I've read it. Some sources in there are interesting, but the material itself is completely disconnected from reality. In the sociopathic game of geopolitics, NATO expansion has certainly destabilized the balance of power and incentivized Russia to assert itself (and its claim on its former colonies). But you cannot compare countries forging military alliances, and a country invading another country... it's a completely different kind of escalation.

If anything, your article confirms that Putin is a colonialist bully just as much as NATO is in other parts of the world. It's just russian propaganda and does not account for mischief and imperialist ambitions on the part of Russia. If you want a more nuanced source, i'd recommend checking out Glenn Greewald's Twitter feed: it does a great job to denounce the hypocrisy of western powers, while at the same time acknowledging that invading a sovereign nation is always wrong, no matter what.

[+] TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] ArchimedesTesseract@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Putin's actions, not words, have convinced me. No one has invaded Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine. You cannot talk fast enough to change the facts.

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You are okay with NATO invading Russia and surrounding it with Aegis missile system

I'm not OK with either. But NATO did not invade Russia and AFAIK is not planning to. There is zero evidence to believe

Russia protecting Donbas citizens from Ukraine

I have no problems with that. But that's not what's happening: there is a full-scale invasion going on threatening the capital of Ukraine, where Putin's demands go far beyond independence for Donbass.

To you, Zelensky, who has a 25% approval rate and jailed the democratically elected Poroshenko and banning opposition media

What the hell are you talking about? I may be missing some details, but Poroshenko's wikipedia page does not mention incarceration, but mentions losing in the elections to Zelensky. To quote the article:

There was no true consensus (...) why Poroshenko lost (...) [:] opposition to intensifying nationalism, failure to stem corruption, dissatisfaction of overlooked Russian-speaking regions with his presidency (...) He is considered an oligarch due to the scale of his business holdings in the manufacturing, agriculture and financial sectors, his political influence that included several stints at government prior to his presidency, and ownership of an influential mass-media outlet. (...) His presidency was distilled into a three-word slogan, employed by both supporters and opponents: armiia, mova, vira. In translation from Ukrainian, it is: military, language, faith.

I'm not saying Zelensky is much better, but you seem to be ardent to defend an actual bourgeois fascist whose slogan is "military, language, faith" and inventing conspiracies around him? I mean if you do have reliable sources contradicting this Wikipedia article, please help improve it.

Or is it selective Cold War bias going on?

Yes there's selective cold war propaganda going on. And you're fully subscribed to one side of it. I personally am very critical of both sides of the propaganda, and supportive of the civilians and internationalist socialists/communists/anarchists suffering due to political repression on both sides of the border. As much as you dismiss Greenwald, he's doing a correct journalistic job on this topic: he's presenting the lies from both sides and supporting the victims (the populations). You're just a puppet of the Russian Empire. Which side are you on? Are you on the same side as Putin and NATO and other vampires playing the same game of geopolitics? Or are you on the side of the people who struggle against oppression and aim for self-organization at all levels of society?