved NATO as an aggressor.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
So, no NATO troops involved, and no foreign invaders.
Imagine if the Bay of Pigs invasion had been conducted by regular, uniformed US troops, with full air support and logistics.
That's what the Russian invasion of Ukraine is like.
It is on a completely different level than providing some material support for some local rebels or an insurgency.
The list of U.S. invasions in Latin America is endless and these countries were never even part of United States.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Notice the article says "interventions" but you call them "invasions".
There is a distinct difference.
"Interventions" are pretty much the bread and butter of every intelligence agency of every major state for the last couple hundred years.
Invasions have been essentially forbidden since the mess that was left from the 2nd world War. The only time they are tolerated internationally is when both nations are shitholes nobody cares about.
The US got away with it in Afghanistan because Afghanistan was pretty much a failed state anyway.
The Iraq Invasion was the only real US Invasion of the last 70 years. We got away with it because of a combination of the international outrage of 9/11, Iraq's status as a pariah ever since their Kuwait Invasion.
None of the other crap you are talking about is comparable.
Look again, most of these interventions included invasions by troops. There is a column there "Type of Force" that tells when U.S. troops were used.
Last edited:
Vapor
.308 Win
The truth is Ukraine is stuck between two empires trying to exert their will over the country.
In the end, it's the common man who will suffer.
In the end, it's the common man who will suffer.
Not really. Ukraine will always be next to or a part of Russia (due to geography, common history and culture). U.S. is an outsider from another hemisphere, who is trying to rule the world and is making people suffer in many places. Lets cut the bullshit and face reality.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
And the rest of Europe ?
NATO isn't just the US.
Pretty sure the Ukranians have more in common with the Poles than the Russians these days.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
It doesn't count if you are invited by the host country.
The US didn't invade Britian in WWII, despite landing millions of troops there.
We didn't invade Saudi Arabia in 1991 despite moving half a million troops there in 6 months either.
U.S. is the leader of NATO. Everything NATO does is approved by Washington.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Sure, the US rules NATO with an iron fist, whatever you say.
Hell, we can't even get the rest of the deadbeats to kick in their dues. Pretty sure we're not in charge.
Googling invitation by Iraqi government, Syrian government, Yugoslavian Government, Panama government, Grenada government, Afghan government, to mention only a few. No luck so far.
Last edited:
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I already admitted Iraq (the second time) was an exception.
Neither Panama nor Grenada involved an occupation. If you don't take and occupy territory then it's not conquest.
It's that "common history" that makes the ukrainians never want to be part of russia ever again. Remember the ukrainian famine (holodomor)?
That 'common history' is also why the baltic nations and the poles never want to be part of russia again.
I'm not saying we should be as involved as we are. But I understand why the ukrainians don't want to be part of russia.
Cherry picking a few events, taking them out of historical context and using them as propaganda tool to hate monger may work for a while. This is what U.S. does around the world. In the end such methods fail. You can't fabricate history by twisting cherry picked factoids.
Last edited:
Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin's Crime That Never Took Place
Playing into the hands of Ukrainian nationalists, a monument to the so-called Ukrainian "Holodomor," one the 20th century's most famous myths and vitriolic pieces of anti-Soviet Propaganda, has been erected in the US capital.
sputnikglobe.com
spat
.700 Nitro Express
So it's all a NATO conspiracy that most of the former Soviet republics either have, or want, to join NATO ?
How many are clamoring to be under Russian rule again ?
Why is it that Russia is so threatened by then joining NATO ? They act like their slaves are escaping LOL.
Fake news. Most of the 15 are happy staying out of NATO.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The 14 Former Soviet and Soviet-aligned Republics That Joined NATO After the Cold War – 24/7 Wall St.
Ever since he became prime minister then president of Russia, Vladimir Putin has made no secret of restoring Russia to its superpower status. He has been bulking up the military and attempting to pull former Soviet republics back into the Russian orbit. But if the ex-KGB spook wants to return...
247wallst.com
And more that are *trying* to join now.
The 14 Former Soviet and Soviet-aligned Republics That Joined NATO After the Cold War – 24/7 Wall St.
Ever since he became prime minister then president of Russia, Vladimir Putin has made no secret of restoring Russia to its superpower status. He has been bulking up the military and attempting to pull former Soviet republics back into the Russian orbit. But if the ex-KGB spook wants to return...
And more that are *trying* to join now.
"Soviet-aligned Republics". Obviously written by ignorant imbocile.
You are the gift that keeps on giving. What "historical context" explains or justifies the deliberate starvation of millions of ukrainians?
Singling out Ukrainian famine, exaggerating numbers and spinning it as deliberate act takes it out of historical context. There were famines in other regions of Russia. Genocide accusations started many decades later as a political play on Ukraine.
Last edited:
So the fact the bolsheviks engineered famines across russia lets them off the hook for their actions in ukraine?