2 edits
@no1marauder saidAgain, that's a separate topic.
Are you serious? Russia's incursions into other countries, as unjustified as they may be, pales in comparison to the record the US, UK, France and other countries in NATO has amassed regarding military meddling in other countries.
NATO's egregious acts are not what concern Russia and shouldn't be used as a point regarding Russia-NATO relations. It's like out pointing Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses to defend Russia's actions in Syria. Putin is only concerned about it's own goals being hindered, not the damage to other nations caused.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou mentioned Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan in the post I originally responded. It should be obvious I mean those countries, rather than Serbia. Those countries, as I said, Russia doesn't care about in the slightest.
You don't think NATO's dismemberment of Serbia didn't "concern Russia in the slightest"?
Yes, it's a criticism of NATO that it transformed itself into an aggressive force being used for the neocon agenda of Western esp. US world domination. And if you really think Russia isn't bothered by that at all, you are sadly misinformed.
Russia doesn't care about US domination apart from the the fact that it's an enemy of Russia. But you're discussing the *ethics* of NATO and U.S. domination; that is what Russia couldn't give a single crap about. Russia very much wants to be that force dominating the world.
@kevcvs57 saidNATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was not authorized by the UN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
And your yelling outright lies even whiles Putin is murdering children.
The difference between you and I is that I did not excuse the invasion of Iraq, I did not try to blame the Iraqis or some other random organisation for Britain's involvement in.
You do realise that the limited bombing of Serbia was done under UN sanction and that 2nd Iraq war was NOT a nato led war, it ...[text shortened]... d cite an incidence of any NATO member even threatening to invade Russia that would be very helpful.
Kosovo was detached by force from Yugoslavia and the great majority of NATO and EU countries supported its claim of independence.
@contenchess saidPortugal is 4,000 miles away from Russia. What do you consider "close"?
Portugal and Denmark are close to Russia.
3 edits
@vivify saidYour logic is incomprehensible. What NATO is now has no bearing on Russia's reaction to the possibility it will expand further into Eastern Europe?
Again, that's a separate topic.
NATO's egregious acts are not what concern Russia and shouldn't be used as a point regarding Russia-NATO relations. It's like out pointing Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses to defend Russia's actions in Syria. Putin is only concerned about it's own goals being hindered, not the damage to other nations caused.
You're joking, right?
Of course, Western leaders specifically assured Soviet and later Russian leaders that NATO would not expand into these areas if the USSR loosened its grip on them (including allowing German reunification). Apparently Russia shouldn't be bothered by that either.
EDIT: There's a bit of a difference between a military alliance which is exclusively concerned with the defense of member countries (A) and a military alliance that attacks other countries and/or aids in occupations of other countries in order to overthrow those countries' governments (B).
A country might be relatively unconcerned with A while reasonably being concerned with the expansion of B to its neighborhood.
@no1marauder saidYou brought up examples of possible ethically dubious excursions, like Iraq. These are points you're using in a discussion regarding NATO-Russian relations.
Your logic is incomprehensible. What NATO is now has no bearing on Russia's reaction to the possibility it will expand further into Eastern Europe?
Russia is not one bit concerned about the ethically dubious NATO wars; it's only concerned about NATO as an obstacle to it's own domination.
Understand what I'm saying?
@vivify saidUnderstanding doesn't mean not thinking that the distinction you are trying to make is absurd.
You brought up examples of possible ethically dubious excursions, like Iraq. These are points you're using in a discussion regarding NATO-Russian relations.
Russia is not one bit concerned about the ethically dubious NATO wars; it's only concerned about NATO as an obstacle to it's own domination.
Understand what I'm saying?
Russia isn't concerned about the "ethics"; it's concerned that NATO and the countries that form it have gotten into the habit of attacking other countries for regime change. That certainly makes the organization a threat to Russia and other States the West regards as obstacles to the neocon agenda.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThis, I completely disagree with. By making this claim you're implying that Russia doesn't have the same goals of domination you accuse the US of.
Russia isn't concerned about the "ethics"; it's concerned that NATO and the countries that form it have gotten into the habit of attacking other countries for regime change. That certainly makes the organization a threat to Russia and other States the West regards as obstacles to the neocon agenda.
How is Russia the slightest bit different from the version of NATO you describe? Can you answer that?
Feel free to bash NATO all you want. I don't disagree with you there. But you're acting like Russia is somehow better and hasn't been trying to do the same exact thing for decades.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidAgain, NATO membership is requested; it's not something forced on a country. Your use of "aggressive expansion" is not accurate.
Of course, Western leaders specifically assured Soviet and later Russian leaders that NATO would not expand into these areas if the USSR loosened its grip on them (including allowing German reunification). Apparently Russia shouldn't be bothered by that either.
Is it broken promise? Sure. "Aggressive expansion"? Hardly.
@kevcvs57 saidPutin has already stated that the Baltics are a target . As my Lithuanian great-uncle said repeatedly , " The Bear will come over the hill , the Bear will ALWAYS come over the hill ". Maybe we should exhume the body of Neville Chamberlain and bring it to the UN . We could do some lovely voiceovers with what he said back then .
“ Kicking our ass out of Europe? It was the UK that kicked la Hispanidad out of Europe. The USA left Europe centuries ago but your constant wars keep dragging us back in. ”
Are you a refugee from the renaissance?
Even though Putin has demanded that nato forces leave Eastern European countries that are in nato you think he’s going to be happy with just Ukrainian annexation, really?
@caissad4
The baltics, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, are all NATO members.
Putin would definitely bite off more than he can chew if he attacked the Baltics since ALL of Europe and the US would get involved directly defending those three countries.
Putin wants the old Soviet empire back, that is his oft stated goal.
I wonder if that includes Alaska? Used to be Russia, right?
4 edits
@sonhouse saidWhile that's technically correct, I wonder how true that would be in reality.
@caissad4
The baltics, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, are all NATO members.
Putin would definitely bite off more than he can chew if he attacked the Baltics since ALL of Europe and the US would get involved directly defending those three countries.
For example: what if Trump, who threatened to pull out of NATO, wins in 2024? Trump currently beats Biden in polls and a Trump victory is a very likely possibility.
Trump's fealty to Putin would single-handedly cripple NATO, by causing a domino effect of nations exiting NATO without the backing of the US, who also pays the most to finance NATO.
And that's just one of many realistic scenarios that could make NATO scarier on paper than in practice.
@vivify saidYou seriously don’t think that US aggression and NATO expansion have anything to do with Russia wanting a buffer zone between them and the US inspired war machine?
You mentioned Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan in the post I originally responded. It should be obvious I mean those countries, rather than Serbia. Those countries, as I said, Russia doesn't care about in the slightest.
[b]Yes, it's a criticism of NATO that it transformed itself into an aggressive force being used for the neocon agenda of Western esp. US world domination. And ...[text shortened]... ia couldn't give a single crap about. Russia very much wants to be that force dominating the world.
Did you sail down the Hudson on a banana biscuit or something?
You think an international crisis, like this, is one-sided? That there’s no action-reaction going on? That it’s just the whim of one man?
Yes. Putin is a nutjob and aggressively so, but you don’t think there’s a history there? You seriously think he’s the singular cause and all blame is his?
Oh but was history, politics and international diplomacy all so simple! Then ne’r would we need to read and learn. Ever the curve of advancement would come naturally. And, supposedly, history itself would n’er repeat.