Current Events > Cornel West blames US, NATO for 'provoking' Russian invasion of Ukraine

(+) Yeah! (+)

if Ukraine quits and gives up, what do you think is gonna happen?
is the coming oocupation gonna be all sunshine and roses, and they all lived happily ever after?

There's no logical inconsistency in the position whatsoever. Being provoked (assuming for the sake of argument that's true), doesn't justify a response. Both the provocation and response can be condemned without contradiction. Even if NATO made Putin mad, that doesn't give him carte blanche to respond however he'd like with moral impunity.

You can debate if West is right or wrong, but saying "NATO bad" is not the same thing as saying "Russia good," objectively speaking. "NATO bad" and "Russia bad" is perfectly possible.

Saying NATO is bad is a moronic take.

Its toxic. No better than the far right.

No. There is. It's a defensive treaty, and you're basically saying it's NATO'd fault that they attacked Ukraine. The only logic that makes this work is if you're saying without NATO other countries would be attacked which is good because Russia wouldn't be attacking Ukraine. It's fucking stupid as hell.

I don't think any imperialist country would like any defensive or offensive alliance specifically geared against them to get that close to them, no matter how justified the desire for protection. That's the key here. The US probably wouldn't react well if Mexico or Cuba decided to join such an alliance.

It's like a an abuser getting mad and attacking his partner because his partner called the cops out of fear of attack. It doesn't justify the abuser's attack and the abuser is causing the issues he'll have with the cops. But the abuser is right that he's not gonna have a good time with the cops and the cop would do the same thing, were he in the abusers shoes.

American progressives calling themselves "leftists" when they're not on the left at all annoys me, so I was pointing out what things look like, for better or worse, on the actual left.

It really just depends on whether or not you're pro-western imperialism in the world today. Nato and the US have done everything russia is doing today to other small countries, and have caused the death of millions, and the displacements of many many more millions as well as the destabilization of entire regions for the sake of pillaging resources and selling weapons.

It's perfectly fine to look at nato, russia, and the us, and conclude they're all shitheads.

It really just depends on whether or not you're pro-western imperialism in the world today. Nato and the US have done everything russia is doing today to other small countries, and have caused the death of millions, and the displacements of many many more millions as well as the destabilization of entire regions for the sake of pillaging resources and selling weapons.

It's perfectly fine to look at nato, russia, and the us, and conclude they're all shitheads.

No. There is. It's a defensive treaty, and you're basically saying it's NATO'd fault that they attacked Ukraine. The only logic that makes this work is if you're saying without NATO other countries would be attacked which is good because Russia wouldn't be attacking Ukraine. It's fucking stupid as hell.

Sorry still not following you - are you saying West is on the left but not progressive, and that the "actual left" doesn't allow dissent? The people cited criticizing him aren't "on the left" as as I know...

If Mexico and Cuba did, I wouldn't be happy, no, but my response wouldn't be to attack Jamaica as a result of it.

Ah, the Putin simp speaks

NATO is a defensive treaty. It has done none of the things you speak of. Lie more.

Oh really? When was the last time that the US or a NATO country invaded a country, publicly questioned their right to exist, and then annexed territory as their own without care for local wishes?

Spoiler, you have to go back to well before NATO existed for that to have been the case. Complain all you want about our various overseas excursions over the decades, be that Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or someplace else. I don't recall us ever annexing territories or questioning the inherent right of a nation to exist in any of our lifetimes.

Nato is a part of us hegemony and has played roles in destroying both Afghanistan and Iraq. They're all the same side, so they take credit in destroying Libya, and the current settler colonial project in israel.

Really being pro nato is just being pro the same kind of oppressor as russia is, but it's because it's your side, and those are your people, your race, your culture, etc.

Complain all you want about our various overseas excursions over the decades, be that Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or someplace else. I don't recall us ever annexing territories or questioning the inherent right of a nation to exist in any of our lifetimes.

Spoiler, you have to go back to well before NATO existed for that to have been the case. Complain all you want about our various overseas excursions over the decades, be that Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or someplace else. I don't recall us ever annexing territories or questioning the inherent right of a nation to exist in any of our lifetimes.

You dont have any clue what NATO is.

It's a combination of armies by US vassal states.

Thanks for proving me right and yourself wrong

Arguing about the overall goodness or suckiness of NATO in Ukraine invasion discourse is extremely sus.

Uhuh.

I think it's extremely sus to bar criticism, even incorrect or ignorant criticism of a powerful military entity involved in a war. That's an incredibly dangerous precedent to set.

I watched the video in the OP. The guy's words are spot on.

Cringe. NATO is a mutual treaty organization not an army. Stop spreading lies and simping for Putin.

If I'm a putin simp for saying the same Cornel West is saying, then he's also a putin simp, and so are many others who share his opinion.

Lol yes!

I think it's extremely sus to bar criticism, even incorrect or ignorant criticism of a powerful military entity involved in a war. That's an incredibly dangerous precedent to set.

Oh hey, an internet person who thinks anyone with any nuance in his opinion has to automatically be the opposite extreme of his position. Never seen that before.

You're a us military industrial complex simp.

Youre simping for an actual invasion and pretending other people are the military industrial complex simps ahahahahaha

Criticism of a treaty is not being barred, its just being rightfully mocked.

Ukraine doesn't want to get invaded
Wants to join NATO to avoid being invaded
Russia doesn't want Ukraine to be in NATO
Invades Ukraine before they can be in NATO, demonstrating why they wanted to be in NATO

Some weird guy on the internet: "If you think about it, it's actually kinda NATO's fault they got invaded"

It's not merely a treaty, it's a military alliance. And that post was clearly meant to cast doubt on anyone who questions the doings of a military alliance during a war that alliance is involved in. I reject that premise fundamentally, even during WW2 fighting the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese, the US military and the allies were not and should not have been beyond questioning.

Where did I simp for the invasion?

So you have no proof and are a liar. Thanks, and welcome to my ignore list just as soon as I figure out how to get you in there.

NATO can be imperialist and evil while, at the same time, it's anti-imperialist for states like the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia to want to join. It's easy to blame NATO, and I'm sure there are some war hawks who are happy escalating tensions. But it's also easy to forget that Ukraine has its own agency and for them joining NATO is a way to escape/fight back against Russian imperialism. Which they're well within their right to do

NATO can be imperialist and evil while, at the same time, it's anti-imperialist for states like the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia to want to join. It's easy to blame NATO, and I'm sure there are some war hawks who are happy escalating tensions. But it's also easy to forget that Ukraine has its own agency and for them joining NATO is a way to escape/fight back against Russian imperialism. Which they're well within their right to do

Yeah, I can agree with that. It's just that some of the idiots you encounter online seem to think that pointing this obvious fact out is some kind of sin.

It's a combination of armies by US vassal states.

Can you dispute anything I said there? Should military alliances, even military alliances facing evil and overwhelmingly in the right in a particular conflict be beyond questioning? Is is inherently suspicious to question them?