Comments by "Robert Atkins" (@robertatkins9419) on "Vladimir Putin warns Biden: Russia ‘can’t be put down’ and should be ‘respected’" video.

Then why didn't we respect their borders and agree not to expand NATO on to his front porch? You have an utterly useless understanding if you think he's at any risk at all in his job.
4
@timonsolus First, on Chechnya, which I'm surprised people still mention, considering that they are now loyal fighters on Russia's side. But just as important is why they did that, and it's after they found out that us lot in the west who destabilized things. It was precisely to avoid that kind of destabilization that Russia insisted on Ukraine not joining NATO. And on the first part of your statement, what you're saying would allow China to establish a military base in Mexico if it was the democratic wish of the Mexican people to do so.
1
@xavierhucklenbruch1798 Dumb prejudiced people's lover.
1
@danielclements8739 A totally warped and distorted view, which can be proved categorically: What if Russia and China formed a military alliance which invited Mexico to join them, and Mexico wanted to exercise its democratic right to do so? Without even asking we know the US would say no. But according to your own reasoning this new alliance could argue that the US had 'no right'' to say who can and who can't join their alliance. And yes, there were various reasons why the Baltic states wanted to join NATO: 1/ The endless urging done by NATO for them to apply; 2/ Their own animosities, based partly on prejudice and partly with justification (but again, that was the USSR, not Russia).
1
@danielclements8739 Actually the poor choice is yours. Are you aware of what Lord Esme, the first NATO Secretary General, stated explicitly as being 'the purpose of NATO' from a European perspective? Let me remind you: 'The purpose of NATO is to keep America in, Russia out, and Germany down.'
1
@xavierhucklenbruch1798 Dumb cluck
1
@davidwright5094 I didn't say anywhere that there was a 'contradiction'. What I was pointing out was the inaccuracy of your claim that NATO would still exist without the USA. Funny that you intentionally avoided that bit.
1
@davidwright5094 Why are so many people incapable of communicating in a civilized manner? There was nothing 'dishonest' in what I said. Someone said that NATO could exist without NATO, and that's what I was responding to. There was no 'deliberate misrepresentation', I don't need to misrepresent anything, I don't have any agenda that prompts me to misrepresent. In order to be sure, though, we would have to go back and look at the original comment, and I don't know how to do that. In the meantime, and for the sake of your own blood-pressure, try to moderate your language.
1
@davidwright5094 You're obviously listening, or are incapable of listening because you are too closed off. Someone said that NATO could get along fine without the US. That's what I pushed back on, that's why I quoted Lord Esme. Once again, I have absolutely no need to fabricate anything.
1