Comments by "bart thomassen thomassen" (@thomassenbart) on "Liberty Vault"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vasiliyshukshin7466
Ukraine was not NATO affiliated or near gaining membership in the alliance nor in the EU, so this is a canard. Also, Ukraine, prior to the invasion, fully rejected US intelligence of the upcoming attack, Ukraine was unprepared and found the concept laughable. And then Putin gave the order.
The Baltic States are actually in NATO and border Russia, so from a strategic point of view, there is no difference between Estonia and Ukraine. Also, we have Poland sitting there on the border of Belorussia, a Russian proxy. How does conquering Ukraine end these other potential threats? It does not.
Also, in terms of Putin's justifications for the invasion, resources were not one of them.
In terms of escalation, this could only have happened in the way it did, through Russian belligerence.
Ukraine was not hyper-nationalist prior to the invasion but has become so due to it.
No, what M. Putin's likely motives for the invasion were, were:
1. forestalling Russian collapse by integrating another 45 million people into Russia before demographic collapse hits.
2. Reinvigorating Russian morale and sense of destiny as a great power.
3. Solidifying his legacy as a Peter the Great type of figure in Russian eyes.
4. Causing NATO to become dysfunctional, through German dependence on Russian gas and therefore unable to intervene in the East and or the collapse of the Western alliance.
He badly miscalculated and increased the peril and isolation of Russia and augmented its speed towards irrelevance and implosion.
1
-
1
-
@ЦыряСоломонович The first SACEUR for NATO was Eisenhower, and the first Secretary of NATO was a Brit., Hastings Lionel Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay, were either NAZIs?
Nazism/fascism do not come from capitalist ideas. You don't know your ideologies. Fascism originated in Italy under Mussolini and spread throughout Europe. Fascism contrasts with communism in that it places emphasis on nationalism as opposed to internationalism with Marxist socialism. Hence we get National Socialism (NAZI) in Germany. Most European nations adopted fascist governments in the 1930s-40s; Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Finland, Bulgaria among them.
Fascism is very much opposed to capitalism. All Fascist governments are essentially socialist, command economies, who do not advocate for free markets and the voluntary exchange of goods and services, rather they control directly or indirectly the primary means of production, communication, transportation, manufacturing, food production, energy, etc...None of that is capitalism.
Neo Nazis are alive and well in Russia and not in jail at all. You can see them flying their fascist banners and making salutes, sporting Swastikas etc...all over Russia. In the USA being a Nazi or communist is not illegal. All political parties are open as long as they do not advocate the violent overthrow of the govt. If your grandfather was a Nazi, fascist or communist, should you be held responsible? I have spent a great deal of time in Europe since the 80s and have not heard anyone try to justify the actions of their ancestor's fascism. The commies do this however, all the time.
The invasion of Iraq by the USA was based upon the idea of weapons of mass destruction, repeated violations by Sadaam of the terms of the cease fire from the Gulf War, violating the oil for food program and rebuilding his military, the slaughter of Kurdish Iraqis and Sunni Iraqis of the South and lying to the UN about all of this.
Vietnam took place in the context of the Cold War and in order to stop the spread of communism. The Gulf of Tonkin incident triggered direct US involvement in S. Vietnam. It was not an invasion. The US operated in tandem with the S. Vietnamese military and various allies such as S. Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, and Australia also fought in Vietnam.
The Serbs have been getting trials in the Hague, is this what you mean?
The US intervention against Serbia took place only after years of Serb wars against Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. It committed mass atrocities and the UN and Germany and France could not stop them. So, the US launched a bombing campaign that ended these wars. The vast majority of the people in the Balkans are thankful Serbian aggression has stopped.
Libya went into a civil war and France and Britain, intervened on behalf of the rebels to overthrow Qhadaffi. The US role was extremely limited to a few planes and logistics support.
Yemen is a civil war and proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The USA and NATO are not involved except in patrolling the sea lanes. The Houthis have attacked shipping in the area and launched rockets against Israel and US ships and there has been counterfire. But all of that is self-defense.
Granada seized 50 American college students and held them for ransom. Reagan sent in the military to rescue them. It did.
None of the above is remotely close to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is no double standard. Russia is engaged in a war of conquest and has seized Crimea and Donbass and Luhansk already. Nothing the US/NATO did was to conquer a nation or territory. So, your allegation is just false and weak.
Sanctions against Russia have been in direct response to Russian acts of aggression. They have also been very targeted and not comprehensive until the Ukrainian invasion and even now have large loopholes that allow Russia to sell hydrocarbons around the world.
You have never heard of the Soviet Empire? That is somewhat incredible, it was huge and encompassed all of Eastern Europe and all the former Republics, including Ukraine. Notice how all of them broke away as soon as possible when the empire collapsed in 91?
NATO did not climb into Yugoslavia in 92. After Tito died the country imploded and everybody wanted to escape Serbian dominance and declared independence, which sparked the Serbian wars. NATO is currently involved in the Balkans having admitted several members and to keep the peace. Again, a good thing. Your assertions are historically inaccurate.
Not on any crack thanks.
If Russia were to attempt an attack against a NATO member, Poland for example or the Baltic States, it would be the end of Russia as a nation state.
There are no Mexicans advocating for a return of US land lost during the Mexican-American War of 1848. Also, the analogy is simply wrong regarding Ukraine. No one in that country wanted to attack Russia and the only reason Westerners were in Ukraine was due to the Russian aggressions already spoken of. Weapon sales routinely come with trainers, so soldiers understand how to use the equipment and maintain it. All of the old Ukrainian arms were Soviet-era, so...
The UN Code? Russia did not sign the UN Code, the USSR did and this country no longer exists. There is no provision in the UN code allowing Russia/USSR to attack a nation with Nazis, whatever that means. Where are you getting this shite?
Russia has not attempted to make any agreements which do not completely invalidate the sovereignty of Ukraine. When Russia retreats from all the conquered territory it has seized since 2014 and agrees to pay for the damages it has caused due to the war, then perhaps Ukraine will agree to a deal.
Frau Merkel is neither here nor there. She sold her nation to the Russians for natural gas.
Colin Powell did not announce chemical weapons in Iraq. The case he made before the UN was that Iraq was attempting to build a nuclear bomb. He also presented evidence about all the UN Security Council Resolutions Iraq had violated and the oil for food program, throwing out UN inspectors and not allowing them free reign to search etc...These were the justifications for war.
So, again you are comparing apples and oranges. Ukraine had been an independent nation for a long time and Russia had promised to defend Ukraine against aggression when it gave up its nuclear weapons but then betrayed Ukraine in 2014 and with the current invasion. Russia was never threatened by Ukraine or the EU or NATO. Russia is the aggressor, as always.
Of course there are elections in Ukraine, how did Zelensky become president?
Russia is driving its people into the war. Russia is conscripting people and hundreds of thousands have fled to avoid going to war. Russia is using prisoners and criminals to bolster the Wagner Group, who are an atrocious mob. So, I would say you are confused.
Ukraine is fighting for its existence, yet it still is only conscripting males 25 and older. I find this crazy. In the US 18 is the age if we were to use mandatory service.
The hypocrisy is solidly in your camp. You are supporting a war that is 100% unjustified and is only being waged to distract the Russian people from their shitty lives and to prolong the regime's existence and or place Putin next to Peter, but instead the war is hastening the decline of Russia, which is collapsing on multiple fronts, from demographics to economic.
Your rant against Nazis is also false. You may point to the Azov BN but that is a tiny part of the 900,000 Ukrainian military.
Also, given the Soviets killed more people than the NAZIs, allied with them in 39, which caused the war and then impoverished and enslaved hundreds of millions more, I don't see how you square that circle of cognitive dissonance. Russia is a F#cked up country and has been since 1917 and likely will continue to be as long as Putin is in power.
You are on the wrong side.
1
-
@locuraromantica You are misreading the event. Here is what was announced: George Bush this morning said he "strongly supported" Ukraine's attempt to join Nato, and warned he would not allow Russia to veto its membership bid..."This is a misperception," Bush said after talks with in Kiev. "I strongly believe that Ukraine and Georgia should be given MAP [Membership Action Plans], and there are no tradeoffs - period."
It is not clear whether Ukraine and Georgia will win approval for their membership bids this week. Germany and France are leading opposition from within the EU to such a move, arguing that it would needlessly antagonise Russia and provoke a new crisis between Russia and the west.
But the French prime minister, François Fillon, interviewed on a radio programme, said: "France will not give its green light to the entry of Ukraine and Georgia."
Luke Harding, "Bush backs Ukraine and Georgia for Nato membership", Guardian, April 2008.
Bush favoring the entry of the above countries does not bring them into the alliance, it simply means the US will support their membership. France specifically said it would block the move and what was being discussed was MAP, not admittance but the process to gain it. All of this shows membership is not what you think and the process more difficult than you imagine.
1
-
1