The corporate media says Putin wants to take over the world, and Trump says Zelenskyy somehow managed to trick the US into supporting him — but the reality is that NATO’s long-term strategy of expansion towards Russia’s borders made war inevitable.
The corporate media says Putin wants to take over the world, and Trump says Zelenskyy somehow managed to trick the US into supporting him — but the reality is that NATO’s long-term strategy of expansion towards Russia’s borders made war inevitable.
Russia is repeating the Bush “pre-emptive strike” doctrine 🤔
When the “preemptive” strike comes 8 years later
Which event of 2006
Nono not 2x8
1x8 -> 2014
8 years before 2014 is 2006
Me when I’m stupid as shit
That is not what’s happening. Look up what was happening in the Donbass from 2014 onward.
I got this comment on Mastodon
Read my comment above. TL;DR: Ukraine was massing troops for an attack on the Donbass in 2022, Georgia was the aggressor in 2008, and Crimea never wanted to be part of Ukraine - it could only have remained in Ukraine after 2014 if Kiev forces invaded it and brutally put down the anti-Maidan uprising like they did Odessa, Kharkov, Mariupol, Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, and like they tried doing to Donetsk and Lugansk.
Yes, that and Crimea was the pre-emptive strike.
Capitalism naturally evolves into imperialism. As capital concentrates into large monopolies, nations are driven to expand aggressively to secure profits and power. The Bush Doctrine showed this same logic by claiming that waiting to be attacked was too dangerous, so the enemy had to be destroyed preemptively using all available means.
In simple terms, the superpowers follow similar strategies. Just as the Bush administration acted in belief it was necessary to strike first against potential threats (like weapons of mass destruction, which were never present and only for manufacturing consent) to protect its interests, Russia used a pre-emptive move in Crimea and the Donbass region to attack Ukraine before it could be NATO.
Weapons didn’t exist so your logic falls on its face. Bush didn’t have a potential threat therefore your “strategy” wasn’t applied.
No, the message definitely means that the weapons were never there but I’ll edit for clarification, thanks!