What Offense Did the Ukrainian People Commit That Caused Them to Be Bombed into Oblivion by The Russian Military at the Command of Putin?

[TruthNotBS]

​

 

[JustAGuy1]

In thinking about why Israel is destroying Gaza and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, it caused me, in comparison, to wonder why Putin began bombing Ukraine. I honestly could not remember why this all began.

I'm sure we all agree that retaliating for having been attacked and having your citizens abducted and killed is more than reason enough to go after the perpetrators, even if we do not necessarily agree with how they are going about carrying this out. But what I'm struck with at the moment is how Putin was NOT defending Russia, or retaliating for an attack against the country and its people. This wholesale slaughter of innocent people seems to be based on ideology?

The 3 Eastern Oblasts voted to secede and return to Russian rule. All 3 primarily spoke Russian. Kiev started shelling them repeatedly and actually started an Sniper War with Russia. Russia then began protecting them. Here we are.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Yes, because there is no reason why all those countries are fighting to get into NATO; Russia is just a cute little peaceful huggie bear that loves its neighbors and never hurt anybody. Those evul Amurkinz are provoking the poor lil hapless KGB thug, oops I mean 'peaceful hippie' Putin.

You may be misunderstanding where I’m coming from. I think Putin is a thug and I always have. I never liked or trusted him.

Having said that, were I in his position, I would be concerned too.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Well Russia did invade them twice in the last few year and they were trying to undermine their government...

They were looking to NATO for protection.

Ukraine would have let things alone if Putin had no invaded..

Believe me, I am not defending the guy. As I just told someone else, I’ve always thought Putin was a thug. I also said there was no justification for starting this war.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Perhaps, but was kennedy going to allow russia to park nukes or long range missiles in cuba in the 1960's? I think we both know the answer.

Exactly.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And now Putin has two new NATO members on his doorstep!

Putin's motive is simple. He's trying to reconstitute the USSR.

I can believe that.

 

[AntonToo]

Now, you say Ukraine was at least a decade away from NATO membership. Maybe, maybe not, but that’s irrelevant.

Horseshit, It is DIRECTLY RELAVANT TO JUSTIFYING A SUPPOSEDLY DEFENSIVE INVASION.

"Well they could have joined a defensive aliance 10 years from now" is NOT AT ALL a sane justification to go invade a country.

There was exactly ZERO eminent threat to Russia and you sound like an idiot when you use those excuses.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Horseshit, It is DIRECTLY RELAVANT TO JUSTIFYING A SUPPOSEDLY DEFENSIVE INVASION.

"Well they could have joined a defensive aliance 10 years from now" is NOT AT ALL a sane justification to go invade a country.

There was exactly ZERO eminent threat to Russia and you sound like an idiot when you use those excuses.

NATO has been moving toward Russia’s borders since the 1990s, multiple military exercises have been held in Ukraine since 2014, and Western arms have been pouring in even more so, after the 2014 coup. Whether Ukraine was “officially” 10 years away from NATO membership doesn’t change the geopolitical reality that Russia faced. Your disingenuous objections are moronic.

You’re acting like Russia should wait until the gun is pointed directly at its head before doing anything. Sorry, but realpolitik doesn’t work that way. Countries don’t just sit back and let their security be eroded piece by piece, waiting for a "formal" membership to be finalized. No, that's not happening. Russia has seen this coming for years, and NATO’s track record of ignoring Russia’s concerns and pushing closer to its borders made it clear that something had to be done.

Now you see the consequences of your American imperialism. You're not a patriot of the USA, you're a bootlicking tool of our military-industrial complex, the war-profiteering capitalist ruling class that owns our government. You worship them and to hell with the American public. You could care less if we end up fighting WW3, unnecessarily due to NATO expansion, annihilating all life on this planet. If Russia was deploying its military in Mexico, I would be incensed and ready to fight WW3 with Russia. But they're not here doing that to us, we're over there doing it to them.

We're the bad guys here, and I don't like being the bad guy, I want America, my country, to be the good guy, the hero, not the war-profiteering, imperialist maniac.

DON'T DO UNTO OTHERS, WHAT YOU DON'T WANT DONE TO YOU.​

Your claim that there was “ZERO imminent threat” to Russia is laughable and completely irrelevant. A threat doesn't have to be imminent to be worthy of being addressed before it becomes imminent. However, the threat is indeed imminent. NATO’s expansion has always been an existential issue for Russia. The West promised Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t move eastward, and yet here we are, with NATO knocking on Russia’s door. And don’t forget the 2014 coup that overthrew a democratically elected president in Ukraine, a coup backed by the U.S. and EU. After that, Ukraine turned toward NATO even more aggressively. Russia wasn’t going to wait for NATO to plant its flag in Ukraine and then hope for the best. That's Anton's disingenuous national security strategy advice for Russia. Dumb.

So no, Anton, it’s not "horseshit" to talk about NATO membership being a clear and present danger to Russia’s security. You’re just deliberately ignoring the reality of NATO’s aggressive posture toward Russia. And the idea that Russia should sit around and wait until Ukraine formally joins NATO before acting is absurd.

 

[AntonToo]

NATO has been moving toward Russia’s borders since the 1990s

What you call "moving towards Russia" is actually Russia's neighbors joining a defensive alliance out of security concerns.

Those were the smart ones, because the ones that DIDN'T, like Georgia and Ukraine who were fooling around with "brothers" next door paid for their collosal mistake in blood and territory loss.

 

[TruthNotBS]

What you call "moving towards Russia" is actually Russia's neighbors joining a defensive alliance out of security concerns.

Those were the smart ones, because the ones that DIDN'T, like Georgia and Ukraine who were fooling around with "brothers" next door paid for their collosal mistake in blood and territory loss.

That's a silly excuse because anyone with half a brain knows that the reason those Eastern European nations applied for NATO membership was to become EU members, it had nothing to do with being afraid of a Russian invasion. It would've been quite simple to create another military alliance, just as committed and capable of defending Eastern Europe against any Russian aggression. NATO expansion was unnecessary.

What argument would Russia then have for doing what it's doing now to Ukraine? NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING. Rather than being smart by employing other means to secure Eastern Europe, morons who think like you decided to expand NATO, a Cold War adversary of Russia, carrying a ton of baggage. There's no justification for NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, any more than for Russian military expansion on the American continent. Just like we wouldn't allow them to deploy their military in the Western Hemisphere, they're not going to allow us to turn Ukraine into a NATO base.

 

[AntonToo]

Your claim that there was “ZERO imminent threat” to Russia is laughable and completely irrelevant. A threat doesn't have to be imminent to be worthy of being addressed before it becomes imminent. However, the threat is indeed imminent. NATO’s expansion has always been an existential issue for Russia.

NATO has NEVER been a threat to Russia, always has been fundamentally a defensive alliance.

Finland, who shares 1000 mile border with Russia, 100 miles from st.Pete WASN'T emminent threat to Russia when it applied and recieved entry into NATO a year later, but Ukraine somehow was an emminet threat because it could join NATO in 10 years?

Who do you think is buying your half baked Russian bullshit? These are laughable excuses, not reasons.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

NATO has been moving toward Russia’s borders since the 1990s

And Russia keeps showing us why that is.

 

[TruthNotBS]

And Russia keeps showing us why that is.

Because of NATO expansion, durrrrr.

 

[AntonToo]

What argument would Russia then have for doing what it's doing now to Ukraine? NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING.

....Russia tried to blitz Kiev and wrote in 5 Ukranian regions into it's constutiton.

Hmmmm what reasons could there possibly be? It's just sooo hard to figure out transparent land grabs doncha' know.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because of NATO expansion

Because he can't take what he wants by force, from NATO.

That's what he fears.

He doesn't tell his sheeple that

 

[TruthNotBS]

NATO has NEVER been a threat to Russia, always has been fundamentally a defensive alliance.

Finland, who shares 1000 mile border with Russia somehow WASN'T emminent threat to Russia when it applied and recieved entry into NATO a year later, but Ukraine somehow was an emminet threat because it could join NATO in 10 years?

Who do you think is buying your half baked Russian bullshit? These are laughable excuses, not reasons.

NATO has NEVER been a threat to Russia, always has been fundamentally a defensive alliance.

Not when it's expanding into Eastern Europe and deploying its troops and hardware on Russia's border. Whatever dishonest shit you say about NATO being harmless to Russia's legitimate national security concerns, Russia doesn't see it that way, so it behooves us not to unnecessarily poke the bear with NATO.

Finland, who shares 1000 mile border with Russia somehow WASN'T emminent threat to Russia when it applied and recieved entry into NATO a year later, but Ukraine somehow was an emminet threat because it could join NATO in 10 years?

Finland’s situation is entirely different from Ukraine’s, and trying to conflate the two only shows how shallow your argument is.

First off, Finland and Ukraine have completely different historical relationships with Russia. Finland has had a longstanding policy of neutrality and didn’t spend the last decade cozying up to NATO or positioning itself as a staging ground for NATO military exercises. In fact, Finland had managed to maintain cordial, if not neutral, relations with Russia for decades. Finland didn’t host Western-backed coups or turn itself into a pawn in the NATO-Russia chessboard. It only applied to join NATO after Russia’s actions in Ukraine, which significantly changed the security landscape.

Finland joining NATO doesn't make it safer, it was a heedless, rash decision by its government's Russophobes and rest assure that if Finland deploys nukes or any significant ordinance in its country, it will face the same fate as Ukraine. Unlike in Finland's history of neutrality with Russia, there are now several nukes in Russia labeled "За Финляндию" ("Za Finlyandiyu" - For Finland). Not good.

Since 2014, Ukraine has been openly aligning itself with NATO, hosting military exercises, and becoming a frontline in the West’s proxy war against Russia. Ukraine was actively moving toward NATO integration and was being armed, trained, and supported by Western powers long before the full-scale invasion in 2022. That makes Ukraine an immediate threat in Russia’s eyes, because NATO wasn’t just knocking at the door it was already preparing to move in. You can’t ignore the years of NATO military involvement in Ukraine and pretend like Russia should have just sat back and waited for formal NATO membership to kick in.

The bottom line is that Finland wasn’t being used as a tool to encircle Russia before it applied to NATO. Ukraine was already deep in bed with NATO, and Russia saw the writing on the wall. That’s why Ukraine was an imminent threat and hence Russia became actively involved there, whereas Finland had maintained neutrality until the geopolitical situation recently changed. The comparison is completely disingenuous and shows your fundamental misunderstanding of the context.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Because he can't take what he wants by force, from NATO.

That's what he fears.

He doesn't tell his sheeple that

He can and he's doing it now. Idiots like you are getting their heads ripped off in Ukraine by the Russian military. That's the just desserts of spreading a Cold War dinosaur into Eastern Europe and saber rattling on Russia's border. Enjoy the outcome of your stupidity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He can and he's doing it now.

Taking from NATO? Oh, I think not. What the scared little man is doing is grabbing whatever he can by force that isn't NATO. He is under no real delusion his military would last even a month against NATO. Same reason he didn't invade Finland: They would have kicked his ass.

So he preys on the weak and defenseless. True to form.

 

[AntonToo]

Not when it's expanding into Eastern Europe and deploying its troops and hardware on Russia's border. Whatever dishonest shit you say about NATO being harmless to Russia's legitimate national security concerns, Russia doesn't see it that way, so it behooves us not to unnecessarily poke the bear with NATO.

Finland’s situation is entirely different from Ukraine’s, and trying to conflate the two only shows how shallow your argument is.

First off, Finland and Ukraine have completely different historical relationships with Russia. Finland has had a longstanding policy of neutrality and didn’t spend the last decade cozying up to NATO or positioning itself as a staging ground for NATO military exercises. In fact, Finland had managed to maintain cordial, if not neutral, relations with Russia for decades. Finland didn’t host Western-backed coups or turn itself into a pawn in the NATO-Russia chessboard. It only applied to join NATO after Russia’s actions in Ukraine, which significantly changed the security landscape.

Ooooh, so because Finland was always a western democracy and never had authoritarian Putin lakeys to overthrow then therefore NATO rockets from Finland are less dangerous to Russia. It's totally different!

Are you being serious right now? You sound soft in the head.

 

[Lesh]

G5000's:
“This is the exact same rationale Hitler used to invade the Sudetenland. And once he got away with invading Sudetenland, he invaded and captured the rest of Czechoslovakia. Sound familiar?”

No, this comparison is ridiculous and historically ignorant. The Sudetenland was part of a territorial grab by Hitler, rooted in an expansionist ideology aimed at creating a Greater Germany. What’s happening in Ukraine and Crimea is entirely different. In Crimea, the population voted in a referendum to join Russia after the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and the situation in Donbas is the result of civil war and a Western-backed Ukrainian government attacking its own Russian-speaking population.

---

G5000's:
“Wrong. Putin poisoned Yushchenko with dioxin. Fortunately, Yushchenko survived and went on to win the presidency. How do you think that made Ukrainians feel toward Russia after that?”

This response doesn’t even address your Estonia point, it’s a blatant deflection. As for the Yushchenko poisoning, there’s no definitive proof that Putin or the Kremlin were behind it. This claim has been peddled by the media, but like many of these "blame Russia" stories, it’s based more on speculation than hard evidence. Ukraine’s own investigative committees could never conclusively link the poisoning to Russia. So, trying to use this as a rhetorical tool to demonize Russia is intellectually dishonest.


G5000's response:
“It is not reckless at all. It is OBVIOUS.”

“Obvious”? That’s a non-argument. Saying something is “obvious” doesn’t make it true. In the case of the Skripal poisoning, the evidence remains circumstantial at best, and the same applies to Litvinenko. Much of what the West calls “proof” is based on political motives, not concrete forensic evidence. Russia “obviously” did it is not an argument, it’s a lazy cop-out that avoids discussing the facts.

G5000's response:
“You clearly didn't read the report. Members of Trump's campaign fed internal polling data to Russia. You are parroting a lie.”

The Mueller Report itself couldn’t establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. The “collusion” narrative was pushed hard in the media, but the final findings were inconclusive at best. Sure, there were some shady meetings, but no one from the Trump campaign was charged with colluding with Russia. Feeding polling data is shady, but it’s not some grand conspiracy. And let’s not forget that the U.S. meddles in elections worldwide, so the outrage over Russia’s alleged interference is hypocrisy at its finest.

---

G5000's:
“Because he does not allow anyone to oppose him, asshole.”

Putin is popular in Russia because he restored order after the chaos of the 1990s, when Western-backed oligarchs nearly destroyed the country. It’s easy to say he “scrambled” the election system, but Russia’s political system is no more manipulated than Western democracies, where corporate interests and lobbyists run the show. The opposition in Russia isn’t imprisoned en masse—they just don’t get the votes. The West acts like Russia’s elections are a sham, but let’s talk about the two-party system in the U.S., where voters are constantly given a “lesser of two evils” choice.



G5000's response:
“Merkel was re-elected in free and fair elections. Big difference, comrade.”

Merkel was in power for 16 years because of Germany’s political system, and no one accused her of being a dictator because she played by the Western rules. Putin’s extended tenure is based on Russia’s political realities, and while Western media loves to paint his elections as fraudulent, the fact is, he remains genuinely popular in Russia. Russia’s system allows for longer terms, so what? The West prefers to ignore that Putin’s governance brought stability after the oligarch-driven chaos of the 1990s.

Does the US government only maintain relations with democracies? Be careful how you answer that question. Think.



G5000's response:
“See? You are just like the Blame America First commie symps of the 70s and 80s. Exactly like them. Are you posting from an office that has the Russian federation flag out front?”


Nice try, but throwing out the old “Blame America First” insult doesn’t refute the point. The U.S. does silence dissent. Edward Snowden lives in exile, and Julian Assange was up to recently rotting in a prison for exposing U.S. war crimes. When the U.S. claims to be a beacon of free speech, yet jails whistleblowers, censors independent media, and crushes protests with militarized police, the hypocrisy is crystal clear. Russia is tough on opposition, but so are Western governments when their interests are threatened. The idea that the West is a pure defender of free speech is laughable when it’s obvious they silence voices inconvenient to their agendas.

Does the United States only maintain good relations with governments that aren't tough on dissidents or never crack down on them? Think before you answer that question.

---

Your emotional arguments, name-calling, and shallow historical comparisons without providing any solid facts, amount to nothing. Poop. You just deflect with tired propaganda and ad hominem attacks. It’s clear that they’re not engaging with your points but instead parroting mainstream narratives without substance.

Kremlin propaganda

Start to finish