In the remarks Joe Biden read out on Feb 24th, he said that the war in Ukraine was started by Russia and was completely unprovoked. Was Joe saying it sufficient to make it true? The stated reason for the Russian attack was that Ukraine had crossed the red line Putin had given. NATO has been advancing ever closer to Moscow, ignoring Putin's objections. His red line was that two countries bordering Russia - Georgia and Ukraine, would not be permitted to join NATO or to harmonize weapons systems with NATO. There had been years of provocation, maybe not enough to justify it, but the statement 'unprovoked' was false and Biden knew it.
Back in 2007 both the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany (Angela Merkel) objected to G. W. Bush stating that NATO would continue to enlarge, despite pledges to Moscow that it wouldn't. Both France and Germany were over-ruled, apparently on the basis that NATO is primarily funded and manned by the US, which therefore has the majority say. European countries are now contributing more and Sweden and Finland have applied to join. Why? I'm speculating that although they are not giving this as a reason, one reason might be that the European countries will get a bigger say in what NATO does. And cooler heads will prevail.
Most of the US diplomats are concerned about the safety of the US, unlike Biden who doesn't seem to care.
I'm not saying it was justified, I think Pres. Putin should have given one more final warning, and offered Zelenskyiii help in restraining the Azov irregulars from killing Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
But having told the US public it was 'unprovoked,' the public will believe it and have great difficulty changing their minds. 'He who lies first lies best.'
Joe Biden can say anything, and a lot of the public believes it just because that's the easiest thing to do. Lots of people just believed the 'unprovoked' claim without looking for any evidence. But prove Joe is lying and nobody cares because he's really old and can't do any better.
You are 100% right, although: · The policy to allow any democratic country to join NATO is an official policy of NATO and not of Joe Biden · Ukraine as other Eastern countries have a long history of Russia Russian aggression, like Poland and Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia on 1968, Afghanistan in 1970(?). · In 1994 Ukraine gave up nuclear arsenal in exchange of promise of Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances · Russia is undemocratic dictatorship which invaded Ukraine Could the US - during presidency of Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden - reach some kind of agreement with Russia sacrificing Ukraine and preventing a war? Probably yes, but the blame is 100% on Putin. Was the Russian invasion provoked by Ukraine? If you think a free country have no right seek protection from an aggressive neighbor – you are right.
But who was doing the aggression? NATO was. And protection was not offered, just military support, so Ukraine is getting blown up as a battle goes on there. What do the Ukrainian people want? Pretty much the opposite of what they are getting. The option of getting NATO support has worked out very badly as should have been expected. It worked as well as the protection we gave South Vietnam against North Vietnam. By the end of the war we had killed as many people in South Vietnam as in North Vietnam. The Vietnam War concluded with between 3 million and 4.5 million killed. People should think twice before asking a massive military to protect them.
What is my position? I'm not anti-anyone. But the best time to stop a war is before it starts and the second-best time is as soon as possible. And I have a particular problem with people lying, especially a President doing it to get a great big war. When G W Bush lied to get the two wars he started going someone on the forums said to me: 'you just hate George Bush.' I do have a problem with people lying especially to get other people killed.
The Ukrainian people obviously want 2 things: The Russians out of Ukraine and self rule. Has nothing to do with North or South Vietnam.
No, it's Putin's war. He's wanted a land bridge to the Crimean Peninsula since he seized that territory in 2014 and now he's exploiting the opportunity to seize it. The credulous saps who've been conned into buying the Kremlin's propaganda and "justifications" for violating the territory of a nation they pledged to respect need to pull the hooks out of their mouths....
I don't understand how the op keeps insisting Putin's invasion is OK because he told everyone to do something and they didn't do it so it is justified.
No. Pres. Putin told people not to do something, that is to militarize Ukraine, and Zelenskyy and Biden did it.
All of this might be true if Putin hadn't been pushing towards Ukraine since the 2000s. This was always his goal, and it may not even stop there, he just might not live long enough to get any farther.
This is sort of like saying Hitler was justified in invading France because they built the Maginot line.
QUOTE: No. Pres. Putin told people not to do something, that is to militarize Ukraine, and Zelenskyy and Biden did it WELL WE ALL SAW WHAT HAPPENED WHEN UKRAINE WAS---WEAK--MILITARYLY. WHEN PUTIN TOOK CRIMIA IN 2014 DIDN'T WE? NOW PUTIN HAS A FIGHT ON HIS HANDS, THAT HE IS HAVING A VERY HARD TIME TRYING TO JUSTIFIY EVEN TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. AND LOSING THOUSANDS OF RUSSIAN TROOPS WHEN A NATION STANDS UP TO HIM. QUESTION: DO YOU THINK ALL OF EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA SHOULD JUST PUT DOWN THEIR ARMS AND LET PUTIN JUST WALK OVER ALL OF THEM? WHAT DO YOU THINK?
So you feel Putin is a king and if foreign nations dare to disobey his demands then that gives him the authority to seize these nations though military action? That’s fascinating
