Reply With Quote... what gives Russia the right to think that they can have non NATO buffer states next to their border?
Hall Of Fame
Funny how the soft left in Europe and America have fell into bed with neo nazis https://asawinstanley.substack.com/p...ly-whitewashes
Hall Of Fame
... what gives Russia the right to think that they can have non NATO buffer states next to their border?
Hall Of Fame
Just trying to put some context t some of Putins abhorrent decisions really. I just think that what he said about reaching out to talk and settling things held some serious truth, as supported by RFK saying that a peace deal was close before Biden sent Johnson in to scupper the deal.
By no means is Putin a fair or completely honest guy….he’s a cretin, albeit a pretty intelligent and powerful one, but not much worse than our governments. Incarcerating and vilifying people for telling the truth and invading and destabilising countries based upon complete fabrications.
Putins interview was a very interesting one, has anyone from the west come out to counter what he has said?
Hall Of Fame
Exactly. They would have non NATO buffer states next to their border if those states didn't feel threatened. If their invasion of Ukraine succeeds they'll find a handful of NATO countries next to their border. The number of NATO countries on Russia's borders has increased as a direct response to fear of Russian expansionism.Originally Posted by TheBlackHorse
Hall Of Fame
I've only read summaries including those from Poland. If he were British he would be sending troops to re-establish the British Empire on the basis that it really should be his. If he were Roman he'd be sending troops to re-establish the Roman Empire. Unfortunately he seems to be backed by generals etc who lament the loss of the USSR and wish to re-establish it.
It astounds me that Hungary have a PM who, despite being in a NATO country, seems to be a Putin supporter whilst I still recall the TV images of tanks rolling into Budapest to crush any thoughts Hungarians had of leaving the Warsaw Pact and aligning with the West. Must have been another "special military operation".
Hall Of Fame
Hi TSANHO if you send me your address in private I will send some armed men to take over and occupy as much of your property as I can. After that I might let you have some back, in fact we can hold talks about what I get to keep, because I'm a very reasonable man. Sound good?
That is quite an understatement.
That is debatable, but exactly what he wants you to think. Trying to find the truth is so hard, it takes time, it's exhausting, so many competing views. Easier to say everyone is more or less the same because if nothing is particularly good or particularly bad, then nothing really matters.
Ah but we can vote them out when they do that, so they go away after a while. In Russia you can't do that and there are many many other things that really aren't the same, no matter how much you squint.
Out of curiosity what did you find most interesting?
Hall Of Fame
Estonia are so unconcerned about their Russian neighbours that they’ve given €500m to Ukraine in military aid, 1.4% of GDP. And they’ve proposed that all Western nations agree to 0.25% annually.
https://news.err.ee/1609222386/eston...western-states
Seems like nato membership isn’t enough.
But obviously consumers of ropey podcasts and dodgy tv channels in the UK know better than the actual people who live on Putin’s doorstep.
First Team
I don't mean to pick on this comment or on TSANHO in particular, but there's a trend or pattern which seems to be everywhere you look at the moment. It's the 'everyone is as bad as each other' or 'everyone lies' or 'they're all the same' argument. As an argument, it can have a certain appeal... cynicism is always easier; it can feel like you're making up your own mind; and there's usually a grain of truth in it, because we're dealing with real people and the real world rather than goodies and baddies and heroes and villains.
But I think it's a dangerous and seductive and potentially lazy position to adopt, and it's one that propagandists exploit to the fullest.
If as a propagandist, you can't defend the indefensible, all you have to do is to persuade enough people that the other lot are just as bad, or that everyone's at it, or that there's no such thing as facts. Plenty of examples of this, but my personal unfavourite was the desperate attempt at damage limitation after Partygate by repeatedly trying to claim that Starmer was guilty of the same thing. In the US, the Trumpists do this all the time.
Sometimes it's true that all sides in any given dispute are genuinely as bad as each other, but that needs to be an earned conclusion after weighing everything up... not what it often is, which is a kind of surrender to cynicism when faced with arguments that need careful thought and evaluation, rather than just surrendering to false equivalence. It's only balance when the facts and the arguments are balanced.
I try to be very careful with any source pushing (or trying to get me to conclude) that they're all as bad as each other, because usually it's just an attempt to muddy the waters and try to persuade people to give up and fall back on cynicism.
Hall Of Fame
What was RFK's source on that?
Hall Of Fame
A few people in this thread have indicated that they believe that Russia’s invasion had nothing to do with NATO encroachment into Ukraine.
However I would remind them that Zelensky, president of Ukraine,
Jens Stoltenberg, the president of NATO, and members of Ukraine’s negotiating team, including their chief negotiator Davyd Arakhamia have publicly stated their disagreement by confirming that Ukrainian neutrality vis-a-vis NATO is the primary reason for Russia’s “special military operation.”
In the video linked to the article below, dated March 22, 2022, Zelenskyy is shown saying,
“Security guarantees and neutrality, non-nuclear status of our state. We are ready to go for it. This is the most important point. It was the main point for the Russian Federation as far as I can remember. And if I remember correctly this is why they started the war… I understand it’s impossible to force Russia completely from Ukrainian territory. It would lead to World War Three. I understand it and that is why I am talking about a compromise. Go back to where it all began. And then we will try to solve the Donbas issue, the complicated Donbas issue.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ts-2022-03-27/
On Sept 7, 2023, Jan’s Stoltenburg gave a speech to the European Union parliament in which he admitted that NATO enlargement was the primary reason for Russia’s invasion. He said,
The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-...Mog&format=amp
Furthermore, there were peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in March or 2022, the month following the start of the invasion. While the negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful, several members of the Ukrainian negotiating team, including their chief negotiator, Davyd Arakhamia, has admitted that Ukrainian neutrality vis-a-vis NATO was clearly Putin’s primary objective in negotiations. In an interview with Natalia Moseichuk on Ukrainian State tv, he said:
“They really hoped almost to the last moment that they would force us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. It was the most important thing for them. They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to, – as Finland once did, – neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO.
In fact, this was the key point. Everything else was simply rhetoric and political ‘seasoning’ about denazification, the Russian-speaking population and blah-blah-blah."
One may argue whether or not sovereign nations have the right to join their own defensive alliances unhindered - it’s certainly a fair debate. But what I find to be a more pertinent question is whether or not the leadership of certain NATO member states (namely the United States) rightly predicted that Ukraine’s path to NATO would lead to a Russian invasion, and if so, was that their intended outcome? I think certain evidence points to ‘yes’, although I’m open to hearing evidence that they were completely surprised by the result.
Posting Permissions