NATO bombing Yugoslavia was definitely about stopping Russia from attacking people in NATO????

just total brain rot

maybe he didn't know that usa and europe have a consistent history of invading countries and overthrowing governments all over the world

history is irrelevant to liberals

in their analysis the world is always assumed to have started like 3 months ago

and they believe every US imperialist action an organization at face value

oh the US claimed they are bombing/invading due to humanitarian reasons? ok!

NATO claims it's defensive? ok!

like the most superficial analysis possible

i mean filthy, how could you possibly think anything the US military does is wrong??? its clearly defensive

its right in the name! department of defense!

are you saying they are lying????

Putin invaded Russia? must be because he is a psychopathic madman!

don't think any further then that!

forget anything that has happened for the past 10+ years, because the world only started existing 3 months ago

nope! he's just crazy

clearly that is the only explanation

I mean that is legitimately what liberals think. Putin is a bad person and so does bad things, no further explanation required. That's it.

frenetic whataboutism itt

Are you saying that Putin isn't bombing hospitals, or are you saying that NATO did?

Are you saying that there wasn't a genocide in progress when NATO bombed Yugoslavia, or are you saying that there was a genocide in progress in Donbas when Putin invaded?


I'm genuinely asking, since I was in elementary school when it happened and I know you are very aware of anything the US does/did wrong.

claiming everything is "whataboutism" isn't the defense you think it is

to say nothing of the fact that you rarely even use it correctly

you claimed NATO was defensive in nature, which of course is utter nonsense

you claimed it was an organization designed to prevent Russia from attacking NATO members, which of course is utter nonsense

like what is the point you are making here?

"the fact that NATO and its members are imperialist and continually bomb, invade, sanction, and display hostile intent to any country that acts against the economic interests of its members is beside the point of why Russia might be against the country that shares its largest border with it joining"

like dude spend 5 seconds and think about what you are even saying

stop just nonsensically typing "whataboutism" every time you say something silly and get called on it

aren't you saying "what about Yugoslavia" here?

as if to show that the US doesn't have clean hands in Europe, so why bother w/ Russia's actions?

If I did, I should have claimed it was formed to prevent the USSR from attacking Western Europe.

If your example of NATO being an offensive military alliance is limited to one example of the bombing of a country engaged in ethnic cleansing, I'm not sure you've really proved your point.

Have NATO bombs been lobbed into Russia from Poland?

I mean dude, come on. I never said that first line or anything close to it, and you also know that I've been talking about events in Ukraine at least since the Euromaiden protests. Your posting here is really disingenuous and beneath you.

you just said putin was threatening the world with nuclear war and bombing hospitals because ukraine was attempting to join a club to prevent him from attacking it

Right. Not that he's a "psychopathic madman", just a bully.

From what I've read, even after Euromaiden, Ukraine wasn't working to join NATO until Putin seized Crimea.


this is at best a caricature of what I've said

look at what happens to governments who oppose usa interests...

vietnam
afghanistan
cuba
venezuela
chile
haiti
el salvador
north korea
iraq
iran
panama
philipines
japan
germany
italy

i mean the list goes on and on. usa will **** your **** up if you don't do what it says, unless you have nuclear weapons to protect yourself.

Dude what? NK doesn't have nukes and is still doing its own "devil US satan" thing. As is Iran.


You've got nazi germany on your list? What in the world....



Regardless, what does that have to do with the legitimacy of Putin's invasion of Ukraine in cause or execution?

lol im not saying the list of countries usa has annihilated is a list of angels.

my point is that if you oppose usa interests you will be bombed, or sanctioned into oblivion, or couped.

rich russians were exploiting ukraine. rich americans want to exploit ukraine. rich americans were like "give me that". rich russians were like "no. that is just too much"

Granting that usa is evil for the sake of argument,

what does that have to do with the legitimacy of Putin's invasion of Ukraine in cause or execution?

im not sure i can explain it any more clearly than that. if that doesn't make sense to you, im not sure what to tell you

im not saying putin's invasion is justified or moral. but there wouldn't have been an invasion of ukraine if usa had stayed out of it

it also kinda seems like usa is really happy about this invasion because it's probably gonna end up crippling russia and strengthen usa global hegemony. like probably usa will benefit from this more than anyone. maybe not though. small chance there might be an eu army, and usa probably won't like that too much. but russia probably won't benefit from this. they might end up hurting themself more than hurting ukraine.

What are you suggesting then?

What's the implication of what your saying?

Cuz I think Ians is obviously "**** putin invasion terrible" and so support efforts to stop it.

Whats yours?

In Soviet Russia people think it is either good or evil. And some people think it is ok.