@kevcvs57 saidI already presented a "rational contemporary argument against NATO" i.e. that it is an aggressive military alliance serving the interests of neocons who are primarily interested in Western worldwide domination. It's excursions into Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere prove that.
Your 70yr old posturing about what weak and invaded countries did when caught between two merciless empire building monsters proves the worth of NATO more than anything I could drag up. Clearly you do not have a rational contemporary argument against the existence of NATO.
“ Poland waged wars against Ukraine and Russia right after WWI.”
Your sinking to new depths of dece ...[text shortened]... ty movement started by the trade unions of the Gdańsk shipyard.
Clear to see which side you were on
Don't cry about 50 years of "subjugation" while ignoring why that "subjugation" came about. I wonder how long the US and the UK would insist on friendly regimes in neighboring countries after a war that killed approximately 20% of its population that those country assisted an invader.
You really do need a history lesson, but since I'm unwilling to pay for your education, I'll simply give a couple of Wikipedia links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Ukrainian_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War
If you bother to read both, you'll find that Poland was the military aggressor in both. Further study might yield the information that Poland refused to consider a proposed transit of Soviet troops to add Czechslovakia during the Sudeten crisis, grabbed a piece of that nation in support of the Nazis later the same year and were unwilling to accept any Soviet military aid even when faced with imminent invasion by Hitler. The USSR's unwillingness to accept a hostile Polish State in the aftermath of WWII should be seen in its historical context rather than as "proof" of some innate aggressive characteristic of Russians generally that the West has to guard against by pushing military bases to its doorstep.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou really are Russophile huh!
I already presented a "rational contemporary argument against NATO" i.e. that it is an aggressive military alliance serving the interests of neocons who are primarily interested in Western worldwide domination. It's excursions into Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere prove that.
Don't cry about 50 years of "subjugation" while ignoring why that "subjugation" ...[text shortened]... of Russians generally that the West has to guard against by pushing military bases to its doorstep.
They oppressed and subjugated Eastern Europe for 50 yrs but you still think that they should get to do it again to the great grandchildren of the people of Europe that suffered two massive armies crashing through their countries.
NATO is not an aggressive alliance, you keep harping on about Yugoslavia, that mission was sanctioned by the UN in order to stop Russian backed Serbs from committing actual genocide against the Bosnian Muslim population, I take it you were hiding behind the sofa when they showed us the death camps, that is exactly what Putin will bring back to Eastern Europe if NATO does not stop him.
Any thoughts on the suppression of Chechnya or the massacres of civilians by the Russian Air Force in Syria using chemical weapons and cluster bombs?
It’s time to choose between Russian autocracy and European democracy, I’ll be watching next time you crack on about Donald trump being a threat to democracy, you No1 are a hypocrite of the highest order.
WWII happened because people like you kept excusing Hitler’s land grabs and aggressions until it was too late to stop him short of all out war. If it wasn’t for people like you Operation Barbarossa would never have commenced but here you are again wringing your hands and making excuses for a tyrant.
@kevcvs57 saidIt's not worth discussing this any further with such a purveyor of hysterical nonsense and one so willing to outright lie about the positions of others.
You really are Russophile huh!
They oppressed and subjugated Eastern Europe for 50 yrs but you still think that they should get to do it again to the great grandchildren of the people of Europe that suffered two massive armies crashing through their countries.
NATO is not an aggressive alliance, you keep harping on about Yugoslavia, that mission was sanctioned by the UN in ...[text shortened]... uld never have commenced but here you are again wringing your hands and making excuses for a tyrant.
If you get your way and cooler heads don't prevail, we're all likely to sifting out from a nuclear ash heap.
1 edit
Another good article for those who wish to look at this matter rationally and not with the cartoonish viewpoints of a shallow blue or kev:
" People of goodwill should instead be thinking about a means to let Russia and Ukraine both save face, end the war, and reach an agreement that accommodates each side’s core interests: Ukraine’s insistence on its independence and sovereignty and Russia’s entirely predictable fears of an encroaching NATO alliance and concern for ethnic Russians in its near-abroad. "
https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/05/do-we-want-small-wars-or-world-wars/
Russian demands:
"Dmitry Peskov [Kremlin spokesman] said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/
Is this a basis for negotiation? The Crimea has been in Russian hands since 2014, while most of Donetsk and Lugansk have been held by separatists since then. If it avoids a full occupation of the Ukraine (with the tens of thousands of death that is sure to result in) and allows the 1.5 million refugees to return, could that be the best result possible, at least in the short term?
Maybe Putin gets overthrown or a post-Putin Russia could be pressured into accepting a re-negotiation of terms down the line. Of course, there'd have to be some kind of mutual ceasefire and possibly internationally observed plebiscites in the areas in question.
Thoughts?
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@no1marauder saidCertainly a good idea to allow the
Russian demands:
"Dmitry Peskov [Kremlin spokesman] said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-mom ...[text shortened]... ceasefire and possibly internationally observed plebiscites in the areas in question.
Thoughts?
parties involved (especially Putin),
an opportunity to save face. At times in history,
leaders have stubbornly, dug in their heels, when
actually a solution was available. WW I is a good example.
I believe both sides would welcome a cease fire while
diplomatic efforts sort things out............I, too, welcome your thoughts.
3 edits
@no1marauder saidThe territorial demands are essentially facts on the ground, so are not inherently unreasonable. The demand that Ukraine "cease military action" is pretty laughable, given that its recent military action has been defensive to stave off or fight Russian aggression. But again, words are cheap. If they want Ukraine to promise not to attack Russia, that seems a pretty easy promise to make.
Russian demands:
"Dmitry Peskov [Kremlin spokesman] said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-mom ...[text shortened]... ceasefire and possibly internationally observed plebiscites in the areas in question.
Thoughts?
I totally understand the Russian desire to keep Ukraine out of NATO, but Russia should not have objections to economic alliances between Ukraine and the EU. I know there's been talk about Ukraine joining the EU, though I'm not sure why the EU would want such economic interdependencies with a country that would certainly, at least at first, weaken the overall per capita economic output of the EU.
Anyway, all that said, If Russia agrees to guarantee the independence of the rest of Ukraine and allows them to build economic ties with the rest of Europe but not further military ties, to me that it seems like a reasonable settlement. I imagine figuring out how to disentangle the economic sanctions that have been imposed would be a complicated negotiation process, as I don't think most Western countries are interested in allowing Russia to get away with its aggression completely scot-free.
But yes, it is certainly a basis for negotiation.
- Joined
- 28 Feb 16
- Moves
- 5090
Quick fix to all of this is just send Hillary Clinton over there with her reset button.
Let me see...Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula during the Obama admin...Russia invades Ukraine during the Biden admin...
Perhaps a pattern is developing...Best chance: Hillary's reset button. Works every time...
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@liljo saidThere ya' go again.
Quick fix to all of this is just send Hillary Clinton over there with her reset button.
Let me see...Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula during the Obama admin...Russia invades Ukraine during the Biden admin...
Perhaps a pattern is developing...Best chance: Hillary's reset button. Works every time...
Hillary, huh......get over it, Lily.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
1 edit
@no1marauder saidReally? Czechoslovakia and Poland assisted Hitler and deserved subjugation? In the case of Czechoslovakia, not even a neighboring country, but why split hairs over a few miles right? You really can spin anything. You must be a phenomenal lawyer. I won't even bother with your over-exaggerations about NATO's aggressive "excursions" as you call them.
Don't cry about 50 years of "subjugation" while ignoring why that "subjugation" came about. I wonder how long the US and the UK would insist on friendly regimes in neighboring countries after a war that killed approximately 20% of its population that those country assisted an invader.
Bottom line is there is nothing at all that NATO has done that remotely compares to Putin's aggression in Chechnya and the Ukraine.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidCalling NATO expansion "aggressive" makes no sense. No one is forced to become part of NATO, membership must be requested. Ukraine voluntarily sought to become part of NATO; that can hardly be considered "aggressive" expansion.
I already presented a "rational contemporary argument against NATO" i.e. that it is an aggressive military alliance serving the interests of neocons who are primarily interested in Western worldwide domination. It's excursions into Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere prove that.
Given Russia's long and frequent history of invasions (Afghanistan, Georgia, Czechoslovakia, etc.), NATO membership, even post USSR., was quite justified (again, states like Georgia).
While Russia's concerns are understandable, calling NATO expansion "aggressive" is gross hyperbole. If voluntarily membership into NATO is "aggressive expansion", what do you call Russia's many military invasions?