The low-IQ framing of the Ukraine vs Russia war as "Jews vs Gentiles" or "Jews vs Christians" is asinine nonsense from the meme-brigade of conspiratards.
Who cares what some schizo anons say (if they even exist and are not the product of your imagination, or you yourself, or other neocon shills trying to discredit their opposition) ?
The war is the product of U.S. aggression towards Russia.
Read Mearsheimer (or Cohen since you mentioned him).
There was a persistent U.S. policy (going back to 2004 at least) towards integrating Ukraine into the Western security system, along with the corresponding Ukrainian policy pursued by the pro western part of the political system there (note that this policy was going against the will of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians, with only about 20% of them wanting to become part of NATO according to numerous western polls)
Russia had a very strong incentive to prevent such an eventuality as otherwise it would lose its only warm sea port in Crimea, it would witness the reversal of the outcome of two Crimean wars, it would lose the ability to protect the rights of millions of ethnic Russian who would have found themselves stranded behing U.S. military lines under a regime that considers them lesser Ukrainians and fifth columnists.
Not to mention the security implications of Ukraine's transformation from a huge buffer, to a 40 million strong NATO state at this geographic position.
Asking for Russia to just sit on its hands and smile politely while this development was taking place would be asking too much - so we got a response, tactically offensive to be sure, but strategically defensive and provoked by the strategically offensive U.S. policy.
Putin in 2002 on Ukraine-NATO relations: "I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners." http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598
NATO chief Robertson on Putin: "at no point did he raise in a negative way the enlargement of NATO".
2001: GW Bush welcomes Putin to the White House, cooperation established in the war on terror. Russia aids US invasion of Afghanistan.
2008: Obama runs on "Russia is not our enemy", does the "Russian reset" policy, tells Medvedev he will continue cooperating with Russia.
2014: Russia invades Crimea and Donbass with rebels. US response is light sanctions and non-lethal aid to Ukraine. Poroshenko to US congress: "We can't defeat Russia with blankets"
2016: Trump runs on "Russia is our friend, I get along with Putin". Trump was the most pro-Putin president, continues to supply Ukraine with only non-lethal aid, javelins were "not to be used in the conflict zone".
Ukraine is still not a member of NATO to this day.
None of that is "aggression". The only aggression here is from Russia against Ukraine.
Giving me 8 random events, then saying that they were not 'aggression', concluding that, therefore, there was no 'aggression', is extreme aggression towards human logos.
I made a coherent comment, you fashion yourself as an expert ukrainewarologist, is this your reply?
Nothing you mentioned was aggression. Not taking Ukraine's NATO membership off the table is not aggression. Putin himself said he expected Ukraine to grow closer to NATO and didn't disapprove in 2002. I showed that consecutive US governments had been very soft on Russia, even cooperating with Russia (Bush, Obama's Russian reset, Trump's pro-Putinism). So the suggestion that the US was bullying Russia around for the past 20 years is nonsense.
The only aggression that we see in this situation is Russia against Ukraine.
I stated something clearly in my previous-to-last comment and I will state it again for a second time. Then I will reframe and restate it for a third.
1.
The U.S., along with pro-western political leaders in Ukraine, initiated (going back to 2004, at least) a persistent policy towards integrating Ukraine into NATO.
2.
This brought Russia in a position where it had to chose whether to allow Ukraine's ascension into NATO (the Ukrainian people were overwhelmingly opposed to NATO membership, btw), or to block it through an intervension similar to the one we saw in 2014.
3.
Russia unsurprisingly dedided to do the second, as any country and any leader would probably have done after a simple cost/benefit calculation of the dilemma.
Thus, we say that the U.S. decided to revise the status quo in a way adverse to Russian security interests -technically this would be called strategic aggression- and Russia responded to prevent this outcome -this would be called a provoked, strategically defensive reaction.
(The above paragraph is about semantics. If you don't want to call U.S. strategic aggression "U.S. strategic aggression" then you can call it "U.S.'s policy of bringing Ukraine into NATO". And if you don't want to call Russia's defensive response "Russia's defensive response" then you can call it "Russia's actions to prevent Ukraine's entry into NATO".)
Now let me, for a third time, state the above in a more focused, clear and to-the-point way, in the form of a question to you:
What would you have wanted for Russia to have done in the face of NATO expansion to Ukraine?
If the Kremlin were to summon you, say in 2008, before or after the Bucharest summit, and tell you:
"Martinez, these people want to make Ukraine part of NATO. You're into geopolitics, you're into strategy, what should we do to protect our security interests? Give us a policy, give us contingency plans, tell us our options."
What would you tell them?
Or say Putin were to call you up on the 23d of February 2014, give you 10 million dollars for your trouble, and bring you to the Kremlin for strategic consultations.
Strawmaning.
Who cares what some schizo anons say (if they even exist and are not the product of your imagination, or you yourself, or other neocon shills trying to discredit their opposition) ?
The war is the product of U.S. aggression towards Russia.
Read Mearsheimer (or Cohen since you mentioned him).
> US aggression towards Russia
Name this "act of aggression".
There was a persistent U.S. policy (going back to 2004 at least) towards integrating Ukraine into the Western security system, along with the corresponding Ukrainian policy pursued by the pro western part of the political system there (note that this policy was going against the will of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians, with only about 20% of them wanting to become part of NATO according to numerous western polls)
Russia had a very strong incentive to prevent such an eventuality as otherwise it would lose its only warm sea port in Crimea, it would witness the reversal of the outcome of two Crimean wars, it would lose the ability to protect the rights of millions of ethnic Russian who would have found themselves stranded behing U.S. military lines under a regime that considers them lesser Ukrainians and fifth columnists.
Not to mention the security implications of Ukraine's transformation from a huge buffer, to a 40 million strong NATO state at this geographic position.
Asking for Russia to just sit on its hands and smile politely while this development was taking place would be asking too much - so we got a response, tactically offensive to be sure, but strategically defensive and provoked by the strategically offensive U.S. policy.
Let's see,
1997 Russia-NATO founding act.
Putin in 2002 on Ukraine-NATO relations: "I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners." http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598
NATO chief Robertson on Putin: "at no point did he raise in a negative way the enlargement of NATO".
2001: GW Bush welcomes Putin to the White House, cooperation established in the war on terror. Russia aids US invasion of Afghanistan.
2008: Obama runs on "Russia is not our enemy", does the "Russian reset" policy, tells Medvedev he will continue cooperating with Russia.
2014: Russia invades Crimea and Donbass with rebels. US response is light sanctions and non-lethal aid to Ukraine. Poroshenko to US congress: "We can't defeat Russia with blankets"
2016: Trump runs on "Russia is our friend, I get along with Putin". Trump was the most pro-Putin president, continues to supply Ukraine with only non-lethal aid, javelins were "not to be used in the conflict zone".
Ukraine is still not a member of NATO to this day.
None of that is "aggression". The only aggression here is from Russia against Ukraine.
Giving me 8 random events, then saying that they were not 'aggression', concluding that, therefore, there was no 'aggression', is extreme aggression towards human logos.
I made a coherent comment, you fashion yourself as an expert ukrainewarologist, is this your reply?
Nothing you mentioned was aggression. Not taking Ukraine's NATO membership off the table is not aggression. Putin himself said he expected Ukraine to grow closer to NATO and didn't disapprove in 2002. I showed that consecutive US governments had been very soft on Russia, even cooperating with Russia (Bush, Obama's Russian reset, Trump's pro-Putinism). So the suggestion that the US was bullying Russia around for the past 20 years is nonsense.
The only aggression that we see in this situation is Russia against Ukraine.
I stated something clearly in my previous-to-last comment and I will state it again for a second time. Then I will reframe and restate it for a third.
1.
The U.S., along with pro-western political leaders in Ukraine, initiated (going back to 2004, at least) a persistent policy towards integrating Ukraine into NATO.
2.
This brought Russia in a position where it had to chose whether to allow Ukraine's ascension into NATO (the Ukrainian people were overwhelmingly opposed to NATO membership, btw), or to block it through an intervension similar to the one we saw in 2014.
3.
Russia unsurprisingly dedided to do the second, as any country and any leader would probably have done after a simple cost/benefit calculation of the dilemma.
Thus, we say that the U.S. decided to revise the status quo in a way adverse to Russian security interests -technically this would be called strategic aggression- and Russia responded to prevent this outcome -this would be called a provoked, strategically defensive reaction.
(The above paragraph is about semantics. If you don't want to call U.S. strategic aggression "U.S. strategic aggression" then you can call it "U.S.'s policy of bringing Ukraine into NATO". And if you don't want to call Russia's defensive response "Russia's defensive response" then you can call it "Russia's actions to prevent Ukraine's entry into NATO".)
Now let me, for a third time, state the above in a more focused, clear and to-the-point way, in the form of a question to you:
What would you have wanted for Russia to have done in the face of NATO expansion to Ukraine?
If the Kremlin were to summon you, say in 2008, before or after the Bucharest summit, and tell you:
"Martinez, these people want to make Ukraine part of NATO. You're into geopolitics, you're into strategy, what should we do to protect our security interests? Give us a policy, give us contingency plans, tell us our options."
What would you tell them?
Or say Putin were to call you up on the 23d of February 2014, give you 10 million dollars for your trouble, and bring you to the Kremlin for strategic consultations.
What would you advise him to do?
Do nothing and allow Ukraine to enter Nato?