• ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    “NATO expansion was legal but predictably provocative. Russia’s response was entirely predictable, if illegal, and has proven very costly to it. Ukraine’s de facto military integration into NATO has resulted in its devastation.”

    From your suggested reading, this stood out to me. The crux of any argument in Russia’s favour seems to be that they were unhappy at the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, and thus felt justified acting preemptively. But ultimately, that was never a demand Russia was in a position to make, so any aggression on their part is not defensible on those grounds, in my opinion.

    • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      But ultimately, that was never a demand Russia was in a position to make

      Literally what are you smoking. Look at reality. Tell me they weren’t in a position to make that demand now that they’ve asserted themselves.

      It’s fucking amazing the shit people from your instance will say.

      • ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Firstly, basing your opinion of someone on the instance they signed up with is…interesting.

        Secondly, I didn’t mean that in the sense of they literally couldn’t make the demand, but that Russia demanded Ukraine not join NATO, despite having no standing to make such a demand. Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions, they didn’t need permission from Russia. Even the quoted article acknowledges that Russia had no grounds for an invasion, and it’s generally in support of Russia’s position.