Comments by "bart thomassen thomassen" (@thomassenbart) on "Jordan Peterson - The Four Reasons For the War in Ukraine" video.
-
20
-
19
-
12
-
11
-
You don't know the definition of war monger if that is what you took away from this discussion.
Arming people to defend themselves from overt aggression is not war-mongering. The US did not cause either conflict, Hamas and Russia did. If you do not see this, then you are completely ignorant or you are a liar.
Also, NATO never promised not to expand. Gorbachev acknowledged this as have multiple other sources involved in the talks at the time in Germany.
RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”
M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.
Mikhail Gorbachev: I am against all walls
OCT 16 2014MAXIM KÓRSHUNOVRBTH
Further, Poland and the Baltic States are as close to Russia as Ukraine. So, an attack on Ukraine is nonsensical to justify the defense of Russia. It does not change the strategic situation at all and in fact, has only worsened it since Sweden and Finland have both joined NATO.
NATO expanded in 1994 and in 2004, Albania and Croatia also were added but neither are significant nor previously part of the Eastern bloc. So, 20 years ago was the last major expansion. How then does this justify an unprovoked war against Ukraine? A country Russia promised to defend from aggression when it gave up all its nuclear weapons in 1994.
Think.
11
-
8
-
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.
8
-
7
-
7
-
@petardetar5191 No, he did not say this. You are repeating a myth. Gorbachev himself stated there was no promise made by NATO not to expand, no agreements nothing. Also, you ignore the other points made and the fact that Ukraine was not in NATO, was not pending to be admitted and was not about to be brought into the EU either. There is no red line because no one was even remotely close to it.
You are in a land of make-believe.
RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”
M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Mikhail Gorbachev: I am against all walls
OCT 16 2014MAXIM KÓRSHUNOVRBTH
When President George H.W. Bush sat down with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to negotiate the peaceful end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, former Under Secretary of State Robert Zoellick ’81 was in the room where it happened.
During the 1990 summit, Zoellick says President Gorbachev accepted the idea of German unification within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, based on the principle that every country should freely choose its own alliances.
Zoellick Robert
“I was in those meetings, and Gorbachev has [also] said there was no promise not to enlarge NATO,” Zoellick recalls. Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, later president of Georgia, concurred, he says. Nor does the treaty on Germany’s unification include a limit on NATO enlargement. Those facts have undermined one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justifications for invading Ukraine — that the United States had agreed that former Warsaw Pact nations would never become part of the North Atlantic security alliance.
Jeff Neal, "‘There was no promise not to enlarge NATO’", Robert Zoellick, the U.S. diplomat who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War, says Vladimir Putin’s claims about Ukraine are part of a disinformation campaign Harvard Law School Shield
Harvard Law Today, Mar 16, 2022.
NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949. This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia included provisions on NATO membership. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. Russia does not have a veto.
The idea of NATO enlargement beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed until 1991. Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up either."
Individual Allies cannot make agreements on NATO’s behalf. President Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer to commit that no former Soviet Republics would join NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so… NATO operates by consensus," he said.
The wording “NATO expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not hunt for new members or want to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision for NATO Allies and those countries who wish to join alone.
"Setting the record straight
De-bunking Russian disinformation on NATO", North Atlantic Treaty Organization, January 2024.
7
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@petardetar5191 So I listened to the exchange you suggested and am not a fan of the professor or the interviewer. Here are my reactions to it.
Remember the Russians are the aggressors.
Yes, through the entire Cold War, proxy wars exactly like this were engaged in from Korea and Vietnam to Afghanistan and Congo.
Ukraine has always been neutral since its independence.
There is no path to a war with Russia.
The Europeans are in no way ready for war.
Russia was already cut off in the Black Sea and the Russian fleet is not a threat regardless.
Yes, Russia needs to leave Ukraine, a nation it recognized in 1994 and vowed to defend. Ukraine whether part of NATO or not, is not a threat to Russia. Russia was not being threatened by the alliance before the invasion. In fact, it had become all but irrelevant. Mouthing Putin's rhetoric is evidence of non thinking.
We did not put ourselves in any position. The West responded to the Russian invasion by supplying Ukraine with weapons. If the professor is advocating simply allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine and doing nothing, he is a short-sighted fellow. Russia would then be eyeing Moldavia and intimidating Romania, Poland and the Baltic States.
Good and evil??? This is not the case in US foreign policy. The US FP is not based upon these concepts. The US supports Ukraine for pragmatic reasons and opposes China similarly.
Universal human values based upon nothing are meaningless. Also, they don't exist outside of the West. Pretending authoritarian governments can participate in a Western philosophical tradition, if foolish.
Civilians dying in Gaza are 100% due to Hamas, who uses them as human shields. If Hamas would surrender all the deaths would end. The Oct 7 attack completely justifies the Israeli war in Gaza and fighting the war in any other way would be useless. Civilians die in war, especially when they are deliberately used by one side for propaganda and protection. This pearl-clutching over the Gazans is ridiculous. Use the same rationale in WWII and see where it gets you. Hamas is demonstrably evil and must be destroyed. If you advocate for Gaza, you are protecting the death cult, i.e., modern-day NAZIs.
There is no genocide in Gaza. Review your definitions.
NATO did not provoke a war or make Russia invade Ukraine. So dumb.
Comparing how much ordinance is dropped in war A compared to war B is dumb. You go to war to win and the methods are used to that end. Also, Russian use of aerial bombardment is likely curtailed because Russia lacks the ability to use its Airforce appropriately and they anticipated taking the country with limited opposition.
Russia did not want to integrate into Europe but to control it.
You cannot say that Putin's threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and the rejection of being threatened in this way, as a rejection of nuclear deterrence. That is a total misunderstanding of nuclear deterrence.
The US did not topple the Ukrainian govt. during the Maidan Revolution. The Americans did not place weapons in Ukraine to strike Russia. Again, strawman argument. Totally false and comparing that to something happening in Mexico is ludicrous, also because the West/USA did not establish an empire post WWII. The USSR did and that empire was a disaster at every level.
No, the Ukrainian Summer Offensive was the opposite of what the Americans advised. The US urged Ukraine to concentrate its forces and achieve a breakthrough at a singular point and then exploit it. Instead, Ukraine went for a broad-based attack along the front, which got bogged down.
The loss of the Black Sea Fleet is not or was not an existential threat to Russia. Russia gave away Crimea and in 94 recognized Ukraine's suzerainty over it. The prof. is making a nonsensical argument.
Ukraine did not want to be a buffer zone. It wanted to go with the West and though that was not about to happen, as a nation-state, it had control over its own future. The West did not push to bring Ukraine into NATO or the EU. It has been 23 years since the fall of the USSR and Ukraine never came into these organizations. There was no plan to make it happen either, at least not in the near future.
Russia launched its invasion not because it was threatened by Ukraine but because Putin never believed Ukraine was an independent nation but an integral part of Russia. He stated this several times before the invasion.
Blackrock is not part of the US government.
Europe is failing, not because of dependence on the USA but because of demographics, cultural implosion and a loss of will to be anything other than onlooking hedonists.
If Europe wants to be neutral it must have a legitimate military but that is not possible.
Finland did not play anything. It was mandated during the conferences at the end of WWII. Finland and Austria would be neutral. Neutral v. the USSR was essential for Finland otherwise the Soviets would have conquered the country.
China, Russia and others are not comparable to the USA, which is the hegemony unless the Americans refuse and decide to retreat behind their oceans. Europe is weak and cannot compete as is. It must rearm to do so.
The peace the Europeans have been utopians and ignored their very security, since WWII has only held because of the USA. Pascal echos this foolish thinking by ignoring the realities on the ground during the Cold War and currently. The Utopia is not possible through weakness and all the prosperity Europe enjoys is directly linked to the US hegemony and world order.
Of course it's foreign policy, even if you oppose these actions, they are 100% foreign policy. This professor is spouting idiocy.
The outcomes Pascal speaks of are not at all as when Kings and Queens were in charge. Since WWII, there has not been a single major confrontation between large powers. All the wars, which have been decreasing both in terms of intensity and numbers, have been relatively small affairs. No world wars, no Napoleonic Wars, no massive total wars of conquest and extermination etc...The result has been a golden age of unprecedented wealth and prosperity worldwide.
American neutrality was based on the realities they confronted. They were busy taming a continent and had no use for wars outside the region. The US was dragged into both world wars but post 45, it was the only game in town and only counterweight to the USSR. If the USA had simply resumed its traditional FP, the USSR would have conquered Europe and much of the world...not good. The NATO alliance saved the West.
Peace time alliances are destructive for peace???? That is such a naive statement. The missile defensive system was a NATO-wide one to counter Russian systems. If a nation such as Norway were on its own, then what?
Narrative control is so much greater in China v. the West. Pascal is clueless. He needs to do a modicum of research and comparisons for both Russia and China.
Does Ukraine have a right to conscript its citizens?
The narrative about Russia the prof, explains is only valid in hindsight. No one knew how incompetent the broken the Russian army was however, without the Western/US aid, Ukraine would have fallen and those weaknesses would have been masked. Also, NATO was on the verge of irrelevancy prior to the Ukrainian invasion, no longer. Everything has changed and Russia is learning from its errors. It would be a grave error to discount Russia in the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@guillermoelenes4310 The USA did not promise to not expand NATO, that is correct. Gorbachev even admitted this and he should know. Also, there is no treaty or agreement for such a thing.
No, the US did not organize a coup d'etat, not in Russia and not in Ukraine. If you have evidence bring it forward. As I recall, there were hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, huddled, marching and protesting night after night, during the dead of winter, in Kiev against the government until it fled to Russia. Telling. How exactly did the US do that?
A little common sense goes a long way.
No, the US did not disregard all Russian dialogue concerning legitimate national security concerns. When, did this happen exactly and what concerns are you speaking of? Is it legitimate for Russia to control the foreign policy of another sovereign state? Also, how is Russia threatened by anything going on in Ukraine? It was not about to be admitted into NATO or the EU, so where was the threat? Also, Poland and the Baltic States were already in NATO and bordering Russia so I see zero logic in this type of thinking. Also, now Finland and Sweden have both joined NATO, and Russia's strategic position is worse than ever. Good thinking M. Putin.
The US refused to provide weapons all during the Obama years remember? Or were you not paying attention. It was only when Trump came into office that anti-tank weapons began to be provided.
Russian-speaking areas? Are you talking about sovereign Ukrainian territory in Donbas and Eastern Ukraine or Crimea? Given that Russia invaded those areas, sent in the infamous Little Green men and actual Russian forces, supplied an insurgency etc...why would such areas not be shelled?
Dude, you sound completely brainwashed by Putin's propaganda. Is it okay as a new international standard to attack nations because a group speaks your language?
Russia invaded Ukraine, a nation it pledged to protect when Ukraine surrendered all of its nuclear weapons. That is called treachery.
1
-
Your NATO analysis is ignorant and conspiratorial, no disrespect intended. Unless you can produce these men who became hyper-wealthy and manipulated the system, you are lost. The Peace dividend happened. The USA halved its military from 1991 to the present. We have half as many of everything, divisions, squadrons, troops etc...And we spend only 3.5% of GDP on Defense compared to 7% in 1989. That is a real dividend.
'They' did not get new wars started. Foolish statement. The Serbs were the aggressors in all of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the US was loathe to involve itself and when it did those aggressions ended quickly. Desert Storm was also a very short war and in response to Sadaam's conquest of Kuwait and threatening of Saudi Arabia. No one made Sadaam attack Kuwait and if you argue the response was a bad decision, I would label that a very foolish position. The tiny number of Muslims who believe in Jihad? You obviously have not been paying attention and have little direct experience with this faith and its believers, I would guess. I suggest you look at the Pew polling on the issue...it's shocking. Also, the 'tiny number of jihadists' has had massive impacts on the world post 9-11 and are still very active across Africa, Europe, and Asia.
No one antagonized Russia. NATO did not consistently expand either. It happened in several distinct tranches. East Germany was merged into Germany in 1990 and in 1999 you have the first group of former Soviet satellite states that joined NATO, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The second tranche happened in 2004, when the Baltic states, Romanian, Bulgaria and Slovakia joined. In 2009 Albania and Croatia entered. The Russian claims about Ukraine are false. It was not on the cusp of gaining entry into the EU or NATO but in 2014, Russia attacked and then again in 2022.
No one promised Ukraine membership in NATO, that is not how it works. Neither McCain nor Nuland had that type of power. Your Cuba missile Crisis analogy is weak and ignores the timeline of Russian aggression against Ukraine. The US was not placing nuclear weapons in Ukraine and that would have been unnecessary regardless. Both Poland and the Baltic States were already NATO members and just as close as Ukraine. The argument you are making is nonsensical.
Crimea has been part of Ukraine since Stalin gave the territory to that land. When Ukraine became an independent nation, Russia did not demand Crimea be returned and in fact promised to defend Ukraine against any aggression, when it gave up its nuclear weapons. The Russian fleet in the Black Sea was hemmed in regardless by the Turks and the Bosphorus and of course the US fleet in the Mediterranean and Romania and Bulgaria as well. Have you thought through anything?
Putin has never accepted Ukraine as a sovereign nation and in his speeches says as much. He believes it is an integral part of Russia. Every justification you have made for him and his invasion is bogus. Russia is a corrupt state and always has been. It is imploding across multiple zones from demographics to economics. Putin is attempting to rally the people through the common enemy trope. Russian pride has been hurt because they were no longer relevant. Whose fault is that? There is no justification for his invasion of Ukraine.
China is in a trade war with the USA due to its aggressive economic policies and China is very belligerent in the South China Sea and v. Taiwan, the Philippines, S. Korea, Vietnam and Japan. No one is making China go this direction, save Xi Jing Ping.
1
-
1
-
Your NATO analysis is ignorant and conspiratorial, no disrespect intended. Unless you can produce these men who became hyper-wealthy and manipulated the system, you are lost. The Peace dividend happened. The USA halved its military from 1991 to the present. We have half as many of everything, divisions, squadrons, troops etc...And we spend only 3.5% of GDP on Defense compared to 7% in 1989. That is a real dividend.
'They' did not get new wars started. Foolish statement. The Serbs were the aggressors in all of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the US was loathe to involve itself and when it did those aggressions ended quickly.
Desert Storm was also a very short war and in response to Sadaam's conquest of Kuwait and threatening of Saudi Arabia. No one made Sadaam attack Kuwait and if you argue the response was a bad decision, I would label that a very foolish position.
The tiny number of Muslims who believe in Jihad? You obviously have not been paying attention and have little direct experience with this faith and its believers, I would guess. I suggest you look at the Pew polling on the issue...it's shocking. Also, the 'tiny number of jihadists' has had massive impacts on the world post 9-11 and are still very active across Africa, Europe, and Asia.
No one antagonized Russia. NATO did not consistently expand either. It happened in several distinct tranches. East Germany was merged into Germany in 1990 and in 1999 you have the first group of former Soviet satellite states that joined NATO, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The second tranche happened in 2004, when the Baltic states, Romanian, Bulgaria and Slovakia joined. In 2009 Albania and Croatia entered.
The Russian claims about Ukraine are false. It was not on the cusp of gaining entry into the EU or NATO but in 2014, Russia attacked and then again in 2022. No one promised Ukraine membership in NATO, that is not how it works.
Neither McCain nor Nuland had that type of power.
Your Cuba missile Crisis analogy is weak and ignores the timeline of Russian aggression against Ukraine. The US was not placing nuclear weapons in Ukraine and that would have been unnecessary regardless. Both Poland and the Baltic States were already NATO members and just as close as Ukraine. The argument you are making is nonsensical.
Crimea has been part of Ukraine since Stalin gave the territory to that land. When Ukraine became an independent nation, Russia did not demand Crimea be returned and in fact promised to defend Ukraine against any aggression, when it gave up its nuclear weapons. The Russian fleet in the Black Sea was hemmed in regardless by the Turks and the Bosphorus and of course the US fleet in the Mediterranean and Romania and Bulgaria as well. Have you thought through anything?
Putin has never accepted Ukraine as a sovereign nation and in his speeches says as much. He believes it is an integral part of Russia. Every justification you have made for him and his invasion is bogus. Russia is a corrupt state and always has been. It is imploding across multiple zones from demographics to economics. Putin is attempting to rally the people through the common enemy trope.
Russian pride has been hurt because they were no longer relevant. Whose fault is that? There is no justification for his invasion of Ukraine. China is in a trade war with the USA due to its aggressive economic policies and China is very belligerent in the South China Sea and v. Taiwan, the Philippines, S. Korea, Vietnam and Japan. No one is making China go this direction, save Xi Jing Ping.
1
-
@rys3486 No, he did not say this. You are repeating a myth. Gorbachev himself stated there was no promise made by NATO not to expand, no agreements nothing. Also, you ignore the other points made and the fact that Ukraine was not in NATO, was not pending to be admitted and was not about to be brought into the EU either. There is no red line because no one was even remotely close to it. You are in a land of make-believe.
RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”
M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context.
Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it. Mikhail Gorbachev: I am against all walls OCT 16 2014MAXIM KÓRSHUNOVRBTH
When President George H.W. Bush sat down with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to negotiate the peaceful end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, former Under Secretary of State Robert Zoellick ’81 was in the room where it happened. During the 1990 summit, Zoellick says President Gorbachev accepted the idea of German unification within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, based on the principle that every country should freely choose its own alliances. Zoellick Robert “I was in those meetings, and Gorbachev has [also] said there was no promise not to enlarge NATO,” Zoellick recalls. Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, later president of Georgia, concurred, he says. Nor does the treaty on Germany’s unification include a limit on NATO enlargement.
Those facts have undermined one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justifications for invading Ukraine — that the United States had agreed that former Warsaw Pact nations would never become part of the North Atlantic security alliance. Jeff Neal, "‘There was no promise not to enlarge NATO’", Robert Zoellick, the U.S. diplomat who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War, says Vladimir Putin’s claims about Ukraine are part of a disinformation campaign Harvard Law School Shield Harvard Law Today, Mar 16, 2022.
NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949. This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia included provisions on NATO membership. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. Russia does not have a veto. The idea of NATO enlargement beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed until 1991.
Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up either." Individual Allies cannot make agreements on NATO’s behalf.
President Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer to commit that no former Soviet Republics would join NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so… NATO operates by consensus," he said. The wording “NATO expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not hunt for new members or want to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision for NATO Allies and those countries who wish to join alone.
"Setting the record straight De-bunking Russian disinformation on NATO", North Atlantic Treaty Organization, January 2024.
1
-
1
-
@Smellofsugar You are missing the point.
1. Ukraine was not about to join NATO, so the threat you are talking about was/is false.
2. In terms of missiles, placing batteries in the Baltic States or Poland or Ukraine are basically the same. Concentrating upon a false threat from Ukraine as opposed to actual NATO members was a canard.
3. Your analysis assumes a conventional war and one that is aggressive against Russia. NATO has never posed an offensive threat to Russia or in the past the USSR. Again you are dealing in strawman arguments.
4. Wanting to be X and becoming X are two different things. Turkey has sought entrance into the EU for decades but is no closer to achieving this goal now than in the past, i.e., not at all.
5. Training in Ukraine in the past was also conducted with Russian forces, NATO forces and various border nations. My unit participated in these, so again, you are off in your analysis.
6. Yes, you must wait for a threat to be real before mounting an invasion of another country. Ukraine was in no position to attack Russia, believed the invasion was made up and refused to believe US intelligence.
7. No, my points are correct and you simply lack the objectivity or knowledge to deal with them.
8. Russia's population is collapsing. It is not growing at all. Russia's natural population growth has been negative or flat since 2000, which means that overall deaths have outnumbered births. Only 1.27mn babies were born in Russia last year, the lowest number since 2000. The drop in the birth rate echoes the massive drop in the 1990s following the breakup of the Soviet Union. The cohort of young adults aged 25 to 30 is now about 5mn smaller than it was a decade ago. The Russian population is also greying. Rosstat’s latest population forecast expects the pension-age share of the population to rise from 24% at present to around 27% in the 2040s.
Adamson, David M. and Julie DaVanzo, Russia's Demographic 'Crisis': How Real Is It? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1997. https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP162.html.
9. Yes, Japan, S. Korea, almost all of Europe, China, and others are also in demographic collapse. It is a large issue in all advanced nations. The USA has been at zero population growth for decades and only has grown due to immigration. The same is true for W. Europe but the consequences of that has been civil strife, since the incoming population have little in common with the native pop.
10. Russia is plagued by numerous other issues which will exacerbate its demographic collapse.
11. Russia has become irrelevant since the collapse of the USSR. Its economy only $2 trillion per annum, with per capita income of $15,000. It is very much dependent upon oil and gas exports and these are likely to diminish, since Russia lacks the technological abilities to maintain is fields in Siberia.
12. Russia is a pariah state.
13. Russian society is also collapsing. Alcoholism, high suicide rates, poor education, endemic corruption, rising retirement age, due to demographic collapse, poverty, drugs, etc...etc...
14. Russia is friends with all the other pariah nations of the world, not a good club to belong to.
15. The Wagner group in Africa is not the kind of influence you want.
Russia is in a bad way.
1
-
@mockingbbirdkilla1771 I do actually, very extensive knowledge and your comment is just dumb and so assumptive.
Is Russia afraid of a ground invasion from anywhere? No. Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world and no one is going to invade Russia in an offensive operation. Not from the Baltic States nor from Ukraine or from China...nowhere. So, none of the considerations you mention is important. It is not 1941. Also, prior to the Ukraine invasion the Russian military was held in high regard and considered competent and again, no one wanted to fight it in Russia. Your conventional issues are only important if Russia is the aggressor, as has been the case repeatedly throughout history and currently.
There was no coup in 2014 in Ukraine. No military group or personnel seized control of the govt. It was a popular revolution/protest with hundreds of thousands of common people in the streets night after night until the govt. collapsed and fled to Russia.
Ukraine has wanted to join NATO but was not qualified to do so and was not in the offing of joining. The same is true for EU membership. So, again this is a strawman.
NATO has never refused to accept anyone to include Ukraine. Ukraine is an independent state with a history of being dominated and terrorized by Russia/USSR. It is completely correct and understandable that any Eastern European nation would seek security by joining NATO, which they all have, save Serbia.
No short or medium-range nuclear weapons have been placed in Ukraine or Poland or the Baltic States but they have been in Germany and given the flight time is only minutes, I see little to no substantive difference. Also, Russian nuclear missiles are similarly configured and given the belligerent nuclear talk from the aggressor, M. Putin, it is understandable to have an equal deterrent.
The nuclear concerns are typical Russian paranoia and or talking points and do not justify the Ukrainian invasion. There is no reason for the West/USA to seek a nuclear confrontation with Russia. Even with a completely successful surprise attack, the Russians would be able to retaliate and the consequences of even a limited nuclear exchange would wreck the world. Nobody wants to go there and only Russian aggression would precipitate such a war.
NATO expansion, since the fall of the USSR has been about preventing a renewed Russian empire from gobbling up Eastern Europe. Former Soviet satellite states have uniformly sought security under NATO's nuclear and conventional umbrella because of the traditional Russian threat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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