Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic Robert Fico paid an official visit to China, October 31-November 5. He met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on November 1. Noting that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Slovakia, Xi said that after three-quarters of a century of development, … Continue reading China-Slovakia relations elevated to strategic partnership
If someones argument justifies pretty much any invasion, including some of the most egregious and vile wars in history there might be something wrong with the argument, or holding such an opinion.
Oh but oil prices are the single most important factor to US policy, so any country that can influence them is a threat obviously? Just as much as possible Ukrainian NATO border is, but Finish NATO border is not, you know, it’s all logical!
You realize Finland is farther North than Ukraine? There’s lots of ice most of the year. With hilly terrain. And it’s very forested. There’s not a lot of actual crossing points in that border, in an invasion it would require building lots of infrastructure that just doesn’t exist. Moving troops and tanks across the border would be slow and difficult. I think Russia would change its tune on Finland if they suddenly started building lots of infrastructure to enable border crossing, but for now it’s not really a threat.
Talking about justifying things is just a way to do moralizing. The way to avoid conflicts is by developing understanding for the interests and concerns of different nations, and treating one another with respect. After the fall of USSR, the west decided that it can ignore Russia’s security concerns and keep pushing an aggressive military alliance onto Russian borders. That’s what caused the war.
Plenty of western experts have been warning about this for decades on end. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
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”
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Look at a map sometime and learn a bit of history. Finland borders a very difficult forested terrain, and Russia has never been invaded through Finland. However, Russia has been invaded multiple times through Ukraine.
So the fuck you talking about? Especially claiming to know any of the history of the region? Kiev Rus? Yeah, Moscow basically did not exist when it was at it’s height of power ffs. If you bothered to learn any history every surrounding country, including China, considers them a imperialist dangerous neighbor willing to invade given any chance, and always working toward that. With the small difference China is probably already marking Siberia as it’s territory nowdays.
And obviously you’re pretending that neither has the technology changed, and obviously 1000km of steppe is the best possible approach, since aircraft, drones, satellites and tactical missiles of nukes are not an option… This NATO bullshit was clearly checked when Scandinavians joined, Královec by the Baltic is now surrounded by it, borders extended in a tarain much harder to secure, a key new possible lifeline for Russian economy is threatened by Finish and Norwegian proximity, but no, somehow Ukraine would be a threat, and that’s why the fighting focuses not on a direction of capital, but on the resource rich areas. How can you be so blind?
Maybe should read the wiki links you’re spamming? 😂
What I’m talking about, is that Ukraine is a big wide open steppe through which majority of the invading forces attack. The fact that you can’t understand this really is phenomenal.
And obviously you’re pretending that neither has the technology changed, and obviously 1000km of steppe is the best possible approach, since aircraft, drones, satellites and tactical missiles of nukes are not an option
And obviously you’re ignorant of how actual warfare works given then you think you can win a war without ground invasion. You’re like a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Oh look, the same clown who’s cheering for Ukrainians to keep dying in a senseless war pretends to give a fuck about people in Sudan. You ain’t fooling anybody.
None of this justfies invading another country, unless you want to justify invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq.
You don’t have to justify all invasions to justify some invasions?
If someones argument justifies pretty much any invasion, including some of the most egregious and vile wars in history there might be something wrong with the argument, or holding such an opinion.
But it doesn’t? Iraq is on the other side of the world from the US, Ukraine is on Russia’s border, they’re just totally different contexts.
Oh but oil prices are the single most important factor to US policy, so any country that can influence them is a threat obviously? Just as much as possible Ukrainian NATO border is, but Finish NATO border is not, you know, it’s all logical!
You realize Finland is farther North than Ukraine? There’s lots of ice most of the year. With hilly terrain. And it’s very forested. There’s not a lot of actual crossing points in that border, in an invasion it would require building lots of infrastructure that just doesn’t exist. Moving troops and tanks across the border would be slow and difficult. I think Russia would change its tune on Finland if they suddenly started building lots of infrastructure to enable border crossing, but for now it’s not really a threat.
Ever heard of north passage opening? Basically main economic oportunity for Russia other then its raw materials?
Yes, that would change geopolitics dramatically. That also probably won’t happen for a few decades until the ice caps melt a lot more, though.
https://gcaptain.com/first-panamax-containership-sprints-across-arctic-reaching-china-in-just-three-weeks/
Talking about justifying things is just a way to do moralizing. The way to avoid conflicts is by developing understanding for the interests and concerns of different nations, and treating one another with respect. After the fall of USSR, the west decided that it can ignore Russia’s security concerns and keep pushing an aggressive military alliance onto Russian borders. That’s what caused the war.
Plenty of western experts have been warning about this for decades on end. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
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”
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Ok, so how come Finland in NATO is not a problem?
Look at a map sometime and learn a bit of history. Finland borders a very difficult forested terrain, and Russia has never been invaded through Finland. However, Russia has been invaded multiple times through Ukraine.
Yeah, absolutely no invasions going over these forests whatsoever, apart for say these;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat
But I guess it’s only an invasion and imperialism if it happens to Russia?
Oh, and most effective ones against Russia itself? Never bothered with Ukraine;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Russian_War_(1609–1618)
Even for nazis Ukraine was one of three axis of attack, but they never reached as far as the earlier two, partially due to the massive distances over the steppes.
So the fuck you talking about? Especially claiming to know any of the history of the region? Kiev Rus? Yeah, Moscow basically did not exist when it was at it’s height of power ffs. If you bothered to learn any history every surrounding country, including China, considers them a imperialist dangerous neighbor willing to invade given any chance, and always working toward that. With the small difference China is probably already marking Siberia as it’s territory nowdays.
And obviously you’re pretending that neither has the technology changed, and obviously 1000km of steppe is the best possible approach, since aircraft, drones, satellites and tactical missiles of nukes are not an option… This NATO bullshit was clearly checked when Scandinavians joined, Královec by the Baltic is now surrounded by it, borders extended in a tarain much harder to secure, a key new possible lifeline for Russian economy is threatened by Finish and Norwegian proximity, but no, somehow Ukraine would be a threat, and that’s why the fighting focuses not on a direction of capital, but on the resource rich areas. How can you be so blind?
Maybe should read the wiki links you’re spamming? 😂
What I’m talking about, is that Ukraine is a big wide open steppe through which majority of the invading forces attack. The fact that you can’t understand this really is phenomenal.
And obviously you’re ignorant of how actual warfare works given then you think you can win a war without ground invasion. You’re like a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Out of 2 forces that reached Moscow, which one went through Ukraine?
BTW another pro-peace undertaking of Russia: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/18/russia-vetoes-sudan-ceasefire-resolution-at-un-security-council
Oh look, the same clown who’s cheering for Ukrainians to keep dying in a senseless war pretends to give a fuck about people in Sudan. You ain’t fooling anybody.
Out of 2 forces that reached Moscow, which one went through Ukraine?