Comments by "John Adam" (@johnadam2885) on "VisualPolitik EN"
channel.
-
11
-
6
-
Whether you agree with political theories of how nations act, Prof. Mearsheimer stands above all the rest because he predicted correctly the result of NATO expansion. Although one can go into niceties that 'expansion' is not the correct word, because it was a voluntary accretion of members, Mearsheimer is still correct that NATO is a military alliance whose objective was to check the USSR, and whose subjective is now against Russia. The voluntary accretion of members does not change the objective, and to the Russians, it is the objective that matters, and not whether the members joined voluntarily or with inducements.
When Warsaw Pact was dissolved, NATO should have been dissolved. Russia had shown goodwill in the 1990s when it let go, not only of the Warsaw Pact countries, but also republics of the USSR. Even if there was no written agreement that NATO would not be expanded eastwards, James Baker had said to the Russians that NATO would 'not move an inch to the east'. When NATO 'expanded' eastwards, Mearsheimer says Russia saw that as a breach of goodwill and gradually the sentiment hardened in Russia that the west had taken advantage to threaten Russia. Russia had repeatedly warned that NATO expansion was troubling them. As Mearsheimer says, it does not matter if the west sees NATO as a defensive alliance, and it is not an 'expansion' in terms of forcible takeover, but the Russian perception right from the beginning was that NATO is an offensive alliance against them, and it is the Russian perception that matters. If Russia's perception (with good reason) is that NATO is an offensive alliance against them, and they warned about NATO expansion to their frontier would be seen as a hostile act and a red line, and NATO went ahead, then war follows. So Mearsheimer is correct that NATO is to blame as it deliberately pursued a policy that thinking people had warned would lead to war.
There is only one criterion on judging whether someone's analysis is correct. There is the minority camp that said and warned NATO expansion will lead to war. There is other camp (the majority) in the west that said and still says it was not an expansion, and the purpose was defensive, and we cannot do wrong because we say so etc.
It is unarguable that Mearsheimer is among the minority who predicted correctly what will happen years ago. Therefore his analysis has enduring value, and what he proposes for the solution to end the conflict has to be considered, because it is based on understanding. All the ones who justified the expansion should now understand the cost to Ukraine and the west. If the west is unwilling to go and fight Russia in Ukraine, it should not have pushed for Ukraine's induction in NATO.
To all the supporters of Ukraine, who now see Ukraine is heading for a defeat (for which the blame has to be placed on the west's NATO expansion), Mearsheimer will cause burning as he will sound like someone telling them 'I told you so'. Hence, they invent various refutations to disprove him.
3
-
3
-
@pre2postMBA Christians and islamic civilised you, otherwise you would have remained dacoits. The British brought you education and good governance, and law and order. Without them, you have reverted to your former character - mob riots, rape, dacoity. Look at your Hindu king Modi - he committed a genocide to get elected.
As for your comment of 'looted us of the wealth that we created with system of hindusim sanathan dharma', I read a book by Kancha Illaiah who says high caste Hindus looted the low castes who tilled the land and created the wealth, but who could not sell their produce.
sanathan dharma means caste system. People left the Hindu fold and became Christians and Muslims, precisely because of sanathan dharma. Why don't you have common sense to realise that ?
As the video says, India cannot become developed because of the caste system. It is obvious. Why should the high caste minority hold the majority to ransom and keep them undeveloped ? For India to become developed, the only way is conversion.
3
-
2
-
2
-
The rest of the world does not see it the way you do - it is in everyone's interest to see Putin lose.
The non-western world having suffered under America wants to see the US lose. Ask people in China, India, Middle East, Africa, Latin America. You are just a typical conceited westerner who thinks you are the world. Boris Johnson said at first, he wants to see Putin lose, otherwise the global international order will be undermined. Lately, he got more frank - he said if Putin is not defeated, it is the end of western hegemony. That is what is on your mind as well when you say it is in everyone's interest to see Putin lose. You want to proliferate western hegemony but you want to say it is for the benefit of the world.
The rest of the world wants de-dollarisation, end of US bases, regime change operations and coups. Putin has cut western power and triggered de-dollarisation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pgpython Russia could not take Kiev on the first attempt - but will come back for it, unless the Ukranians go back to neutrality and distance themselves from NATO. The window for negotiations is diminishing, after a stage, the Russians might decide to go after all of Ukraine.
Russia has taken 20% of Ukraine, more is about to go. The polar bear has got the Ukranians and their neo Nazis by the scruff of the neck and will not let them go - they have taken the industrial heartland, and the coastal areas, and are strangling Ukraine's economy. There is nothing the west can do to reverse it - in fact Russia has got Europe's economy by the scruff of the neck as well !
Russia is now stronger than the Soviet Union. The USSR became a military superpower, but its economy was a stand-alone type that operated outside the western system. Russia is still a military superpower, its hypersonic missiles are awesome, and as it integrated with the world's economy, it has learnt all the tactics to wage counter economic warfare, squeezing energy supplies and undermining the dollar in the long term. You know the reality but you are in denial.
As in 1943, once the Russians have to fight, they fight very hard. Time is on Russia's hand. Like in 1943, the Red Army recovered from initial set backs and fought their way to Berlin.
The US plan in Ukraine was not only to put missiles in Ukraine but also to have naval bases in Ukranian Black Sea ports - which would be a direct threat to Russia. There is no way Russia was going to allow that. If Ukraine has to disappear, so be it. Basically American and NATO interference in Ukraine has brought an end to its independence. Of course, Ukraine has to blame for its folly, and for allowing neo Nazis to drive its nationalism.
Now, ask your self 'was NATO expansion worth it' ? It benefited US arms companies, but what about Europe and Ukraine ? Did not Russia warn you not to expand NATO to its borders ? When Russia asked NATO for a security guarantee in Dec 2021, why did not NATO agree, and thus avert war ? If the west wants Ukraine so badly in NATO, why don't you send troops to Ukraine now ? Putin asked NATO to come to the battlefield and see if you can defeat Russia. Your cowardice and miscalculation have been exposed. Russia has created the conditions for end of western military and economic dominance.
1
-
@pgpython You are so foolish as to not realise that Finland and Sweden expressing desire to join NATO does not prove NATO's capability, it just proves these two are weaklings who took fright when they saw a far away war and ran helter skelter for cover !
Russia has just proved that it is stronger than Europe + America put together. Their combined efforts could not save their protege, Ukraine.
Ukraine or rather US presence in Ukraine is a big threat to Russia, not only in terms of missile stations, but the danger of the US operating naval bases from the Black Sea. Russia by its prompt action in 2014, and now has closed that threat for good. Ukraine is feeling the heat because its access to the Black Sea is closed; it wanted to do the same to Russia using America, but its planned mischief has been nipped in the bud.
'Ukraine to do that it would have to be in nato and that would be impossible'.
The US was working towards inducting Ukraine in NATO. It organised sand supported the coup in 2014 that brought the Ukro Nazis to power. Victoria Nuland and John McCain were amongst the crowds celebrating the coup. What were they doing there ? NATO has a training base near Lvov which was wiped out by an air strike in the first month. Foreign merecenaries had come there and over 35 were killed. Ukraine sent 5000 troops to Afghanistan. Why ? It was becoming a de facto member, it was working towards formal membership. Anyhow, Russia has ended all that.
Ukraine will be rebuilt by the Russians without western help. Ukraine was rebuilt by the Soviet Union after the German Nazi destruction. The Antonov aircraft factory, the tank factory, the steel factories, the nuclear power stations, its universities were all built by the Soviet Union, in which the dominant contribution was from Russia. The Ukranians became back stabbers, so Russia will take Ukraine back, and yes it is worth it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pgpython So you confirm the familiar western duplicity : Russia should give up Warsaw Pact and increase your security, but you have no obligation to reciprocate to Russia.
There was a window of goodwill during the Gorbachov and Yeltsin era. But the US took advantage seeing Russia's weakness at that time. NATO expansion and inciting Eastern Europe to join was driven by the US's arms industry, not because of any commitment to freedom, but out of sheer lust for money. This was reported in the NYT in 1997 and 1998. The US arms industry like Lockheed saw that with NATO expansion, the former Warsaw Pact countries could be made to replace Soviet arms with US ones.
Read New York Times, 29 June 1997 ‘Arms Makers See Bonanza In Selling NATO Expansion’ and 30 March 1998 ‘ARMS CONTRACTORS SPEND TO PROMOTE AN EXPANDED NATO’.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/29/world/arms-makers-see-bonanza-in-selling-nato-expansion.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/30/world/arms-contractors-spend-to-promote-an-expanded-nato.html
Thus your claim that the decision to expand NATO was due to 'the serious risk Russia would drift towards authoratism and try to reclaim its former soviet states' is fraudulent and is motivated by your ignorance (which is self evident) or worse due to your duplicitous character.
Now, if you think Russia should make all the concessions and you do not have to make any because in future Russia might revert to its ways, then at some stage there will be a reaction in Russia, and someone will say 'we should not have made these concessions, the west is our enemy, and always will be, and the only way to handle them is by dangling the nuclear sword on their head'. That is bound to be the case.
The west's duplicity can be seen in the following. Us Secretary of State James Baker had said NATO would not expand one inch to the east (beyond East Germany). When the Russians raise this now, the west says, there was no written treaty. When Boris Yeltsin objected to the first NATO expansion, he was told that agreement was with the Soviet Union, you are Russia. Yeltsin was furious and he told 'the Soviet Union is over, but you wait, Russia will be back'.
Indeed, Russia is back. It took 30 years to rebuild. It has got the hypersonic missiles and the Sarmat that can wipe out France in a single strike. And unlike the Soviet Union, which ran an economy isolated from the rest of the world, Russia has entered the world economy, and it has such clout that it can wage counter economic warfare. Russia can strangle Europe's economy. Europe's prosperity was built on cheap Russian gas. There is no alternative that is not 5x more expensive, so Europe has to decline.
The west pushed neo Nazis in Ukraine to usurp power, to promote an anti-Russian, pro-west agenda. When Russia countered and gave Ukraine a beating, the west was found wanting in courage to intervene and save Ukraine. The west thought they could win with economic warfare, but even that has backfired, and the western economies are pushed against the rope.
It is you who needs introspection. You need to ask whether it was right to push NATO expansion when Russia had repeatedly warned against it. Is the Ukraine and the west now better off due to NATO expansion ?
The west is living dangerously. It has pushed Lithuania to put a blockade on Kaliningrad. That is again flouting the agreement that gave Lithuania independence. In which case, Russia at some stage will take back Lithuania, NATO not withstanding.
1
-
1