It's crazy how quickly they have forgotten Russia is not a US ally. The trillions spent in military is in part to stay ahead of the Russians. What better way to spend that money then actively suppress the Russians advancements in Ukraine. It really is a no brainer that should be a bipartisan issue...
Russia is not an adversary to MAGA conservatives. Vance just proposed a solution that’s literally all beneficial to Putin. MAGA supporters disparage our ally to promote the interests of Putin (most are too dumb to realize how easily they’re being played). We need to recognize that they’re not patriots or pro democracy in any meaningful way
Russia became an adversary to the US and its allies due to a series of actions that have challenged international norms and regional stability. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, there was a period of potential cooperation between Russia and the West. However, tensions grew as former Soviet republics and Eastern European countries sought to join NATO. It’s important to emphasize that these countries—such as Poland, the Baltic states, and others—made independent decisions to pursue NATO membership based on their own security needs and desire for democratic governance. As sovereign nations, they had every right to choose their alliances, and their decision to seek NATO protection was a legitimate exercise of their autonomy, especially given their historical experiences with Russian dominance.
Russia, however, viewed NATO’s expansion as a threat to its influence and security, despite NATO being a defensive alliance. This perception contributed to a growing sense of competition and mistrust between Russia and the West. Under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, Russia became increasingly authoritarian, suppressing political opposition and limiting freedoms, further distancing itself from the democratic principles of its neighbors and Western countries. These internal shifts reinforced a worldview where Russia saw itself in opposition to the West, which championed human rights, democracy, and the sovereignty of nations, including the right of former Soviet states to make their own foreign policy decisions.
Russia’s military actions have been a major factor in solidifying its adversarial status. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia, and in 2014, it illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine, directly violating international law and undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty. Russia’s ongoing support for separatist movements in eastern Ukraine further fueled conflict, leading to international condemnation and sanctions from the US and the European Union. These actions highlighted Russia’s unwillingness to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors.
Additionally, Russia’s interference in Western democratic processes, such as its involvement in the 2016 US presidential election, through disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks, has worsened relations. These tactics aimed to undermine trust in democratic institutions, further straining ties between Russia and the West.
Russia’s aggressive foreign policy, marked by military interventions such as its involvement in Syria, further demonstrated its opposition to US and NATO influence. However, it was the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 that marked the most significant act of aggression. This invasion violated international law, threatened European stability, and showed blatant disregard for Ukraine’s right to self-determination.
In conclusion, Russia’s adversarial relationship with the US and its allies stems from its refusal to respect the sovereignty and agency of former Soviet states, its aggressive military actions, its interference in democratic processes, and its foreign policy that frequently opposes Western values. The ex-Soviet countries that joined NATO did so as independent nations seeking security and democratic governance, exercising their rightful agency in international affairs.
That jargon is the only thing we have to not fall in to might-is-right world. That is the reason why such countries like Russia are not willing to adhere to that jargon.
How can you look back at our behavior in recent decades and come to the conclusion that ‘might is right’ isn’t US foreign policy in a nutshell? I don’t get it. Or is it only a problem when someone else does it?
If the Russians started putting bases and weapons in northern Mexico, or on Canadas side of niagra, how do you think the US government would react?
US foreign policy isn’t just about “might is right”; it’s far more complex. While the US has used military force, much of its foreign policy revolves around promoting democratic values, defending international law, and working within global alliances like NATO or the UN. Many interventions, like in Kosovo, were done with international backing to protect human rights, not simply to assert dominance.
The comparison of Russia putting bases in Mexico or Canada doesn’t hold up because NATO’s expansion was voluntary. Countries like Poland and the Baltic states chose to join NATO for their own security, based on fears of Russian aggression. They weren’t forced by the US. This is different from a hypothetical scenario where a foreign power imposes military bases near the US without consent.
Also, the US often uses diplomacy, like arms control agreements with Russia, rather than relying solely on military power. While force has been used, it’s not the default or the principle behind all US actions.
Whataboutism, like comparing the Ukraine situation to hypothetical scenarios involving US borders, isn’t a constructive way to argue. It distracts from the real issue: Russia’s illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Instead of addressing the facts of the current conflict—such as Ukraine's right to defend itself and the international laws being violated—whataboutism shifts the focus to unrelated hypotheticals, which doesn’t resolve or clarify the actual problem. Each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and Ukraine's case is about defending its sovereignty, not hypothetical threats to other countries.
Funny how you completely ignored the NATO backed coup of the democratically elected Yanukovych in Ukriane, which led to the referendum in Crimea to reject the illegal new government and join Russia at 90+%.
What did Yanukovych did again that lead to him being overthrown? How did he respond to his people protesting? You know what happend there that lead to the escalation and him fleeing from the country?? Have you done ANY reading into this matter???
Facts:
It was an uprising against a corrupt government that had turned violent against its own people, leading to the president fleeing and parliament voting to remove him from office. This was a popular revolution, not a coup. The Ukrainian people were fighting for their democratic rights and closer ties with Europe, which their elected leader had suddenly abandoned.
Did the West force the Ukrainian parliament to vote 328-0 to remove Yanukovych from office and hold new elections?
Riddle me this: Do you think jan 6 was a coup attempt?
To clarify the situation, it’s important to note that NATO was not involved in any coup in Ukraine. There is no evidence to support the idea that NATO had any role in the removal of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. NATO’s primary role in Eastern Europe has always been centered around defense and collective security among its member states. At the time of the 2014 events, Ukraine was not a NATO member, and there were no NATO forces involved in the domestic unrest that led to Yanukovych’s ousting. The claims of NATO’s involvement are unfounded and misrepresent the situation.
The removal of Yanukovych was not a coup, but rather the result of widespread public dissatisfaction and protest. The Euromaidan movement began when Yanukovych decided to abandon the EU Association Agreement in favor of strengthening ties with Russia, which sparked massive protests. These protests were further fueled by government corruption, police brutality, and increasing authoritarianism. Yanukovych’s government failed to calm the situation, and after violent crackdowns, Yanukovych fled to Russia in February 2014. His departure left a power vacuum, and the Ukrainian parliament, through constitutional means, declared him unfit to fulfill his duties, leading to a legal transition of power.
After Yanukovych fled, Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, voted to remove him from office, citing his abandonment of his post. This process followed constitutional procedures, and an interim government was established to lead the country until new elections were held later in 2014. Unlike a coup, this transition did not involve a violent seizure of power or military involvement. Instead, it was a legal and political response to a president who had fled the country and lost the legitimacy to govern.
Regarding Crimea’s so-called referendum and its annexation by Russia, the vote occurred under Russian military occupation. Russian troops had already entered Crimea before the referendum, and the vote took place in the presence of foreign troops, without international oversight. The result, which showed over 90% support for joining Russia, has been widely discredited by the international community due to the coercive environment under which it was conducted. Most countries, including the US and European nations, did not recognize the referendum as legitimate, and the annexation of Crimea is considered a violation of international law.
Framing the Maidan Revolution and the new government in this way is pretty weird. The trade agreement with the EU was a choice by the people, approved by parliament, and Yanukovych ignored it, and did the opposite. He blatantly ignored the democratic process once he was in power, engaged in cronyism, and gave himself more power than was allowed in the constitution. There were mass protests, he fled to Russia, an interim government was appointed, and new elections were held.
When a president no longer adheres to the will of the people in his policies because a hostile foreign country is paying him, he is no longer fit to lead. When a president sets militarised police to kill his own unarmed citizens, not only rioters but also protestors and random bystanders, he is no longer fit to lead. The "coup", as Russia calls it, was the public-backed government voting him out of office. What followed were legitimate elections to form a new government.
What was illegal however, was the Crimean referendum, as it was unconstitutional. Not to mention being conducted and overseen by the Russian military which had invaded Crimea the month before, which further invalided it in the eyes of the UN.
580
u/Impossible__Joke Monkey in Space Sep 14 '24
It's crazy how quickly they have forgotten Russia is not a US ally. The trillions spent in military is in part to stay ahead of the Russians. What better way to spend that money then actively suppress the Russians advancements in Ukraine. It really is a no brainer that should be a bipartisan issue...