by exploited » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:53 am
I've yet to hear a good reason why Russia should be attacked because they acted on legitimate security interests.
The West has been doing everything possible to provoke them, ignoring agreements not to expand NATO, flipping out when Russia so much as holds naval exercises within America's sphere of influence, dropping out of treaties designed to prevent another arms race, supporting the crushing of self-determination in South Ossetia, sending tens of millions of dollars to destabilize governments in the region, trying to render nuclear deterrence irrelevant... The list is long and Russia had acted with considerable restraint.
Hell, it was the privatization drive, advocated and supported by Bush and Clinton, that resulted in the rise of Russia's oligarchs. Then we spent two decades attacking them for human rights, as if the country should have become a liberal democracy overnight. The level of hypocrisy, jingoism and blatant aggression is staggering.
Now we have members here acting as if Putin is the next Hitler because he is going to annex a piece of a country that just underwent a violent revolution centered in a city 750 km from Moscow. Meanwhile the US has embargoed Cuba for fifty years for undergoing the same process, and shows no signs of giving up.
One simply has to read what Comrade has posted to see serious militaristic tendencies built upon the idea that the US can and should do whatever it wants, simply because it can. And of course a conflict with Russia will be no big deal... Even though literally every person writing about this has said the exact opposite, and not a single nation state seems to believe that bombing Russia will deescalate the conflict.
- These users thanked the author exploited for the post:
- The Dharma Bum