• SteveXVII
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    About the Cuban missile crisis: I don’t beleive the US had the right to respond the way they did considering the nukes in Turkey.

    We were however talking about aid to Ukraine.

    I thought that you believed the response from the US was caused by the economic aid the Soviet Union send to Cuba. I was mocking that idea.

    Let’s stick to the topic.

    • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The reason I bring it up is that the Soviet Union was fooling around with our neighbor and it made us uneasy at best, and we have been fooling around with all kinds of countries in their neighborhood and it feels threatening to them too. The war is happened because the US (and NATO) keep doing things that Russia finds threatening. And we just last week instigate war even more by saying Ukraine will join nato. If anyone says Biden is a good president we can point to that and how he is pushing us into WW3.

      • SteveXVII
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Russia has a ‘history’* of invading their neighbours and keeping them under their thumb. This is still continuing to this day with the most obvious example being Ukraine. Eastern Europe knows this and sought NATO protections. Ukraine didn’t and look at what situation they’re in now.

        I want to ask you what your solution would be, and how the west should act in your eyes in order to adequately protect themselves from Russia. And how Ukraine should defend themselves.

        *in quotation marks 'cause they’re still doing it.

        • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          has a ‘history’* of invading their neighbours and keeping them under their thumb

          If you swap out America with Russia its actually more applicable. If you look at the invastions they have done in the last two decades they have all been what they have percieved as being for their protection. The defense should be for NATO to not stop antagonizing russia.

          • SteveXVII
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Listen, I know the US has done plenty of shitty things and I am not trying to defend it. What I am saying is that their aid to Ukraine is entirely justified, because it helps Ukraine regain their soveieignty back from the aggressor.

            Can you please be a little more presize with NATO antagonizing Russia, what should they have done differently?

            And lastly: since you haven’t answered this question I am going to ask it again: What should Ukraine do, in your eyes, to protect themselves from Russia?

            • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I dont have a problem with Ukraine defending themselves, I have a problem with the US being involved in a proxy war in a country most people in the US couldnt point to it on a map.

              To not antagonize russia NATO shouldnt have kept taking in countries to the east, and should have welcomed russia in when it asked. We should have actually listened to russia and not done the things that we knew would aggravate russia.

              • SteveXVII
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that’s a fair question.

                You also seem to be against US involvement by virtue of it being a US involvement, even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor. What is wrong with that?

                If I read this correctly, you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?

                • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  The best defense was to negotiate with russia. The world is not perfect, in war there is almost never a good solution. Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing.

                  even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor.

                  This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight.

                  you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?

                  Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions.

                  • SteveXVII
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    The best defense was to negotiate with russia.

                    Considering how well Russia followed the Budapest memorandum, I don’t think this is the right course of action.

                    “Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing.”

                    Any source or explanation as to why the route of aiding Ukraine leads to a higher risk of a nuclear war or WW3 would be appreciated.

                    “This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight.”

                    A source or explanation is needed once again.

                    “Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions.”

                    Wasn’t there a rule that countries need to resolve their conflicts before entering NATO? Russia had one: the Chechen wars. The first Chechen war started in 1994 [1]. Between German unification and the first Chechen war, a grand total of ZERO countries joined NATO [2]. This means that Russia was already fighting before NATO let in countries of the former eastern bloc. Not a good look for an aspiring member, is it?

                    [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

                    “I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that’s a fair question.”

                    Will you answer this question this time around? Or will you ignore it again?