The 2014 invasion of Ukraine was not a significant news event for me. Ukraine was weak, and the tepid response to the invasion from Ukraine and the rest of the West meant that Russia just rolled in without opposition or much drama.
Fast forward 8 years, and Ukraine has further developed its national identity and is starting to become a real democracy. The 2022 invasion was a big wake-up call for the West. We had thought that we had won the Cold War in 1992, and that our geopolitical rivals, while still warranting concern, were not a direct threat to us and our allies anymore. Nope! It turns out there is still a need for the USA to be an unrivaled global superpower, and for the rest of NATO to get its ass in gear and modernize.
This is what got us the Ukraine war in the first place, an uncompromising hard line against a weak Russia because the USA was in the position to do so. Russia opposed each NATO expansion but did nothing in the end and it was the same gamble with Ukraine, hoping that Russia will once more do nothing.
Ah, the classic "The West forced Russia to invade Ukraine. Like the government in Ukraine didn't have any legitimate reason to align itself with the West after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Have you heard the rhetoric coming from Putin and the Kremlin? About how Ukraine doesn't have a legitimate national or ethnic identity of their own, and how the territory of Ukraine should just be a part of Russia. And how the Ukrainians (who are really just Russians, really) don't deserve to self-govern?
Going on right now in occupied Ukraine, the Russians are actively purging all Ukrainian language and culture. Only the Russian language will be taught in schools.
Yes, the West is totally to blame here. Totally.
But none of that even addresses my argument, Russia opposed NATO expansion, Russia threatened severe consequences, NATO gave no signs that Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO or entered any kind of negotiations, Russia delivered on its promise. The outcome was rather predictable, at least ignoring that Russia did not react as strongly to previous NATO expansions.
We can debate all day long whether NATO should expand, whether Russia should have any say in which alliances Ukraine enters, whether an invasion is a justifiable means, whether Russia would have invaded anyway if NATO would have given up on the expansion, that are all fair questions. My point is just that there was a relatively simple situation, Russia warns NATO, one step closer and there will be war, and NATO decides that it will make that step.
Oh, so we're supposed to just listen and obey every dictator out there now? We are supposed to listen and obey when North Korea threatens our (or our ally's) destruction? Are we supposed to just sit back and let China dredge up new islands out of nothing in the South China Sea, and then claim the entire thing is now their territorial waters? Are we supposed to just let them have Taiwan too? How many times has China threatened something when we sold Taiwan some more F-16s or some other military hardware?
And what about our threats? Do you think the Kremlin wasn't warned about what the consequences to Russia would be if they invaded in 2022? Why shouldn't Putin have listened to us?
> My point is just that there was a relatively simple situation, Russia warns NATO, one step closer and there will be war, and NATO decides that it will make that step.
What's funny with all this is that Finland and Sweden resisted joining NATO for decades, despite being very closely aligned with the rest of Europe. Russia made angry noises about that for years and years, and they listened. Wow! Exactly what you thought should happen! Fantastic!
And then Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Then those two countries decided they could no longer listen to the threats coming from Russia, and had to choose what was best for their own security and prosperity. And so they joined NATO to protect themselves.
Why do you think Poland, one of the poorest countries in Europe, has been giving proportionately so much aid to Ukraine? Because they fear for the war spreading, and want to stop Russia now. Why do you think Poland wanted to join NATO back in 1999? Even though one of the member countries of NATO (Germany) that had invaded them 50 years earlier? Did they fear that Poland was going to be invaded by NATO, that this was some coercion? No, because NATO doesn't invade other countries.
Poland joined NATO because they were worried about the other country that had also invaded them 50 years previously, Russia.
Are you starting to see that it is Russia that is the problem here?
No, you can also go to war with them. The one side wants Ukraine in NATO, the other not, so there is a conflict. You can now either negotiate some compromise that is acceptable for both sides or you have to fight this out. I personally think that a Ukrainian NATO membership is not worth hundred thousands of dead and wounded, millions of refuges and a destroyed country, but others obviously disagree.
And what about our threats? [...] Why shouldn't Putin have listened to us?
Which threats? Putin already decided that Ukrainian NATO membership is so important that he is willing to go to war over the issue if there is no political solution, he certainly expected sanctions and support from the West.
Well, it has been for the Ukrainians to decide. They have fought like hell to avoid being conquered by a foreign dictator that would destroy their country, their culture and the rape, torture and murder their own people.
> Which threats? Putin already decided that Ukrainian NATO membership is so important that he is willing to go to war over the issue if there is no political solution, he certainly expected sanctions and support from the West.
Which threats? I assure you that in the run-up to February 2022, there were some very serious phone calls and meetings between the USA State Department and the Russian Foreign Ministry. Just because that wasn't reported on the news doesn't mean it didn't happen. Often we try to find solutions to problems without it being a public announcement.
This is idiotic, it is not up to the Ukrainians to decide to join NATO, their decision ends at applying for NATO membership. Not everybody gets to join NATO, it's not some open membership organization that anybody gets to join.
Yes, we know.
I definitely did not miss all those news stories about Turkey blocking the final approval for Sweden.
What the fuck? How can you debate on that at all, let alone all day? Does Russia own Ukraine? No. So does Russia have any say in which alliances Ukraine enters? Absolutely not.
Does the USA own Solomon Islands? It is just a reality that powerful nations try to exert influence over other states, whether you like it or not. We can discuss how good or bad that is but it certainly not only Russia that thinks it has some say in what other countries can or can not do.
Let's be real here: Russia wants Ukraine to be "under their influence", preferably the same way Belarus is, and Chechnya. They want Ukraine to be their puppet state.
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 because the population already gave clear indications that they wanted to move closer to the West. Russia was losing their grip on Ukraine. That's the reason why they invaded. The NATO argument is all bullshit. Finland joined NATO. Is Russia invading Finland? Or at least securing their borders with Finland?
Russia wants to control Ukraine, no more, no less.
This is very different than an imperial dictatorship like Russia, which actually does turn their conquests into puppet states.
But of course Russia and its minions like to act as if NATO is an imperial power. They also like to act as if USA controls all the NATO countries. While if fact, those countries are democracies that decide their own destinies.
So in the end, it's actually Ukraine that wants to join NATO for obvious reasons, not the other way around. NATO could have already let Ukraine join if it wanted to.
This is not 'NATO wanting Ukraine under their influence', this is 'Ukraine wanting the security guarantees that NATO offers'.
I'm getting really tired of all the Russian bullshit that's being spread here.
And you call Ukrainians fighting for their lives to give their families a proper life, a "mess"? Shame on you.
Russia woukd have invaded with or without NATO. Too bad you seem too stupid to get that part. Was Chechnya going to join NATO?
I don't want to see Russians destroy my home with artillery, rape and murder the people around me, and force me to live in Russia, where human life has no value, elections are rigged, and police can rape peaceful protestors with impunity. Can you perhaps devote a few seconds to my security concerns for a change?
Nope, sorry. It doesn't matter who you are, where you live, or what your concerns are. Russia and Putin insist that you must support Mother Russia, and be willing to die for the cause (of ensuring Putin gains power and wealth). /s
> Why did they invade?
Like I already stated earlier, because they want to control it like Georgia, Chechnya, Dagestan and Belarus. Only 1 of those countries was considered for NATO membership after the conflict kept going since 91 (considered membership in 2008).
> What evidence do you have to the contrary?
- Russia invading the North Caucasus (Chechnya, Dagestan, ...), without NATO having anything to do with it. *Please answer why they invaded.*
- Russia kept attacking Georgia since 91. Putin came in power in 2000 and he escalated that war, until it reached its peak in 2008 when NATO considered Georgias membership. So did Russia start that conflict because of NATO, or did Georgia wanted to join because of the conflict since 91? *Please answer why Russia kept the conflict going from 91 to 2008*
- Finland, a country with a huge border with Russia, applied for NATO membership in May 2022. Russia didn't invade that country to prevent them from joining *Please answer me why not*
- If Finland is such a huge threat for Russia because of NATO, *please show Russian troop buildup on that border since Finland applied and joined.*
- In 1999, Russia was one of the signatories of the Charter for European Security, which "reaffirmed the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve."
And last but not least, your dear friend Mr Putin said the following in 2002, as documented on the Kremlin website:
"On the topic of Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the Russian President said that it was entitled to make the decision independently. He does not see it as something that could cloud the relations between Russia and Ukraine."
Go read it at the Kremlin website http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/43122. *Anything to say about that?*
Back around the year 2000, it really seemed things in eastern Europe were all moving in the right direction. The entire region was becoming more and more democratic, relations were warming up. Prosperity in Russia was increasing, things in general were looking positive.
It wasn't seriously discussed, and no concrete steps were taken, but there was speculation that Russia might join NATO eventually. There was concern about China (concern which has proved well founded) and having another strong partner in Russia would strengthen the bulwark against them.
But, well, should we really have expected so much from a former KGB officer like Putin? No, he turned into another Russian strongman, seeking only to enrich himself, and determined to only leave power feet-first. He illegally coerced the Russian oligarchs into giving him billions of dollars.
The story of democracy isn't over in the rest of eastern Europe (heck, it isn't over in the USA!), and there have been various partial successes and partial failures (esp. Hungary and Turkey). And the threat and actions of Russia has in turn strengthened the need for NATO.
Concrete steps were, in fact, taken; with Russia both joining the NATO Partnership for Peace and hvaing a special cooperation deal wIth NATO, with various cooperation arrangements; it blew up when Putin wanted Russia to be admitted to NATO ahead of other Eastern European states, and without the political and other readiness criteriabeing used for other new members.
The North Stream (2) also indicated that EU wanted to trade with Russia. Looking back it might have been foolish, but hindsight is 20/20.
A democratic Russia, with close ties to the rest of Europe, would have meant so much for both the people of Russia and Europe.
In the end, we can be very happy that the system of democracy seems to work better than autocracy, else we would all be screwed.
Its pretty clear that Russia's concern about Ukraine (and Georgia’s) membership in NATO isn't the reason for their aggression, but rather a result of their intended aggression and the complications that potential NATO involvement posed for that.
The Russo-Georgian and Russo-Ukrainian wars are the result of NATO accommodating Russia in this area, not a result of NATO threatening Russia.
I don't understand what you are talking about. NATO did exactly what you suggest: at the request of Russians, shut the door to NATO for Georgia and Ukraine. Russia used the opportunity and shortly thereafter invaded both of them. Russia has not invaded a single country that actually joined NATO.
Seeking NATO membership is the best strategy to prevent a Russian invasion, hence why Finland and Sweden decided to join. It was a particularly notable policy shift for Sweden, because Sweden abandoned 200 years of neutrality.
Where do you get this interpretation from, honest question. In Bucharest 2008 France and Germany voiced opposition against a NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine. Despite that resistance the declarations of the summit says the following.
We reiterate that decisions on enlargement are for NATO itself to make. [...] NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations.
In December 2021 Russia made a final attempt to get a political resolution of the conflict, sending letters to the US president and NATO demanding an agreement. The response came in January 2022.
What we have made clear is that we will not compromise on some core principles. And one of them is, of course, that every nation has the right to choose its own path. So NATO respects a country or a nation when they decide to apply for NATO membership, as for instance, Ukraine [...]
I don't see how this can be interpreted as abandoning the idea of a NATO membership for Ukraine. It also somewhat misrepresent the process, it is of course in the hands of NATO members to admit new members, a country wanting to join does not mean much on its own.
Also article 10 says that new members must be in a position to contribute to the security in the treaty area. Depending on how one understands that sentence, a NATO membership of Ukraine - or even just its consideration - arguably achieved the exact opposite, at least for the moment.
These are just nice words for consolation. At the same summit in Bucharest, NATO decided not to offer Ukraine and Georgia a Membership Action Plan, which is the procedure for joining NATO. NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia in any forseeable future was off the table. The prospect was from time to time dangled in front of them to encourage reforms and modernization, but that was it. The prospect of Turkey joining the EU has been of similar nature for many decades with little actual progress.
> Also article 10 says that new members must be in a position to contribute to the security in the treaty area. Depending on how one understands that sentence, a NATO membership of Ukraine - or even just its consideration - arguably achieved the exact opposite, at least for the moment.
That is generally understood as a requirement to maintain a capable fighting force and not to freeride on the backs of others in the alliance (see Article 3; Article 10 establishes the same requirement for new applicants). I don't think any reasonable person would call Ukraine freeriders. At the moment, they are one of the most capable fighting forces in the world, and will no doubt invest heavily in armed forces after the war.
> In December 2021 Russia made a final attempt to get a political resolution of the conflict, sending letters to the US president and NATO demanding an agreement. The response came in January 2022.
Russia demanded that the country I live in should be kicked out of NATO. The last time they made such ultimatums, my government chose to satisfy their demands in an attempt to use all means possible to avoid confrontation. In the end, Russians demanded military bases on our soil as forward posts against possible attacks from Central Europe (Napoleon and all that, 2023 isn't the first time around seeing that narrative). Tens of thousands of soldiers, countless tanks and artillery guns were brought in. Those bases were used as a staging area for taking over our national institutions and installing a puppet government that immediately asked Russians to officially occupy us. Widespread terror against the population followed, including deportation of tens of thousands of women and children in cattle cars to die in Siberian gulags. For half a century that followed, until 1991, they did all they could to suppress our language, culture and identity. They replaced a third of the population in the country with Russians, in an attempt to destroy our identity and merge us into an indistinguishable and unseparatable part of Russia. We were literally becoming a minority in our own country.
But by sheer luck, that Russian empire of shit collapsed due to chronic mismanagement and internal rotting. We were able to restore independence. Sweden helped immensely in getting Russian occupying force to leave in 1994. In a decade, we were able to crawl out of the shithole Russians forced us into, and satisfied all requirements needed to join the EU and NATO. Modern military with civilian oversight, a modern government with separation of powers, rule of law and high level of protection of human rights, high quality of life, some of the highest press freedom, economic freedom and other rankings in the world.
Why should we abandon all that, isolate ourselves internationally, and make ourselves a juicy target for Russians to invade again and force us back under their boot?
Finland, I stress, took the other route the last time around. Facing Russian ultimatums, they chose war. While they lost Karelia and Petsamo, they managed to keep their independence. After the war, they chose political neutrality and stayed out of NATO, but spent decades building up one of the largest armes in Europe against any future Russian invasions. Seeing the genocidal nature and the immense scale of Russian war against Ukraine dashed any hope of fighting off another Russian war alone. Finland abandoned the strategy of neutrality and chose to step into alliance with other European nations, as did the Swedes.
So despite quite different paths our countries took in the 20th century, we've all now reached the same conclusion that strong international cooperation is the best way to maintain our independence and security in the 21st century.
Are we all dumb and wrong? Should we cut ties and put our hopes on prayers that we won't become the target of the next war Russia decides to launch?
If you are the prime minister of Finland, Estonia or Poland, what is the responsible choice here that serves the interests of your people the best?
This doesn’t make sense to me. Russia remains a backwater with a GDP the size of Italy. They are not a significant threat to US interests, any more than Italy could possibly hope to be.
If anything, a strong America just lends a false sense of security to countries like Ukraine, which might be better off understating that they must see to their own safety and security.
Historically speaking, few of America’s international adventures have had a beneficial outcome. Pretending that the world ‘needs’ our meddling is a stretch. We need to be able to defend ourselves and to ramp for war quickly. The rest is pork for the military industrial complex.
Name a full member of NATO who has been invaded. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Even without NATO membership, China currently isn't occupying Taiwan. Guess why.
> Historically speaking, few of America’s international adventures have had a beneficial outcome. Pretending that the world ‘needs’ our meddling is a stretch. We need to be able to defend ourselves and to ramp for war quickly. The rest is pork for the military industrial complex.
Did you even read the first part of my comment? Do I sound like an apologist for the USA's recent foreign policy?
There is a lot of pork spent for the USA's military. Cost overruns and unnecessary systems abound. That doesn't obviate the need for a strong military to keep the peace for ourselves and our allies.
The world is different now than it was 100 years ago. Many counties have at least a few nuclear weapons. We can't afford to let things spin out of control. We need stability, and NATO provides a lot of that.
Name the last time a NATO country invaded another NATO member. Oh, wait, that never happened, and never will happen. That's called stability.
Or you can wake up to the reality that a strong defensive, and sometimes offensive capability is required in order to enforce the state of peace that we all take for granted, and be part of the process of keeping all the sheeps safe.
The sheepdog is a scary beast. It growls, it bites, and it intimidates sheep and wolf alike. But the herd is better off with it than without.
Every country gets an army. The only question is: whose?
Why are the streets of Paris lined with trees? So the German soldiers can march in the shade!
;-)
The chickens always come home to roost.
The US army invaded Iraq, though it made the sheep less safe; the US army sponsored Banderites in Ukraine, though it made the sheep less safe; the US army waged psychological warfare against the public, subverted their rights with domestic spying, and assisted illegal entry into the US; etc.
The “sheepdog” narrative is what people tell themselves to soothe their souls as they sell their countrymen out to foreign powers and oligarchs.
…and people know that, which is why recruiting is in the gutter.
The russians launch missiles and drones at civilians, like me.
Last October, I was sitting at my kitchen table, writing Haskell and working on my startup, when outside my kitchen window the local air defence successfully blasted a Shahed 136 out of the air. Both the missile trail and the cloud from the explosion hung in the air for several minutes. I have a good photo of it.
The air defence doesn’t always work. Sometimes it’s extremely loud, even when we’re sitting in the underground shelter during an air raid. Sometimes people die. So far it’s mostly been women and children.
I might have misinterpreted your comment, but “it made the sheep less safe” seems both wildly inaccurate and offensive. And to characterise it as the sponsoring of “Banderites”, well, I’d ask you which department of the kremlin you work for.
Because Ukraine refused to abide by the Minsk agreements and precipitated a war by shelling families in their homes for nearly a decade.
Why did you leave those people out of your story? — does their being bombed at home not matter?
> And to characterise it as the sponsoring of “Banderites”, well, I’d ask you which department of the kremlin you work for.
I could also say that only a Ukrainian spook would lie about an easily documented fact, like Stepan Bandera being worshipped as a hero in Ukraine.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/ukraine-designates-national-hol...
Was this before or after the Russian invasion in 2014?
The usual Russian propaganda is "Ukraine was bombing the Donbas", leaving out that Russia actually invaded Ukraine, shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and started a war where Ukraine was defending itself.
Get your facts straight Russian mouthpiece.
February 23rd, 2022.
The West told the world the russians were about to invade Ukraine.
The russians told the world that they were not about to invade Ukraine.
---
February 24th, 2022.
The West reported to the world that the russians have invaded Ukraine.
The russians told the world that they are not currently invading Ukraine.
Which facts were hidden from the public? Who lied? What was true? What happened?
The facts are pretty clear here: NATO didn't invade Ukraine, Ukraine didn't invade Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and full scale invasion in 2022. Are you denying that? So what facts am I missing??? Or is your defence just "nobody knows". Russia constantly invades neighbouring countries. Are you denying that too? "The facts are always hidden", what kind of bullshit is that? It's just that you've run out of factual arguments that you try the old "nobody knows" trick.
So about the fact that I presented about "Ukraine was bombing the Donbas", who's better to explain it that Putin himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WguLRyWPo4
- (2008) "Crimea is not a disputed territory. Russia long ago recognised the borders of today's Ukraine."
- "It was the local self defence forces"
- "Behind the back of the self-defence forces of Crimea of course, stood our servicemen"
- "It's a fact and we never concealed it: our armed forces blockaded the Ukrainian army in Crimea"
- "Do not believe those who scare you about Russia that Crimea will be followed by other regions. We do not want the division of Ukraine. We do not need it"
So in the end even Putin admitted that they were invading Ukraine, and it was not "local self defence forces". But some people still seem to be stuck on the old narrative that Ukraine was bombing itself.
So can you still present any "alternative" facts or is your story only "nobody knows"?
I'm going to post the same reply to the users breaking the site guidelines on the opposite side of this fight. We don't want this kind of battle here, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it.
But to be fair, maybe you should include a topic about spreading Russian propaganda there, because it's a huge problem in EU: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/li...
A discussion about the involvement of NATO is fair game, but "Ukraine bombing the Donbas" is a 100% Russian propaganda lie. I own my own platform, and such a statement would be an instant ban of that account.
I'm all for free speech, but like I showed, Russian propaganda poses a real threat for us here in the EU.
So in my defense, "Russian mouthpiece" was a factual statement ;), but I understand it's also a personal attack.
The idea that Ukraine decided to kill civilians in the Donbas for eight years is quite plainly russian misinformation. It’s bullshit. And here you are to spread it.
People died in Donbas because the russian military invaded. Unfortunately for people like you, you can no longer claim that it was a pro-russian Ukrainian separatist movement that wished to secede, and that the evil Ukrainian government decided to shell them for it. You can’t do that anymore, because despite first denying it for several years, the russians eventually admitted that it was their military who invaded.
As for “Ukrainian spook” — I’m flattered, but you can take your tin-foil hat off now. I’m a programmer from England.
Why did Russia start the war in the first place? How can someone be so dense?
> does their being bombed at home not matter?
So the solution to that is to bomb a 100x more people? Did you ever try actually reading what you write down?
I'm going to post the same reply to the users breaking the site guidelines on the opposite side of this fight. We don't want this kind of battle here, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it.
I'm going to post the same reply to the users breaking the site guidelines on the opposite side of this fight. We don't want this kind of battle here, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it.
https://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
It is not meant as a disparaging remark in this context to call people sheep.
ChatGPT's summary: Dave Grossman explores the concept of three distinct types of people in society: sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. He characterizes "sheep" as the general populace, who are peaceful and vulnerable; "wolves" as those who prey on the sheep, representing criminals and threats to society; and "sheepdogs" as individuals who protect the sheep, often law enforcement and military personnel. Grossman emphasizes the importance of recognizing and supporting the sheepdogs who keep society safe, and he encourages readers to understand the roles these groups play in maintaining a secure and orderly society.
My own note: to the sheep the wolves and the sheepdogs can often seem the same. They both have scary fangs, make growling noises, chase and bite, etc. It is common for the sheep to fear both wolves and the sheepdogs. Some sheep fail to distinguish the two, and if sheep wrote political essays they might call for defunding the sheepdogs as they are a menace to society. But wolves and sheepdogs are not the same, and it is a mistake to equate defensive investment in military capabilities to keep the peace (even if that sometimes involves military interventions and/or small-scale preemptive wars) with hostile, aggressive conquest of the sort we see carried out by actors like Russia, or the genocide conducted by Hamas.
The reason why Ukraine still exists today is because Ukrainian soldiers managed to kill so many russian invaders and destroy so much russian armour in the first couple of months of the war. This is largely thanks to Western ordnance.
Curious framing, given the circumstances.
I'm going to post the same reply to the users breaking the site guidelines on the opposite side of this fight. We don't want this kind of battle here, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it.
That doesn't prove anything other than humans remain human. I'm no blind supporter of Uncle Sam but things are just a little bit more complicated than your comment seems to suggest.
You know, those people with Nazi insignia that are celebrated as heroes in Ukraine.
And feature in NATO photos.
https://www.newsweek.com/nato-says-it-didnt-notice-ukraine-s...
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/pro-kremlin-ne...
That doesn’t change that the US trained and armed Banderites in Ukraine.
Besides, NATO is already at their doorstep with Finland. Did it change anything?
And how can you negotiate with a country like Russia? Peace deal now is an invasion in 5 years.
My previous assessment hasn’t changed. You are either blissfully ignorant of the reality of the war in Ukraine and russia’s aims, or you are deliberately spreading misinformation here.
Russia, obviously, is not one of them. It's their problem, not NATO's.
The waste of the US military in Iraq, the defeat in Afghanistan, the failures of domestic spying and PSYOPs dividing the nation, and the failed war in Ukraine has precipitated a state of weakness where rival countries are jockeying for position in both the Middle East and SE Asia. China is openly waging irregular warfare against the US, killing 100,000+ Americans per year in the Second Opium War. Our borders are regularly not only breached by Mexican paramilitaries, but the invasion assisted by DOD flights.
The failure of the “sheepdog” to keep the herd safe is happening right now.
Edit:
If you disagree with my conclusion —
I explained why I thought that in my post, so please explain either where you thought I was wrong or what you know that I don’t.
Rather than trot out the very tired “muh conspiracy theories!”
Not only is "NATO vs BRICS" not escalating, there is no "NATO vs BRICS". What are you even on about.
And yet before the end of December you'll likely see the USAF working with Brazilian armed forces in Guyana against Maduro's invasion, and now the B of BRICS is out of the equation.
You should stop reading Russian propaganda as if it was news…
Ukraine is a sovereign democratic state. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, and a full scale invasion in 2022.
Is it surprising to you that Ukraine wants closer ties with Western Europe the same way Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Romania, etc has done? All these countries were able to prosper. Russia is a shit non-democratic country that wants to go back to the soviet days where everyone under their rule lived in shit.
How you could say this was a "US army sponsored Banderites" with a straight face is just plain retarded. At least US didn't kill millions of Ukrainians, unlike Russia.
The majority of the worlds population do not take peace for granted. The question is, to what extend has US hegemony extended war and violence, and to what extent has it depleted it (compared to the available alternatives). Clearly enormous loss of life has occurred in places like Latin America, Iran, South East Asia Cuba etc due to US led toppling of democratic leaders and installation of often brutal dictators. But the overall balance of suffering is difficult if not impossible to calculate. Is Pax Americana a net good? Hard to say. But we can trivially reject the jingoistic 'a few good men' narrative of brutes manning the barricades of peace.
It is only perceived as overstated when the second-order effects of its actions are dropped from the count; the actions of the dictatorships backed and installed by the US never seem to make the tally. Kissinger’s (topical) Chinese containment strategy alone is responsible for as many deaths as the Holodomor. See accounts of Vietnam, Cambodia, Khmer Rouge, Korea.
Should proxies, direct actions by those one supports, etc. not count? Who knows, but that always seems to divorce foreign policy decisions from their consequences when we do.
Before them, we had two devastating world wars in the span of about three decades, with over 100,000,000 dead total. Now we’ve gone over seven decades without another.
Let’s hope the deterrent holds through the current, ongoing, and horribly irresponsible brinksmanship.
"Human operator supervises autonomous mission execution with intuitive UI/UX to enable increased understanding and decision advantage ."
https://www.anduril.com/mission-autonomy/
When AI assisted mass target selection is already a thing:
https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...
Autonomous killing tools are an obvious next step.
A lot of people will argue that defense companies want wars to break out to increase their business, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. In wartime, the military mostly needs cheap commodities—ammunition, supplies, food, fuel—nothing you can really differentiate on. And especially the most recent wars have mostly been against poorly armed terrorists, when the defense industry makes a lot more money selling weapons that would be total overkill against the Taliban but potentially useful against Russia or China.