10
Putin Moves to Escalate War in Ukraine With Talks at Dead End
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
10 points (85.7% liked)
World News
41652 readers
61 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Ah yeah, now he's playing a victim
huh?
Putin is playing the victim. Did you read the article you submitted?
Yeah, I did, where is anybody playing the victim?
Holy fuck. Did you read the comment you just replied to?
I sure did. Nobody is playing a victim here. What's happening is that Russia has identified NATO as a direct participant in the war and is planning to retaliate in kind.
What war? Keep going, you're almost there.
The proxy war NATO intentionally provoked as was extensively documented in US policy papers such as this one https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Ah yes, a RAND report listing hypothetical US policy options two years before the UNPROVOKED RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE is apparently the same thing as NATO personally forcing Putin to do it. By that logic, reading a menu means you cooked the meal. The report may discuss escalation risks, but it doesn't even suggest that NATO caused Russia’s aggression, much less turn the aggressor into the victim like we see here.
I bolded the correct answer to "what war" up there for ya, since I don't think you were ever going to get there.
The paper literally describes how and why the war was provoked. Maybe spend a bit of time learning to read so as not to make a clown of yourself in public in the future.
The paper written in 2019 describes how the invasion in 2022 was provoked?
Not sure what part of premeditated action confuses you here. The paper describes how and why the war was provoked, and the benefits the strategic US expected to see from it.
And of course, the RAND paper isn't the only document. Here's an article from August 2021 advocating inflicting a military defeat on Russia in Ukraine to subjugate it and draw it away from China. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/strategy-avoiding-two-front-war-192137
Furthermore, the idea that NATO threatens Russia doesn't even come from Russia. Plenty of western experts have been saying this for many decades, as anybody who's not an utter ignoramus would know. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
And even mainstream western media such as The Hill now openly admits the facts https://thehill.com/opinion/5198022-ukraine-conflict-disinformation
All of this is well documented and well known. Only a person of deep and profound ignorance would attempt to argue otherwise.
The report was published in 2019, after Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014. It discusses escalation risks; it does not say Russia was entitled to invade then, nor in 2022, nor does it transfer responsibility for Putin’s decisions to NATO. Try reading the dates as well as the adjectives.
Yes, the plan was published before the events happened. That's how plans work, you make them before you execute them.
Meanwhile, The Hill article explains how easy it is to manipulate people of low intellect using propaganda:
I understand why you're so upset though. After all, you undoubtedly support the regime in Ukraine because of your shared values.
I bet Andrii Biletskyi, commander of Ukraine’s Third Army Corps who just got awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine, a presidential decree is your role model.
A RAND report discussing hypothetical ways to pressure Russia is not evidence that the U.S. secretly planned and initiated Russia’s invasion. An opinion article by one strategist in 2021 is not a declaration of NATO policy. Chomsky, Kennan, Matlock, and a 1997 open letter can all argue that NATO expansion was strategically unwise without establishing that Ukraine forfeited its sovereignty or that Putin was compelled to invade.
You’re also confusing "this policy might provoke a reaction" with "the reaction was caused by the policy and is therefore justified." Those are not the same sentence, no matter how much links you attach to them.
Ukraine forfeited sovereignty all the way back in 2014 when the democratically elected government was overthrown by the west to install the current fascist regime you support. Also, you're the only one talking about any justifying. I'm simply pointing out the basic facts of the situation and that the war was provoked. Talking about justifications is a moral argument which I'm not making. But if you had any morals at all you obviously wouldn't align with literal fascists.
There it is. Glad we found the position you're working from.
Yeah, the position of having facts on my side.
The paper written in 2019 describes how the invasion in 2022 ~~was~~ is to be provoked?
Yes, that is how linear time works and pretending not to understand that is not a super credible look. If this was a pre-war Russian policy paper detailing ways to overextend NATO, you would immediately and miraculously be able to draw the connection here.
The report was published in 2019, after Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014. It discusses escalation risks; it does not say Russia was entitled to invade, nor does it transfer responsibility for Putin’s decisions to NATO. Try reading the dates as well as the adjectives.
Man this is like a grand slam of deflection and avoidance. Are you also one of those people who think the Ukranian puppet government is winning the war?