Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Wednesday he believes Russia acted in “good faith” amid the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine, adding the U.S., in fact, bore heavy responsibility for the ongoing war.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Wednesday he believes Russia acted in “good faith” amid the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine, adding the U.S., in fact, bore heavy responsibility for the ongoing war.
Just breathe. This is such a typical, hyperventilating response. The critique here is not that the West “made” Russia invade Ukraine and only Russian sympathizers are saying that. The critique is of Western diplomacy over the last 30 years that directly contributed to the tensions in the region. The critique is that when the Warsaw Pact dissolved and Russia was at its weakest, the commitment by the West to also disarm and cease expansion militarily into former USSR territory should have been upheld. It’s the idea that unity and peace in the region should have been primary goal, not the liberalization of former USSR territories via NATO membership.
What exactly are you denying as “true?” You seem to have interpreted my comment as saying “Russia invaded Ukraine because of one singular thing the West did.” Well of course that’s not true, but that’s also not what I said. There isn’t one thing that Russia invaded Ukraine over. It’s a mix of national desperation, a psychotic despot, and regional tensions that made for an easy target. My only contention here is that Western diplomacy failed in Eastern Europe and a different approach would have had a different outcome. Diplomacy is a very long game. This isn’t a “hindsight is 20/20” issue, either. This strategy of military expansion for three decades despite Russia’s protests has been widely criticized.
You don’t have to agree with Russian interests here (I certainly don’t,) but you seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept and purpose of international diplomacy and separating it from your own political views. The purpose of a diplomatic relationship should be to advance the goals which benefit the citizens of one’s own country, while working within the constraints of a given political landscape, and to advance the good of all nations where possible, not proselytize liberal democracy via military expansion. Why don’t you tell me what you think the benefit of NATO expansion post-Cold War was for the citizens of the West? How did that benefit the citizens of my nation, the USA? From where I’m sitting, it didn’t. It seems more like a needless expansion of military power by the West despite prior commitments and despite the fact that it increased tensions with Russia and jeopardized peace in the region. Don’t forget that this expansion was spearheaded by the USA, not the nations that volunteered to join. Spearheaded by a nation that has maintained its superpower status by being involved in and often instigating every major conflict for the past 80 years. Now Western Leftists are suddenly going to forget that and give them a pass because Russian sympathizers are using it as an inconvenient talking point?
I am 100% for supporting Ukraine in this war. That should have been clear by my comment, but somehow you decided I was instead promoting the rape of innocent children. However, I also believe that after this is all over, there should be a healthy discussion about how we got here in the first place. The most absurd thing is that everything I am saying would have been widely accepted as fact by Liberals prior to the Ukraine invasion. “Western powers, particularly the USA, love destabilizing and exerting control over other weaker nations, even when they pose no threat.” Now that Russia finally did the horrible thing everyone knew they might do, this is now somehow a “pro-Russia” position to hold. It’s ridiculous.
That is insane the west did not force them to join nato they joined to protect themselves from Russia and gain wealth after the Ukraine war that seems to be the smarter choice than stay poor and weak and hope Russia doesn’t decide to invade you this week
You people genuinely have the worst reading comprehension. How could you say I insinuated anything remotely like that? And then I get criticized for trying to sound “intellectual” because I go to such lengths to make it clear that I hold both Russia and Western warmongers accountable, but never the small ex-Soviet nations that are the pawns in their game. Yet you still somehow read that into my statement.
Its all Americas fault if we didn’t bring democracy and better quality of life the poor poor Russia wouldn’t have to occupy Ukraine kill and rape what sound logical thinking you have how could we have not seen it
There are commas and periods on your keyboard. Come back and try again once you finish 4th grade, you’re unintelligible and quite possibly illiterate.
Nope, sorry, I am still not having it. The Russians are the only ones jeopardising peace in the region. NATO is a defensive pact. If Russia didn’t invade their neighbours, they would have nothing to fear from NATO. You are still apologising for Russian aggression and blaming its cause on the west, even if you’re trying to say it in an intellectual way or “both sides” it.
Jesus, I would love to see the world as simply as you do. You are literally going to avoid engaging with or thinking about every single point and reduce it to “Russia bad, NATO good?” You really see zero nuance in the history of NATO, its conception, its expansion, and the power it has? Does it not give you even a little pause? If not NATO, what about the world leaders who wield it?
I’m not trying to sound “intellectual,” and if I do it is because I am trying to be very specific and clear in what I say. I understand how closely this aligns with tankie talking points. That said, there is some level of intelligence or curiosity necessary for these conversations. If you reduce conflict around the world to some Marvel-esque “bad guy invades because he’s evil” scenario and never stop to ask who created the bad guy, you are never going to be able to understand human conflict or contribute to the avoidance of it.
Sure, attack my intelligence and curiosity rather than the argument that only an aggressive nation has anything to fear from a defensive alliance.