I sure did. Nobody is playing a victim here. What’s happening is that Russia has identified NATO as a direct participant in the war and is planning to retaliate in kind.
Ah yes, a RAND report listing hypothetical US policy options two years before the UNPROVOKED RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE is apparently the same thing as NATO personally forcing Putin to do it. By that logic, reading a menu means you cooked the meal. The report may discuss escalation risks, but it doesn’t even suggest that NATO caused Russia’s aggression, much less turn the aggressor into the victim like we see here.
I bolded the correct answer to “what war” up there for ya, since I don’t think you were ever going to get there.
The paper literally describes how and why the war was provoked. Maybe spend a bit of time learning to read so as not to make a clown of yourself in public in the future.
Not sure what part of premeditated action confuses you here. The paper describes how and why the war was provoked, and the benefits the strategic US expected to see from it.
Furthermore, the idea that NATO threatens Russia doesn’t even come from Russia. Plenty of western experts have been saying this for many decades, as anybody who’s not an utter ignoramus would know. 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"
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.
The paper written in 2019 describes how the invasion in 2022 wasis to be provoked?
Yes, that is how linear time works and pretending not to understand that is not a super credible look. If this was a pre-war Russian policy paper detailing ways to overextend NATO, you would immediately and miraculously be able to draw the connection here.
Yeah, I did, where is anybody playing the victim?
Holy fuck. Did you read the comment you just replied to?
I sure did. Nobody is playing a victim here. What’s happening is that Russia has identified NATO as a direct participant in the war and is planning to retaliate in kind.
What war? Keep going, you’re almost there.
The proxy war NATO intentionally provoked as was extensively documented in US policy papers such as this one https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Ah yes, a RAND report listing hypothetical US policy options two years before the UNPROVOKED RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE is apparently the same thing as NATO personally forcing Putin to do it. By that logic, reading a menu means you cooked the meal. The report may discuss escalation risks, but it doesn’t even suggest that NATO caused Russia’s aggression, much less turn the aggressor into the victim like we see here.
I bolded the correct answer to “what war” up there for ya, since I don’t think you were ever going to get there.
The paper literally describes how and why the war was provoked. Maybe spend a bit of time learning to read so as not to make a clown of yourself in public in the future.
The paper written in 2019 describes how the invasion in 2022 was provoked?
Not sure what part of premeditated action confuses you here. The paper describes how and why the war was provoked, and the benefits the strategic US expected to see from it.
And of course, the RAND paper isn’t the only document. Here’s an article from August 2021 advocating inflicting a military defeat on Russia in Ukraine to subjugate it and draw it away from China. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/strategy-avoiding-two-front-war-192137
Furthermore, the idea that NATO threatens Russia doesn’t even come from Russia. Plenty of western experts have been saying this for many decades, as anybody who’s not an utter ignoramus would know. 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"
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.
And even mainstream western media such as The Hill now openly admits the facts https://thehill.com/opinion/5198022-ukraine-conflict-disinformation
All of this is well documented and well known. Only a person of deep and profound ignorance would attempt to argue otherwise.
The paper written in 2019 describes how the invasion in 2022
wasis to be provoked?Yes, that is how linear time works and pretending not to understand that is not a super credible look. If this was a pre-war Russian policy paper detailing ways to overextend NATO, you would immediately and miraculously be able to draw the connection here.