During his recent campaign for president, Donald Trump repeatedly stated that he had a secret plan for settling the war in Ukraine. He suggested that he would be able to resolve the conflict within a day of so of taking office. That obviously was political hyperbole because the war is still going on. Trump and people in his administration are now talking to Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russian officials in an effort to find a way to end the war and possibly even normalize relations between the United States and Russia. There is one great big obstacle, however, to … Continue reading →
  • WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    4·
    8 hours ago

    Thus, when Russia did invade, U.S. and European officials and the U.S. mainstream press cried, “Aggression! Aggression!” And they were right from a legal standpoint. Russia had no legal right to invade Ukraine, and Ukraine had the legal right to join NATO.

    And that’s where the debate should end.

    Laws exist explicitly in order to clarify situations, because without laws, things fall into a hopeless mire of subjectivity and all too often end up being settled through a competition to see who’s the most convincing liar or the most viscious thug, neither one of which is a quality that should be rewarded.

    Ukraine has every right to join NATO and Russia has no right to invade Ukraine. The end.

    • humanspiralOPMEnglish
      12·
      7 hours ago

      Everyone has right to point nuclear missiles at the US in Cuba and Canada, then. If there are assholes, there will be countries threatened by assholes and forced to react.

      • NilsEnglish
        1·
        25 minutes ago

        Ah, yes, the old WMD excuse for economical gain USA used often.

        Weird how this “fear of nukes” did not lead to the invasion of Finland when you were attacking Georgia and Ukraine. After sanctions, embargos, and other CIA-like activities, Russia did to them for years.

        I find it disingenuous that you justify those actions as ok, just because USA did the same abhorrent things.

        Before the “react” you write fervidly about, NATO was mostly done for, Finland and Sweden were happy and neutral. Germany was averse to military spending. Only the USA was dragging its allies to endless wars and forcing them to spend more. With the invasions, the list of applicants increased, and all the countries are happy using more of the GDP for warfare.

        Maybe the deals done in closed doors are too complex for me to grasp their benefits, but none of them justify the killing of innocents.

        For an anti-war community, you seem to promote war constantly. You have been defending the USA actions lately, you might want to update the description on that too.