NonCredibleDefense
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
view the rest of the comments
You're saying two different things. Him attacking Ukraine is him doing something but the only way you could read the motivation as something done to stop Ukraine joining NATO is either basing it off of what someone in the regime said (hypocritical) or projecting what you want onto the situation to square a pre-conceived narrative in your head.
There seems to have been a set of informal assurances between the US/NATO and the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward past Germany, though there were no legally binding agreements. Russia objected when NATO expanded in the 90s, and it continued objecting as more and more countries joined NATO. This isn't new, it's a clearly established pattern.
So when we get to Putin, I think his argument that NATO is being too aggressive has merit, at least from the Russian perspective. If he allows NATO to continue expanding, the Russian people would justifiably be pretty upset, so he essentially is forced to take some kind of action to show that Russia has certain lines in the sand. If he lets Ukraine, their next-door neighbor, join NATO, who would trust that he actually has any kind of power to protect Russian interests? So it makes complete sense that Putin decided to invade Ukraine for the primary purpose of preserving a line of buffer states, as well as legally justify the taking of Crimea. That sends a message to other border states that Russia will not stand by while it's regional influence is further eroded.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he was justified in attacking Ukraine, I'm merely saying he was obligated to demonstrate a show of force to retain his position of power. If he was able to get a peace agreement from Ukraine to not join NATO and to formally recognize Russian control of Crimea, I think he would've withdrawn. That didn't happen, so now he's between a rock and a hard place and needs to get significant concessions from Ukraine to retain his power in Russia.
I think you're picking when to listen to Putin to support your preconceived notion that NATO started it.
I'm looking at the history between Russia/USSR and USA/NATO and trying to see things from their perspective. I'm not saying their perspective is correct (NATO is only obligated to actual, legal contracts), just explaining how Russians see things to understand why they think they were justified in instigating a conflict.
Once you understand why your enemy is doing certain things, you can more carefully craft a peace deal that's mutually beneficial.