I support Ukraine's right to defend itself against Russia's aggressive invasion because I believe in upholding sovereignty and international law. And I don't let the double standards of Biden or the US weigh on that belief. At the same time, I oppose the US's unconditional support for Israel, especially when they fail to hold it accountable for their human rights abuses, violations of international law, and genocidal actions against Palestinians. And just as I support Ukrainians fighting to push out Russia, I also support the Palestinian fight for freedom and dignity against Israel.
My beliefs aren't based on any religious views, or any stupid campist shyt that people try to exploit to make this seem like a complicated issue. I only care about human rights and justice. And I don't endorse groups like Hamas, Houthis, or Hezbollah. My stance is rooted in opposing oppression. I'm not a champion of the West's hypocrisy, especially in claiming to defend Ukraine in the name of sovereignty while enabling Israel to act with impunity. Just as I'm not going to ignore bad actors like Russia, simply because they play the foil. I don't think Biden is the "goat," his unconditional support for Israel turned me off from supporting him, even though I can acknowledge that he has done some good domestically with his labor support and other initiatives.
There is no "hypocrisy" or double standard. That is just your world view coming apart because it's fundamentally wrong due to your ignorance of history and how your own country works. There's a class of people within America (and Israel) that stands to benefit from antagonizing and instigating conflicts. Through lobbying, through covert operations, through support of extremist militants they cause conflicts and wars because that is how careers and fortunes are made.
You keep harping about sovereignty. If your people are being attacked, even if separated by a border to another country, by forces armed and supported by a foreign power, and you now have on your hands a huge refugee crisis (Russian civilian populations were being shelled by artillery, the number of killed 14000 people and one million fleeing into Russia from lands they've lived on since 400 years), and your trade networks are being destroyed... To any objective unbiased observer these actions constitute acts of war, and there goes your "sovereignty" concept out the window.
Western involvement by building up armed forces threw the country into civil war, where previously there was no violent conflict.
This development became an existential threat for Russia.
Russia's annexation of Crimea was a direct response to the overthrow perpetrated by the West to oust Ukraine's democratically elected government. Crimea is home to Russia's Black Sea fleet, and their warm water port access with crucial shipping lanes into the Mediterranean and onward to Asia. It's only Russians living in Crimea since centuries. It's inconceivable to expect Russia to idly sit by and watch as it's being thrown back to failed state status by outside powers.
The Yanukovitch government was not a stooge of Russia. They were independent, and he was juggling good relations with both Russia and EU, causing much headache for Russia, but that was tolerable at least.
At the end of the day, Russia had strategic interests in Ukraine, while the West did not. It was imperative for them to keep friendly diplomatic relations with Ukraine, but that became impossible because of actions taken by the West, and there you have casus belli for the subsequent annexation and military intervention.
Anyway.
I think we've gone back and forth enough and people are going to believe what they believe, and by extension whatever sources of information we're relying on. So based on who is right (that is, whether Russia is the aggressor or they're fighting a defensive war) we should be able to make some predictions on what comes next.
So Russia is the aggressor, and they're on a campaign to restore a new Russian empire starting in Ukraine. Putin is the new Hitler, right? In due time, they will either be beaten back, or they will press on and expand the war, where next? Poland? Help me figure out where this goes.
I've written before where I think this goes. As the battlefield stands today, Russia has taken the territories it deems necessary to secure their economic and security interests, and the safety of Russians. As soon as the West runs out of steam and stops its support for war in Ukraine, even if that takes time, the fighting will stop and the war is over. These new territories in Donbass will be incorporated into Russia, a consequence of a FAFO moment for the West, and from thence forward, Russia will not fire a single bullet or shell outside of Ukraine and will peacefully mind its own business.
Bet?
Anyone interested in an alternate view to official party line nonsense trotted out here by some posters here fanboying for the MIC can look up talks by Jeffrey Sachs, Douglas Macgregor, Scott Ritter, John Mearsheimer, Gilbert Doctorow. They've all provided reasonable, factual, unbiased assessments on these developments since day 1.
This is Macgregor decrying forcefully the total absence of a real national strategy in American geopolitical policy that instead seems hellbent on causing mayhem all over with a bloated military with reckless actions and statements by its leaders.
This is Scott Ritter giving an assessment of the new Oreshnik missile system deployed by Russia, with enough destructive capacity to take out any hardened target, similar in power to a strategic nuclear weapon, without poisoning the land for decades and far exceeding any conventional weapons in the West's arsenal.
Or are they all Russian assets?
Tucker is back in Russia. Last time was a hit, check out the sequel!