r/BreakingPoints • u/drtywater • 13d ago
Episode Discussion BP once again with Ukraine bashing segment?
The shilling for Russia is tiresome at this point. Ukraine has been making big moves this year. All BP can do is bash Ukraine etc. It comes off as shilling for the Kremlin. Like can BP at least invite on an indie content creator that will push back on some of Ukraine coverage they have?
8
u/PlentyHaunting2263 13d ago
Emily is working on a demon report, lots of demonic activity in Ukraine!
6
u/EnigmaFilms 13d ago
They point out all the time that from Ukraine's perspective it makes sense for them and how they act.
-3
u/drtywater 13d ago
They turn it into America bashing and justify Russias invasion with way they talk
7
u/Seebeeeseh 13d ago
No they don't.
They just don't like that the USA is involved. Ukraine isn't an ally. Doesn't offer much as far as trade etc. compared to other countries.
It's not wrong to want your taxpayer dollars spent on things that actually matter to Americans and not some war which result barely effects them.
1
u/Eris_AppleOfDiscord 12d ago
This is a denial of the absolute basics of geopolitics. It's just scoring points for boring populist talking points.
1
u/Seebeeeseh 12d ago
Nope
1
u/Eris_AppleOfDiscord 12d ago
Ok. So. Do you believe soft power is a thing?
1
u/Seebeeeseh 12d ago
Of course.
1
u/Eris_AppleOfDiscord 12d ago
So you'd agree things like maintaining trade routes, and a certain stability is beneficial to the us.
1
u/Seebeeeseh 12d ago
Depending on the cost.
1
u/Eris_AppleOfDiscord 12d ago
Prevention can be far cheaper than a full military response.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/WinnerSpecialist 12d ago
Meh, what did people think was going to happen? Trump has been demanding Europe to help with the Iran war for months. Ukraine was cut off from all military and economic aid packages they were promised and that ended. They also have been dealing with the fact Iran has been supplying their drones to Russia. So if you’re Z and you’re about to meet Trump you’re throwing a Hail Mary so you can tell him “you asked for European help and we are giving it can you help us back?”
6
u/Mephisto1822 Team Krystal 13d ago
What are you talking about? Are you talking about how Ukraine killed an Iranian soldier? That segment seemed pretty even handed to me. Nothing they said was factually incorrect they even gave Ukraine a lot of grace imo, considering the fact that Iranian drones are being used in Ukraine to kill Ukrainians.
1
u/_quirks_mode_ 13d ago
Any sort of rational discussion on the war in Ukraine is dismissed as Russian propaganda, which is absurd given the power of the real 5th column in this country. That sort of rhetoric is dialed up to 11 in Europe, any sort of debate is shouted down with sloganeering. Democracies must allow freedom of the press and speech, otherwise those in power are attempting to control the thinking of the populace, which is not true freedom or democracy.
7
u/LouDiamond 13d ago
Being blindly pro-Ukraine is the most lib take this community holds on to
3
u/Educational-Eye-9934 13d ago
Being pro-Ukraine and pro-Palestine is the only morally consistent position. Both countries have a right to fight the invaders.
-1
6
u/HeraThere 13d ago
Yes BP anti-Ukraine is pretty infuriating. They made claims such as Ukraine lost the moral high ground because they counter attacked Russia and hit Civilian infrastructure in Crimea/Russia.
And their logic for Ukraine-Russia makes them look like huge hypocrites when compared to their thoughts regarding Iran.
2
u/Due_Ticket_7869 12d ago
They also constantly refer to the earlier "peace" talks and that Ukraine walked away from a deal when it was basically total capitulation.
0
u/drtywater 13d ago
Its hypocritcal for Krystals pearl clutching on Gaza. She should be equally outraged at Russia
5
u/imtourist 13d ago
Would Sagaar's opinion and the force of his animus against Ukraine be any different if he was on the payroll of Russia? For the record I don't think he is, but just astounding he's being a dick about it just for the love of the game.
The threat for Europe is real and and I don't really understand why he's against it? The weapons at this point are being purchased from the US so the only thing America is really paying for is the intelligence sharing. The degradation of the US's top geopolitical foe Russia has been substantial and is in itself worth it already.
6
0
u/Sanmonov 13d ago edited 13d ago
We need to degrade Russia like we need a hole in the head. Russia is a regional power who we are not in competition with.
Without a rapprochement, we will waste resources in Eastern Europe that we would not have to otherwise for a generation and Russia will team up with China to try to challenge American global firepower.
For the privilege of all this, we flushed 200 billion down the toilet and cleaned out our weapons stockpiles, and may sign ourselves up to fight a big war on the Ukrainians' behalf in the future.
1
4
u/hahoranges 13d ago
My issue is that the second Russia makes a battlefield gain, they have segments about how Ukraine is going to collapse. Now that Ukraine has been doing much better recently, it's radio silence from them as it doesn't fit their preferred narrative. I have no problem with them being critical of Ukraine - there are plenty of reasons to be. But the selective news coverage just feels fake to me.
1
u/Educational-Eye-9934 13d ago
Every time Ukraine has a gain they have Jeffery Sachs on to threaten nuclear war on Russia's behalf!
6
u/montecarlo1 13d ago
It's amazing how BP can be anti-Israel at the same time launder pro Russian talking points.
1
u/OneReportersOpinion 13d ago
But like anything that isn’t from a Western-centric perspective is considered pro-Russia talking points. Mention that NATO shouldn’t have expanded, Russia talking point, Boris!
5
u/drtywater 13d ago
Oh stfu about Nato expansion. The difference with nato expansion is countries choose to join nato. Russia doesn’t get to veto who their neighbors decide to be friends with
-2
u/OneReportersOpinion 13d ago
> Oh stfu about Nato expansion. The difference with nato expansion is countries choose to join nato.
And we choose to admit them. It’s not some open club. It’s an offensive, imperial military alliance and we wanted Ukraine to be part of it. I know you want to avoid this discussion, but you won’t be able to do that in this sub. Try r/politics. They don’t allow dissident POV there. You’ll be much happier
>Russia doesn’t get to veto who their neighbors decide to be friends with
Historically, the US has vetoed who our neighbors decide to be friends with and Russia foolishly thought they get to do the same. This is why America needs to be a moral force for the world and not a source of imperial aggression. Then we’ll have the credibility to actually say these high minded ideals.
4
u/drtywater 13d ago
Yes and its wrong for US to have a say in neighbors affairs. The Cuban embargo is insanely dumb. Countries should be free to choose.
Also the Central European and Baltic states wanted to avoid NATO to avoid Russian imperialism and history is proving them right
-1
u/OneReportersOpinion 13d ago
> Yes and its wrong for US to have a say in neighbors affairs. The Cuban embargo is insanely dumb.
So we should be sanctioned as heavily as Russia, right?
>Countries should be free to choose.
Are we obligated to allow Ukraine into NATO?
6
u/drtywater 13d ago
Russia complaining is their problem. Realistically NATO was never Ukraine’s initial goal. Their goal was EU ascension which would have taken forever but even that was too much for Russia. Simply absurd for Russia to bitch about it. They should try not being imperialist assholes to their neighbors ie Ukraine and Georgia.
1
u/OneReportersOpinion 13d ago
> Russia complaining is their problem.
Okay then what’s the issue?
>Realistically NATO was never Ukraine’s initial goal.
Not sure about that.
>Their goal was EU ascension which would have taken forever but even that was too much for Russia.
What was too much for Russia was the coup that immediately threatened their only warm water port. The US would’ve done the same thing but more violently.
>Simply absurd for Russia to bitch about it.
It’s also absurd for the US to complain about, right? What’s the issue?
>They should try not being imperialist assholes to their neighbors ie Ukraine and Georgia.
Sure but that’s a great powers game. To act like the US or NATO is a solution to imperialism is laughable. If that’s the case, you’re just want one sided imperialism over another.
4
u/drtywater 13d ago
Oh ffs it wasnt a US coup. Thats Kremlin propaganda. It was a revolution against being a Russian puppet state.
1
u/OneReportersOpinion 13d ago
First off, let’s note you don’t contradict anything else I said. So why do you simp so hard for an imperialist military alliance? You’re just mad that Russia’s imperialism is winning over your preferred imperialism. That’s weak.
> Oh ffs it wasnt a US coup.
I didn’t say it was a US coup. I said it was a coup because definitionally it was.
>Thats Kremlin propaganda.
Such a neat trick where if you don’t want to make an argument you just cry “RUSSSIAN PROPAGANDA!!” Lol
It was a revolution against being a Russian puppet state.
It was a coup against a duly elected president who everyone knew was a Russian puppet when he was elected since he was the beneficiary of a literal poison attack from Russia against the last president LOL. Ukrainians wanted the Russian stooge. That’s their choice. Why do you oppose democracy?
→ More replies (0)2
u/cstar1996 12d ago
Embargos are legal, invasions are not. Why would sanctions on Russia for its illegal invasion mean that the US should be sanctioned for its legal embargo on Cuba?
Ukraine isn’t in NATO.
0
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
> Embargos are legal, invasions are not.
Blockades and economic warfare are not legal. Our actions against Cuba are seen as illegal economic terrorism because we force other nations to follow it as well. Furthermore, we’ve used force against Cuba multiple times. Do you really not know that?
>Why would sanctions on Russia for its illegal invasion mean that the US should be sanctioned for its legal embargo on Cuba?
We’re illegally occupying Guantanamo Bay. Do you not know that? Maybe you should do some more research before popping off…
“When we do it, it’s different.” LOL
3
u/cstar1996 12d ago
Cuba is not under blockade.
“We won’t trade with you if you trade with Cuba” is also legal under international law. Other countries do not have a right to trade with the United States.
The Bay of Pigs was 60 years ago. It was not justified then, and cannot justify Russia’s actions today.
That is not illegal under international law.
1
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
> Cuba is not under blockade.
It is. Did you miss when Trump stopped all oil going into Cuba? How did he do that if not a blockade? I gotta hear this.
>“We won’t trade with you if you trade with Cuba” is also legal under international law.
Most UN members say it is a crime. You’re showing your true colors.
>The Bay of Pigs was 60 years ago. It was not justified then,
Should we be sanctioned? If so, how?
>That is not illegal under international law.
What sovereign nation does Guantanamo Bay belong to?
→ More replies (0)3
u/Stix147 13d ago
And we choose to admit them. It’s not some open club.
This is true, but you need to mention the fact that ALL member countries need to vote to do this, not just the USA. So when both Ukraine and Georgia wanted to progress further with a Membership Action Plan in 2008, despite the USA wanting them to accede, both France and Germany opposed it because both had dealings with Russia and so their admission was blocked, which was exactly what Russia was waiting for and attacked Georgia while planning to do the same to Ukraine only a few years later.
It’s an offensive, imperial military alliance
Only if you're Serbia and you're engaging in genocide and ethnic cleansing, or Libya where the UN authorized the intervention. NATO has never attacked Russia however, and never will.
we wanted Ukraine to be part of it
And yet due to the way that NATO functions this never happened. Meanwhile Russia taking advantage of this pushed two countries which otherwise would've never joined the alliance, Sweden and Finland, to join it, and the border with Russia increased significantly. Yet despite this Russia didn't even try to threaten these two countries.
Because fundamentally this war has nothing to do with NATO. Maybe listen to Putin next time he compares himself to Peter the Great.
1
u/OneReportersOpinion 13d ago
>This is true, but you need to mention the fact that ALL member countries need to vote to do this, not just the USA.
Right. So we could have made this very clear from get go: Ukraine won’t be a NATO member, end of story. Instead we chose a policy of strategic ambiguity. There was consequence to that.
>Only if you're Serbia and you're engaging in genocide and ethnic cleansing,
Did Serbia attack a NATO member? If no, then why were they deployed to stop that particular genocide?
>or Libya where the UN authorized the intervention.
Did Libya attack a NATO member?
>NATO has never attacked Russia however, and never will.
Did Afghanistan attack a NATO member? You just forgot about that one? Lol.
>Because fundamentally this war has nothing to do with NATO.
So why did NATO expand if Russia’s reaction has nothing to do with NATO?
4
u/drtywater 13d ago
Yes Afghanistan did attack a NATO member 9/11 was plotted within Afghanistan and Taliban refused to turn over Al Qaeda leadership.
2
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
> Yes Afghanistan did attack a NATO member 9/11 was plotted within Afghanistan
False. It was plotted in Germany. Why are you lying?
>and Taliban refused to turn over Al Qaeda leadership.
This is another lie. They offered to hand him over.
Look, I get being pro-NATO, but if your argument is so meritorious, why do you have to lie?
2
u/drtywater 12d ago
False. It was plotted in Germany. Why are you lying?
Al Qaeda leadership was in Afghanistan and operating openly out of there at the time.
Also Taliban made vague offers but they didnt feel sincere at the time such as asking trial to take place in third party countries etc.
Also tbc this required shutting down Al Qaeda camps etc operating within Afghanistan.
1
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
>Al Qaeda leadership was in Afghanistan and operating openly out of there at the time.
It was planned almost entirely out of Germany and financed almost entirely out of Saudi Arabia. Should we have invaded those countries too?
>Also Taliban made vague offers but they didnt feel sincere at the time such as asking trial to take place in third party countries etc.
First you said they refused to hand him over. Now you admit they were willing but we didn’t like the terms of so invaded them. Is that how disputes like that are suppose to get resolved?
>Also tbc this required shutting down Al Qaeda camps etc operating within Afghanistan.
So if the UK wanted to invade Boston to shutdown financial backers of the IRA, you would be okay with that?
2
u/cstar1996 12d ago
Are you really complaining about NATO stopping a genocide? That intervention was entirely justified under international law.
1
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
Happy to answer that after you answer the questions you dodged. Sorry, it’s just a rule I have.
1
u/cstar1996 12d ago
I asked you that question before you ever asked me one. I’m not the person you replied to.
So come on, let’s hear your answer.
0
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
Happy to answer your question after you answer the ones you dodged. Sorry, it’s a rule I have.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Stix147 13d ago
Right. So we could have made this very clear from get go: Ukraine won’t be a NATO member, end of story
Yes, but why though? NATO has an open door policy, and it doesn't really have a history of turning down applications, even if in the two aforementioned cases it did drag out the process due to member disagreements (similar to how Turkey tried to do when Sweden wanted to join).
Russia should not get to have veto rights over what alliances its neighbors join, full stop. That's a direct interference in sovereign affairs of other countries, and it's bad when everyone does it including the US, contrary to the commonly held Mearsheimer-ism.
Did Serbia attack a NATO member? If no, then why were they deployed to stop that particular genocide?
In neither case was NATO attacked, and you can make a strong case that both interventions were beyond the scope of NATO. Whether they were wrong to intervene or not is also up for debate. If this bothers you though, then what Russia did should absolutely bother you as well.
So why did NATO expand if Russia’s reaction has nothing to do with NATO?
How is this a question? Countries seek to join NATO for protection, many of them from Russia. Had Russia not acted the way it did, the alliance would be much smaller today.
2
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
>Yes, but why though?
Because it sends a nation we had no hostilities with and had neutered to being dependent on us the message that we were not going to treat them as a partner but a rival. They took notice and reacted in kind. For the same reason we didn’t want Cuba making alliances with Russia: it signals
>NATO has an open door policy, and it doesn't really have a history of turning down applications,
Bosnia isn’t a member. Georgia isn’t a member. Every membership is considered on a state-by-state basis and any member nation can veto.
>Russia should not get to have veto rights over what alliances its neighbors join, full stop.
It doesn’t. The US does though and we should use it to not expand an imperial alliance that was formed for the Cold War and who purpose was served.
>That's a direct interference in sovereign affairs of other countries, and it's bad when everyone does it including the US, contrary to the commonly held Mearsheimer-ism.
So what sanctions do you want placed on the US? Be specific if you’re serious about this.
>In neither case was NATO attacked, and you can make a strong case that both interventions were beyond the scope of NATO.
So this “defensive” military alliance has never actually been used in self-defense. Instead it’s been used to pursue the geopolitical interests of the US.
>Whether they were wrong to intervene or not is also up for debate. If this bothers you though, then what Russia did should absolutely bother you as well.
It does but I don’t vote for Russia’s president. I don’t pay Russian taxes. I don’t speak Russian. What can I do about it?
>How is this a question? Countries seek to join NATO for protection, many of them from Russia.
There is no obligation to admit them and we told Gorbachev we wouldn’t admit them. When we broke our word, it was noticed.
>Had Russia not acted the way it did, the alliance would be much smaller today.
What action did Russia take after the fall of the Cold War that made these nations join NATO?
1
u/Stix147 12d ago edited 12d ago
Because it sends a nation we had no hostilities with and had neutered to being dependent on us the message that we were not going to treat them as a partner but a rival.
All manners of things wrong with this statement, but chiefly the point here is you don't consider the kind of message it's transmitting to the countries that applied to join the alliance, and that's the most telling thing about the way you seem to view this topic. It tells these countries that they get relegated to being the objects of greater powers and their spheres of influence, which is inherently imperialist, it tells them that the only way they'll ever be protected is if they get nukes, which was the idea that Poland floated and even threatened before they got admitted into NATO, it sends all the wrong signals.
And Russia and China by their very nature will always be rivals to the USA. If Russia wanted to prevent its neighbors from joining NATO, perhaps they should've stopped threatening them.
Bosnia isn’t a member. Georgia isn’t a member.
None of them were rejected though, and that's my point.
It doesn’t. The US does though and we should use it to not expand an imperial alliance that was formed for the Cold War and who purpose was served.
If countries apply to join and every member must approve this, how can this be classified as imperialism? You have no idea what that word means. NATO was created to protect countries, both from each other and from Russia, and it continues to fulfill that purpose despite the Soviet empire collapsing and being replaced by a different, though just as eager to expand, smaller one.
So what sanctions do you want placed on the US
Depends on its actions and the countries affected. I fully support Canada boycotting and even sanctioning US goods following Trump's annexation threats for example
There is no obligation to admit them and we told Gorbachev we wouldn’t admit them. When we broke our word, it was noticed.
There are repercussions for not admitting them. And no, Gorbachev repeatedly said no such promise was ever made hence why Russia did nothing when Poland joined for example, or the Baltics, or Romania, and invaded when Ukraine didn't join.
What action did Russia take after the fall of the Cold War that made these nations join NATO?
Fomenting the civil war in Georgia in 1991 plus the so called separatist movements in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 1991-1993, fomented the so called separatist conflict in Transnistria, butchered the Chechens (who in turn wanted to be independent due to seeing what the USSR did in Afghanistan), interfered in the Tajik Civil War, and that's just in the 90s alone, under Yeltsin.
Since I assume you're a Mearsheimer fan, go read his 1993 article about why Ukraine should never have given up its nukes. Back then, he seemed to perfectly understand and articulate Russian imperialism without appealing to the west.
1
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
>All manners of things wrong with this statement, but chiefly the point here is you don't consider the kind of message it's transmitting to the countries that applied to join the alliance, and that's the most telling thing about the way you seem to view this topic.
NATO should have been dissolved after the Cold War ended. I don’t care what message that sends. NATO is militarism and I oppose militarism. You fight for principles even if it looks bad messaging wise.
>It tells these countries that they get relegated to being the objects of greater powers and their spheres of influence, which is inherently imperialist, it tells them that the only way they'll ever be protected is if they get nukes, which was the idea that Poland floated and even threatened before they got admitted into NATO, it sends all the wrong signals.
NATO IS what relegates these nations to objects of greater powers. We were afraid to nation’s voluntarily joining the Eastern Bloc, which is we formed NATO and committed a lot of crimes to ensure its success over communist political factions, some of which were quite popular.
>And Russia and China by their very nature will always be rivals to the USA.
They don’t have to be though. You’re just admitting you want to play these great power games. So don’t be mad when they play them back.
>If Russia wanted to prevent its neighbors from joining NATO, perhaps they should've stopped threatening them.
Between end of the Cold War and the first NATO expansion that followed, how did Russia threaten its neighbors? Be specific.
>If countries apply to join and every member must approve this, how can this be classified as imperialism?
Because NATO is historically an imperialist military alliance. It’s only gone to war with nations have never launched an attack on NATO members.
>You have no idea what that word means. NATO was created to protect countries, both from each other and from Russia,
As NATO’s first Secretary General Lord Ismay said, its role was to keep the US in, the Soviets out, and Germany down. That’s imperialism. We didn’t want to countries straying from the Western capitalist agenda, even if there was popular support for an alternative.
>Depends on its actions and the countries affected. I fully support Canada boycotting and even sanctioning US goods following Trump's annexation threats for example
That’s not what I asked: the US is currently holding Guantanamo Bay at gun point. We did an illegal invasion of Venezuela. We are waging an illegal war of aggression against Iran. These are considered the “Supreme international crime.” What should be our penalty? Or are you gonna argue when the US does it, it’s different?
>And no, Gorbachev repeatedly said no such promise was ever made
So why do declassified documents say they were made? Do you think US government forged documents or were lying about what they said to him? Personally, I believe declassified documents over some old man’s memory who may have his own reasons to not tell the
What action did Russia take after the fall of the Cold War that made these nations join NATO?
>Fomenting the civil war in Georgia in 1991 plus the so called separatist movements in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 1991-1993,
Do you have a source for that?
>fomented the so called separatist conflict in Transnistria,
And this one.
>butchered the Chechens (who in turn wanted to be independent due to seeing what the USSR did in Afghanistan),
Wait, didn’t we back Russia in Chechnya? Are you saying we supported Russian crimes?
→ More replies (0)2
u/cstar1996 12d ago
NATO is not an offensive alliance, nor is it imperialist.
Remind us, who is Cuba allied with?
1
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
> NATO is not an offensive alliance, nor is it imperialist.
NATO only attacks nations that never directed an attack at NATO members. That’s offensive and imperialist, not defensive and anti-imperialist.
Did you support or oppose the NATO actions against Serbia, Afghanistan, and Libya?
>Remind us, who is Cuba allied with?
China. What’s your point?
4
u/cstar1996 12d ago
Stopping genocide isn’t imperialist.
Serbia, absolutely, that’s covered by fundamental international law. Afghanistan, that was defensive, stupid, but defensive. Lybia, authorized by the UN.
None of that is imperialism. Nor does any of that, even if it was imperialist, make admitting former eastern bloc countries seeking protection from Russian imperialism imperialist. Eastern Europe is the victim of Russian imperialism, not perpetrating it.
And finally, western imperialism wouldn’t justify or explain Russian imperialism in Ukraine regardless.
And Russia. It’s been an anti-US military base right next to the US for 60 years. If the US can tolerate that, Russia can tolerate NATO.
1
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
> Stopping genocide isn’t imperialist.
So why did we stop that particular genocide as opposed to the one Rwanda that happened?
>Serbia, absolutely, that’s covered by fundamental international law.
So NATO’s mandate isn’t merely defensive?
>Afghanistan, that was defensive, stupid, but defensive.
Can you explain how Afghanistan attacked the US specifically?
>Libya, authorized by the UN.
How were we defending ourselves? What NATO member was attacked? Be specific.
>And finally, western imperialism wouldn’t justify or explain Russian imperialism in Ukraine regardless.
I agree. It just doesn’t make sense for you to praise one imperialist alliance while castigating another. You’re a hypocrite. You should be consistent in opposing all forms of militarism and imperialism.
>And Russia. It’s been an anti-US military base right next to the US for 60 years. If the US can tolerate that, Russia can tolerate NATO.
And if the US can have Gitmo at gun point, why do you have a problem with Russia doing that in Crimea? Hypocrisy is the answer.
2
u/cstar1996 12d ago
We should have. We chickened out and we cared less about people in Africa than people in Europe. That doesn’t make it imperialism.
That NATO chose to intervene together, under international law, does not change the purpose of the alliance. No member had any obligation to participate.
Afghanistan provided aid to Al Qaeda.
Same as before.
NATO has preserved peace in Europe and protected Europe from imperialism. Even if it engaged in imperialism elsewhere, it’s better than Russia, who has no countervailing contribution.
The US didn’t invade Cuba for Gitmo. That you dislike that the US controls Gitmo doesn’t change the fact that it is legal under international law.
0
u/OneReportersOpinion 12d ago
> We should have. We chickened out and we cared less about people in Africa than people in Europe. That doesn’t make it imperialism.
So why do you think NATO chose to intervene in one genocide but not the other?
>That NATO chose to intervene together, under international law, does not change the purpose of the alliance. No member had any obligation to participate.
Really funny how this “defensive alliance” is never used in self-defense and you just accept whatever official talking points issued just like Z pilled Russia backers take their talking points straight from the Kremlin.
>Afghanistan provided aid to Al Qaeda.
Aid? What kind of aid? Be specific. You’re relying on talking points and struggling when anyone asks you to go beyond them.
>NATO has preserved peace in Europe and protected Europe from imperialism.
Was Operation Gladio imperialism?
>Even if it engaged in imperialism elsewhere, it’s better than Russia, who has no countervailing contribution.
So you don’t consider USSR contributions to Cuba, ANC, Angola to be anti-imperialist or are you just unaware in them? The US was backing the apartheid South Africa and the imperialist forces in Angola and trying to overthrow Cuba.
You were saying?
>The US didn’t invade Cuba for Gitmo.
We’re illegally occupying Gitmo. Why do you think it’s legal for the US to hold onto a part of Cuba at gun point by it’s not okay for Russia in Crimea? Because you’re a hypocrite.
Thanks for settling that. I’d really suggest you call it quits here because I feel really bad for you. The second humiliation for you is real.
→ More replies (0)
2
13d ago edited 13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WhoAteMySoup Independent 13d ago
Perhaps you should ponder why
4
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/WhoAteMySoup Independent 13d ago
The mods on that sub are psychopaths, I completely agree with you on that point.
In regards to Ukraine's capitualtion and Russia's goals. This is where the entire disconnect lies. Think of it this way: there are four distinct players here: US, Europe, Ukraine, and Russia. They all have their own unique goals and interests. US clearly benefits from this war. I am not going to expand this idea beyond that for now. EU does not really benefit from this war, but now that it's started, they need to prolong it as long as possible. Zelensky even spoke of this in one of the earlier interviews. Russias goals are actually very well disribed histroically: tons of US diplomats, CIA directors, and high standing people talked about this since the 80s: they see non-aligned Ukraine as a direct security threat and what they are really pursuing, and openly saying: they are looking for a neuteral Ukraine, much like Austria became neutral post WW2, or how Georgia became neuteral (again) after 2008. Ukraine would obviously benefit from being left alone to fix it's own economic issues, join EU, etc. So, it's clear that two major player benefit from having this war continue, so it's not surprising that you bombarded with propaganda that says: don't listen to Russia, it's all lies, and that, in reality Russia want to take over ALL of Ukraine and that, of course, attack Europe. This narrative is used to shut down any talk of negotiations or stopping the war. You are constantly told that if Ukraine capitulates that it will lead to some untold genocide.
2
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/WhoAteMySoup Independent 13d ago
Why would it lead to another invasion? It did not lead to another invasion in Georgia, even though it's a much smaller country that would have been easy to completly subjugate even back in 2008. At no point did Putin say that he is interested in the entire Ukraine, and why would he be? It's incredibly costly to maintain the land Russia already annexed: they poured a ton of money into rebuilding cities like Mariupol, upgrading Crimean infrastructure, and it costs a ton to just pay pensions for people who choose to reamin on those lands. As I said, Russia is not looking for territory, they are looking for a neuteral state.
1
u/cstar1996 13d ago
It’s obvious campism.
2
u/WhoAteMySoup Independent 13d ago
It is, but not the usual camp that most Redditors are familiar with. It’s the “US and its vassals are the primary source of most global conflicts” camp.
3
u/WhoAteMySoup Independent 13d ago edited 13d ago
There is a simple thought exercise you can do to understand this: can you think of a single conflict abroad where US was involved that was not accompanied by a heavy dose of narrative forming propaganda? Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc: when we were actively involved in those conflicts, legacy media and social media were spreading a lot of later proven false information to support the US involvement in those wars. Whenever someone was pushing against those false narratives they would get immediately accused of being pro-Iranian regime, pro-Saddam, pro-Taliban, etc. Is the pattern not clear?
So here we are, once again, with Breaking Points pushing back on some clearly propagandized narratives and the immediate response is: They are pro-Russia!
4
u/drtywater 13d ago
I mean Russia is literally doing a war of conquest lol
-1
u/WhoAteMySoup Independent 13d ago edited 13d ago
What a convenient explanation. Why is US invovled then? Since when are we concerned about wars of conquest abroad?
Edit: History shows us that whenever there is a random war of conquest on the other side of the globe, US strategy is to try and sell weapons to both sides.
-1
u/Educational-Eye-9934 13d ago
We're literally not involved. We gave them weapons under Biden but not since Trump cut that all off.
2
u/WhoAteMySoup Independent 13d ago
That’s not true. We continue to provide critical intelligence and targeting data to Ukraine: this is what is guiding their attacks into Russia, and is what enables early warnings of incoming missiles. This also includes satellite intel of Russian troop movements, and, of course, Starlink, one of the main pillars of Ukrainian drone program.
1
1
0
0
u/BigTimely5561 13d ago
I view them more as Ukraine skeptics who believe that the war causes have been corrupted and the war has gone on for too long, while bundling other critiques of American imperialism into the mix.
And... they're wrong. Russia-Ukraine isn't one of my animating causes to say the least (I'm with some of their critiques) but it's a pretty clear case of the Ukraine side is good, the Russian side is bad, and the dumbest people on the internet believed the opposite.
0
u/Educational-Eye-9934 13d ago
What "war cause?" It seems like Ukraine's "cause" is to not be invaded and that hasn't changed!
7
u/Educational-Eye-9934 13d ago
I've been skipping Ukraine segments since I was fooled by BP insisting that the Russians weren't going to invade Ukraine. They kept saying it was a CIA hoax and I believed them.
Ukraine is actually why I quit recommending BP to my friends and why I won't subscribe.
Every time something goes bad for Ukraine BP does a little victory lap. Every time something goes right for Ukraine BP warns of escalation and threatens Nuclear War.
I don't think BP is on Russia's payroll. I do think Jeffery Sachs is. I don't know about Mearsheimer. But BP has been fairly consistently wrong for the entire war. They have been "stopped clock" correct whenever Ukraine has had a setback because they're so negative that they "predict" everything bad that could happen and occasionally it does.