Hall Of Fame
Andy, here's where you're going wrong.
'Russia sees Nato expansionism into Ukraine as existential threat (which I agree with)"
I.E. you can expand a defensive organisation by countries choosing to join, but this is not the same as aggressively expanding by invading your neighbours, as has Russia. Can you see the difference?
Hall Of Fame
Why should he move to Russia just for political reasons and no other? There are many countries all over the shop who he might think have got it right, should he keep shuffling around them because you don't understand his opinion? Besides, Russia is a dump.Originally Posted by Magpies1959
Hall Of Fame
I couldn't possibly imagine why Russia is a dump.
Hall Of Fame
Never mind Corbyn, you must be furious at Boris Johnson who not only put the son of a KGB agent in the House of Lords, but has also admitted to attending unaccompanied meetings with the KGB agent himself. While he was Foreign Secretary.
In some countries he’d be slung in jail just for that.
Hall Of Fame
I suppose next to North Korea it's a paradise but you could understand why andy625 isn't living there.
Hall Of Fame
Not really, after his comments on this thread.
Hall Of Fame
Ukraine had already become a de facto member of NATO since early in its civil war. It’s forces had been armed by Nato and trained up to Nato standards since 2015. All that was missing was a formal declaration and welcoming party. Ukraine had changed its constitution post the 2013-2014 coup to explicitly join Nato, and at the Nato conference in 2008 it was announced that Ukraine would become members.
Also, Nato dropped the pretence of being a defensive organization since attacking both Serbia in 1999 and Libya in 2011. The latter campaign bombed the country back to slavery.
Much like the Monroe doctrine where America would not allow any challenges to its interests in the entire Western Hemisphere, and as most noticeably put into practice during the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, whereby America trained Cuban dissidents and flew air support for them, as well as the resultant Cuban Missile Crisis standoff, the Russians also take their national security interests on their borders very seriously. The conclusion of those particular incident were arrived at by negotiations between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. The latter agreed to withdraw from the planned nuclear missile in Cuba, and Kennedy, in secret, agreed to withdraw America nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey. This did not stop the Americans attempting countless assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, the most famous being that the CIA attempted to rig his cigars with explosives. The assassination attempts came to an end only under the direction of Jimmy Carter.
Through the decades, the Americans and Soviets worked to reduce the threats posed by the possibilities of nuclear war. These treaties worked together for two specific but interrelated purposes: to keep in place a policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and prevent an arms race from spinning out of control. The concept is this; so long as each ‘side’ does not develop weapons or ‘defensive’ system that can be used as part a nuclear ‘first strike’ that prevents the other from retaliation, then destruction is mutually assured, and each side will be deterred from attempting such a gambit. This meant that time frames from launch strikes to their impact had to remain long enough to allow the other ‘side’ to evaluate and retaliate, as well as that neither side should develop defensive systems that could, in theory or practice, intercept missile. Ie.,neither side could build a ‘missile defence’ system. This led to an important series of treaties that included the INF Treaty, the Start series of treaties, Anti Ballistic Missile Treaties, Open Skies Treaty and more. However, not wanting to be restricted by these treaties (possibly even of the chance to actually win a nuclear war), the United States has unilaterally withdrawn from almost each and every one of them (I only say ‘almost’ because I fail to think of a single one that the US hasn’t withdrawn from, but I may have forgotten one).
To the Russians, just like it did to the Americans in 1960s Cuba, this poses an existential threat. And they have said so many times. As has been observed, the Russians themselves have wanted, since the fall of the Soviet Union, cooperation with the Americans and Europe on European security arrangements. They even asked to be part of NATO on numerous occasions, but have been denied each time. To the Russians, and to this observer, the West has taken a very hostile and aggressive attitude towards Russia and Russian interests for a very long time. The West has also used Ukraine very poorly in the process. Far from being genuinely interested in Ukrainian ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, or even their simple well-being, they’ve used the Ukrainians as pawns in order advance their own interests in antagonizing Russia for their own perceived group-political purposes.
To answer a few others’ questions:
I don’t move to Russia (or North Korea, or anywhere else) because I have my home, my family, friends, work, and life here. While I do speak a little Ukrainian (half of my family is originally from western Ukraine), and by default that means a little Russian too, I’m nowhere near fluent and am far more comfortable in English. Just like many who don’t move out of England when Labour come to power, or vice-versa, my
choice of location isn’t defined by politics. That said, I have lived in several different countries for stints at a time through my life (including China), as well as travelled extensively (including Russia and Ukraine). I find that for the most part there are good people are corn holes everywhere. There are also people everywhere that take an interest in politics, and those that barely pay attention. I also notice that the quality of main stream media is by and large poor everywhere, but that generally people are somewhat better informed in the east than in the west. Perhaps it’s because western media has developed spin and deception into a science better so than in the east (and that goes for both publicly owned broadcaster or the privately owned (cough) ‘free and independent media’. Or perhaps it’s because our investment in ‘information wars’ are so much higher. Or last, it may be that the cost of a quality education in the west has become so expensive, that those who aren’t from the moneyed classes now tend to spend it on getting trained for vocations rather than on developing critical thinking skills, so fewer and fewer people are ‘calling bull****.’ Take the pipeline bombings as one instance, for example. Are there any mainstream western publications that even mention the possibility that the Americans are the culprits? I can barely find a single line dedicated to the most obvious conclusion.
Some interesting but highly accessible sources for those genuinely interested in the topic:
The late professor Stephen Cohen (Princeton and NYU) on American-Russian relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the lead up to the Ukraine crisis:
(He starts speaking at 3 minutes in)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUj3Vqptx8&t=1050s
Professor Cohen interviewed by Aaron Maté on the Maidan coup and Trump’s ‘Russiagate’:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bpASSqz1hGc
Former Swiss intelligence officer Jacques Baud, who worked for NATO in Ukraine during the civil war, discusses the civil war and the immediate lead up to the Russian invasion:
https://www.thepostil.com/the-milita...n-the-ukraine/
Chaz Freedman, American former assistant to the secretary of defense and diplomat, interviewed by Aaron Maté on the lead up to war and how the western media has falsely portrayed the war during its first month:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0vxufUeqnuc
RAND report that advises the US to destabilize Russia by providing lethal aid to Ukraine (see p.4). Note for those who don’t know: The RAND Corporation is an American think tank that offers offer research and analysis to the United States Armed Forces. It is financed by the U.S. government and private endowment, corporations, universities and private individuals.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...ND_RB10014.pdf
Edit: we only intend to gig locally. But if a kind benefactor would fund us to take the show to Russia, I would gladly reconsider.
Last edited by andy6025; 03-10-2022 at 04:17 AM.
Hall Of Fame
Of all the places you could brainlessly regurgitate Putin's ridiculous lies and propaganda, why a football forum?
Putin's the one who destabilised Russia by invading Ukraine with zero justification, losing the war, and implementing conscription instead of just pulling out. A series of unforced errors.
Putin is the cause of Russia's problems, not NATO. Did NATO tell him to invade? Did NATO tell him to dig his heels in after he lost? Russia's national best interests can now only be served by removing him from power, giving back every last postage stamp of Ukrainian land they've stolen, returning the kidnapped Ukrainians and paying reparations. Then and only then can the sanctions be negotiated.
Failing to undertake any of those steps will lead Russia into economic and technological oblivion likely leading to the breakup of (what is left of) the Russian state.
Hall Of Fame
One thing is certain Jampie, and that is you can't trust the yanks to do ANYTHING that isn't in their own interest, they started during the war and been improving their tactics ever since.
The whole country is geared up to pursue the mighty dollar at all costs. Make more profit than the next guy or go under. It's how they are brought up and anyone who thinks the capitalist system might be wrong is a commie bas tard.
Hall Of Fame
I know a bunch of Americans, some of them are like that indeed, but most have much higher ideals.
Still, nothing to do with the mess Putin's made for himself in Ukraine is it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote