a reply to:
Soapusmaximus
As you say you're bringing up the matter of the history of this conflict, I want to correct some of the things you wrote. First off, NATO did not
promise not to expand eastwards; rather, if the promise was made, it was made in a private conversation between US Sec. of State James Baker and
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the former Soviet Union. Such a promise was never ratified in any treaty. In fact, the treaty that ratified
the reunification of Germany did not stipulate anything regarding NATO expansion. Then there is the fact that the Soviet Union dissolved, so at best
a promise was made in private between a Sec. of State and leader of a country that no longer existed. Both the US and the Russia have used this
excuse to bow out of various arms control treaties.
Won't deny or defend all of the US adventurism in Africa and the Middle East. Was against it then, am against it now, and still think US leaders --
as in Presidents and their responsible cabinet members should be held accountable for war crimes -- this goes back to the to the Clinton
administration, but I would not include the Trump administration (as much as I have against it for other reasons). Bush II, in particular and his
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan created a precedent for Russia and other countries to legitimize their own empire-building adventures.
What Nuland and company did during the Obama administration is the usual kind of diplomatic/hybrid warfare game played throughout the Cold War, and
Russia did and does the same kind of stuff, so I can't call foul on this.
Miss Lindsey and McCain's chickenhawk chest thumping is the kind of rhetoric Republicans have always made up and until the Biden Administration, when
push came to shove and the US became indirectly involved the Ukrainian-Russian war, and all of a sudden Republicans became a voice for isolationism
and currying the favor of an aggressive despot. I don't defend what they say, and politicians in the minority party (and not holding the presidency)
shouldn't go around making foreign policy prognostications of this sort.
As to the entire history of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict since 2014, including the details of the Maidan Revolution and even the political
machinations in Ukraine before then with the previous two administrations in Kyiv, I don't know enough to have an educated view on the subject. What
I do know is the history of Russia or the pro-Russian break-away province allies shooting down a commercial Malaysian airliner, and having denied
doing so ever since, which leads me to not believe anything coming from Moscow. I also know that Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation (unless
you consider another country fighting a civil to be your business), has committed many atrocities and war crimes, including the deportation of
children and other Ukrainian civilians to Russia and using these Ukrainian civilians as prison labor, including putting them in Russian uniforms and
making them work near the battle front. Russia, which claims it is "de-nazifying" Ukraine, seems to be the country behaving like Nazis.
Thousands of Ukraine civilians are
being held in Russian prisons. Russia plans to build many more
Given Russia's actions in the conflict, and its conveyor belt of lies, I find it prudent not to believe anything that comes out the Kremlin and its
house organs. I know western media and the US like to spin half truths as well, but say what you want about the Biden administration, it had it dead
to rights in the last couple of weeks leading up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that the invasion was going to happen.
Again, because I don't know all the facts of the conflict in the break-away Oblasts of Ukraine, I think the best historical analogy for Americans
would be the antecedents to the Mexican-American War and the war itself. Even at the time, a lot of Americans, including the future president Ulysses
S Grant, felt the war was unethical and unjustified. So it is with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
As for traveling the stars and all that good stuff, I'd be happy if we just started seriously protecting the one planet we currently live on, in order
to hopefully be around long enough to develop the technology to journey elsewhere. The world -- the US in particular -- spends way too much money on
the military, and in doing so, burning way too much fossil fuel as well. There should be world-wide arms negotiations and reductions in conjunction
with world-wide actions to combat climate change. Please, I don't want to derail this thread, and have climate change deniers argue with me. I'm
just explaining how I think humanity's resources can best be utilized, in response to @Soapusmaximus's wish for us to travel the stars.
Oh yeah, and back to the topic of this thread... I, too, do not care for Youtube's draconian demonetization and censoring of combat videos. I was
literally a child of the 60's and remember combat footage being on the network news nightly. However, when it comes to gratuitous gore, as in that
video linked to in the OP, I am not for that. I understand the OP's sentiment about wanting to show the truth of war, but I think it is disrespectful
to show a human being in an extreme state, such as the one infantry man who's leg is mangled and dangling as he is crawling for cover. On the other
hand, I think it is reasonable to show the after effects of combat on the dead, or on wounded persons who have given their permission to be
photographed. Photographing someone in their misery, without their permission or even knowledge, seems a gross invasion of their rights.
edit
on 16-7-2023 by MrInquisitive because: added a final paragraph