• carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes and I asked you what changed and if you can contextualize. You yourself understand that historical context is important. After all ignoring historical context would rob this conflict of it’s meaning, no? Or are you one of those rubes that believes Putin ordered an attack out of his own volition?

    • ex10n@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s plenty of historical context to cover. Like how Ukraine became the breadbasket feeding the Soviets in the USSR at the expense of their own population.

      • carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure but you’re ignoring that the Soviet Union got dissolved and had a friendly western handpicked succesor at that point. So no more threat to UA, no? NATOs purpose was also a reaction to the creation of Soviet Russia, but what was it’s purpose after the dissolution of the SU? Why join and expand NATO when everyones friendly now?

        • ex10n@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If everyone was friendly, why did Ukraine not give Russia their soverign land? The people of Ukraine voted for Zelensky fighting Russian influence for this exact reason. NATO continues to exist to promote stability and peace in the EU full stop. They’re a defensive pact to deter outside aggression. Ukraine believes joining this pact will protect them from Russian aggression. Much like Finland and Sweden. Come on now, even Switzerland has chosen the side of Ukraine here.