Any detail/specifics with these generic vapid assertions?

Donezk and Luhansk were actually attacked by Ukrainian forces since the Euromaidan. So if your justification is that "NATO wanted to stop a genocide", then you'd have to also do some research on the justification Russia claimed.

In the end, this is a hopeless endeavor, though. Nations go to war for strategic reasons, not moral ones. And people continuosly want to ignore the strategic interests of the west, claiming that it only wants to "help Ukraine", while claiming that Russia wants to return to Czardom. Both interpretations ignore the strategic motivations.

I don't think that going into detail would help anything. I don't think I'll be able to convince you that nations or their treaty organisations do anything because of a moral imperative.

Donezk and Luhansk were actually attacked by Ukrainian forces since the Euromaidan.

You mean when russia invaded Ukraine and fomented a war in those regions?

So if your justification is that "NATO wanted to stop a genocide", then you'd have to also do some research on the justification Russia claimed.

Russia's claims are weak. It's quite obvious that they've recycled the nazi Sudetenland strategy as they've done multiple times to invade neighbours. Start a war using your "little green men", then use the fighting you started to claim the "genocide of russian-speakers" and ride that excuse into invasion and annexation. That should be obvious, if you're not incredibly naive.

You mean when russia invaded Ukraine and fomented a war in those regions?

No, I meant after the Euromaidan. Those regions mostly weren't ok with the Euromaidan and have been bombed by Ukrainian forces since then.

Russia's claims are weak. It's quite obvious that they've recycled the nazi Sudetenland strategy as they've done multiple times to invade neighbours. Start a war using your "little green men", then use the fighting you started to claim the "genocide of russian-speakers" and ride that excuse into invasion and annexation. That should be obvious, if you're not incredibly naive.

I agree that the allegations by Russia have been blown out of proportions. That doesn't make NATO the "good guys".

bombed by Ukrainian forces since then.

Since russia invaded the country, yes. Who downed MH17? Are you actually pretending that there was any kind of organic internal conflict without russian influence? lol

That doesn't make NATO the "good guys".

You don't have to be "good" to be incomparably better than ruzzia

Are you actually pretending that there was any kind of organic internal conflict without russian influence?

Why is that so absurd? Donetsk and Luhansk are russian-speaking and were vitally economically dependant on Russia. They were afraid that Kyiv politically focusing on Europe would be disastrous for their economy.

I'm not arguing that Russia didn't have any interests there, that Russia didn't do some weird insurgency crap. I'm also not saying that it payed of for the poor sods who lived there. But believing that Ukraine would have been completely united after Euromaidan (which was allegedly also helped by western forces) if it weren't for Putin is naive.

You don't have to be "good" to be incomparably better than ruzzia

I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists. I oppose them all. And my (very limited) sphere of influence doesn't reach into Russia. I can't do anything against Putin. I am however living in a NATO member counrty. And Karl Liebknechtput it best:

The main enemy of every people is in their own country

I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists.

You're gonna have to point out which territories NATO has annexed. What a load of nonsense.

The main enemy of every people is in their own country

Agreed, the ruzzian-funded puppets in their own country

Agreed, the ruzzian-funded puppets in their own country

What? Is that absurd? You must've missed the tenet media story, among the pile of other ones.

You would've been the best cannon fodder in WW1.

You first vatnik

Since you obviously didn't get the 'main enemy' bit

Edit: So, apparently condemning both Russian and western imperialism makes you a "vatnik", huh. /s Should I call you a Yankee, then?

I don't care about your meaningless pontificating. You either dodge questions because you have no valid response or just shit out garbage with no substance.

I could accuse you of the same. Why keep replying?

You could accuse, but the evidence suggests you'd be wrong. Still waiting on that list of territories that NATO has annexed. For someone who's so "concerned" about imperialism, you sure do carry a lot of water for what is likely the biggest offender of the past two decades.

You could accuse, but the evidence suggests you'd be wrong. Still waiting on that list of territories that NATO has annexed. For someone who's so "concerned" about imperialism, you sure do carry a lot of water for what is likely the biggest offender of the past two decades.

Your point of this conversation is to make a moralistic argument of how evil Russia is. Moralistic arguments don't really work when you're trying to understand politics.

I agree that Russia is committing atrocities. You failed to give a reason why this is happening, other than "they are evil".

You're telling me what my point is now, lol?

If you say so. As I said: I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists and I don't have the power to influence anything in Russia. That's why I'm focusing on the imperialist that I can affect (even if just slightly).

They never specified how long these days were gonna be!