Obvious examples of Central Intelligence Agency covert action abroad are difficult to identify today, save for occasional acknowledged calamities, such as the long-running $1 billion effort to overthrow the government of Syria, via funding, training and arming barbarous jihadist groups.
why
Because historical context matters, and things don’t just happen in isolation. Highly recommend watching this lecture from 2016 to get a bit of perspective on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
How about you explain it since you’re so smart
Usa took over ukraines government and made them murder the people in east ukraine. The goal of usa is to put nukes in ukraine and to murder all ukrainians and russians. Usa is racist and wants them gone.
ROFL, you cannot be serious.
This is some Q-anon level nonsense but then the russian version.
Ah yes, people like Chomsky and Mearsheimer are the conspiracy theorists and not you. Welcome to the blueAnon level ignorance.
Their premise is: “Because these countries become part of NATO, russia is directly threatened.
And thus russia must act in self defense.” This is the abusers credo. “Look what you forced me to do!” and it should not be acceptable. Well spoken intellectuals do not change that.
Your question: conspiracy theorists; probably. Russian apologists, absolutely.
And even if you could justify the invasion as self defense, how do you justify the way they go about it?
Try not to pivot and point at others and say “but what about…” we can agree other things might be just as wrong or even worse, that is besides the point in this conversation.
Russia is directly using the precedent NATO established in Yugoslavia when NATO recognized breakaway regions and then had them invite NATO for help. If people in NATO countries don’t like what Russia is doing then maybe they shouldn’t have been setting up the precedent for that.
Also, nobody is apologizing for anything, that’s a moral argument that has no value and isn’t constructive in any way. I’m simply pointing out that this conflict could have been averted and both sides played a role in creating the conditions for it. RAND literally published a paper titled “Extending Russia” which advocates for the exact scenario we’re currently seeing.
No, we’ll hold Russia to the same standards we hold the west to. Otherwise, we are creating two systems of morals one that applies to the west and another that applies to opponents of the west.
Yes wars are horrific, but nothing Russia has done even begins to compare to what NATO and its various members have been doing over the decades. Just a few examples for you:
Why is there so much outrage in the west over a war in Ukraine when nobody gave a shit about the wars the west conducts. Why is US not sanctioned for Iraq for example.
Why is the US occupying a larger chunk of Syria as we speak than Russia does of Ukraine. What is the difference between the two situations in your mind?
Maybe don’t lie about something so obvious? https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-interview/20230629-iaea-saw-no-evidence-moscow-planning-attack-on-zaporizhia-nuclear-plant-but-anything-can-happen
Once again you’re spreading misinformation here either out of ignorance or intentionally. Either way that’s a bad look. After the Grain Deal was struck, Western Europe became the top importer of Ukrainian grain, and a negligible amount of it ended up feeding the “Millions of hungry people around the world”. The bulk of the African, Asian, and Global South countries, rely on Russian grain and not the Ukrainian.
So you are arguing 2 wrongs make a right? Never-mind that in Yugoslavia there was ethnic cleansing going on. Add to that; I think the moral argument matters a lot actually.
RAND writes in the study that based on Russia’s actions, conflict between the US and Russia are inevitable and makes an analysis on what can be done to counter it. On the Russian side the writing of Dugin seem to lay out the rationale behind the actions of Russia: “Our sphere of influence!”, “All these soviet states need to be obedient vassals of Russia”, “Ukraine is not a country, just confused Russians”.
Absolutely horrific, and unacceptable!
There is a caveat: “During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.” The 90% number refers to ‘Operation Haymaker’ and you make it read as if this is the norm. I sure as hell hope it is not, but worry it might be.
European governments seem to be struggling with what went on in the middle-east and Afghanistan. As more information comes out about bombings of weapons factories and depots where “collateral” was deemed acceptable, but it turns out it wasn’t. There where way more civilians impacted than originally thought or communicated. And luckily these things surface and we can attempt to deal with them.
The fact NATO was dragged into a war under false pretenses is something that still has not been dealt with adequately in my opinion. Let alone the consequences of these decades of war.
Under a million, the 6 million is a guestimation that includes indirect deaths from the actual deaths. I cannot speak to the validity of the claim, but neither can the article. But even the 1 million number is mind boggling to me.
Are you referring to the territory held by the Kurds in the North east?
Lets hear from the source: IAEA “still waiting to gain the necessary access to the rooftops of reactor units 3 and 4 following recent reports that explosives may have been placed there”
First: The deal covers a lot more than grain alone. Second: The world food market is complex. The total food supply was diminished causing higher prices, meaning food insecurity for the worlds poorest. By alleviating the constraint, prices go down again.
If you can think of any other example of the US doing something like this, I’d love to hear it.
A link is not a proof of work, even a chatbot answer would’ve been better than that.
If you can’t even be arsed to watch an hour long lecture on a complex subject perhaps you shouldn’t be debating it.
If you can’t even be asked to summarise an erratic thought chain perhaps you shouldn’t be classist about it.
There’s nothing erratic about what I said. The article linked in the submission, which you obviously didn’t read either, summarizes precisely what happened. Maybe take a moment away from trolling to actually engage with the subject you’re attempting to debate here.