Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Did Nato get Putin and Ukraine wrong? Former head of Nato explains" video.

@davidfaraday7963 Either they are left to choose of their own free will, or they are pressured to join. They are contradictory. In the second scenario, they are not left alone to make the decision of their own volition. This is what happened in 2008 with Ukraine and Georgia as well-- most European countries did not want to admit either, anticipating strained relations with Russia, but the US State Department forced the issue (since they supply Europe with most of their weapons, and have them in a contract to interoperability.) They are equal partners in name only. The US leads the pack, but refuses to admit it
13
No, Navalny would have antagonized Muslims living in Russia. Frankly it never mattered who was the president, all that matters to the West is that you are willing to let their businesses into your country to profit. That's why Yeltsin is so loved in the West, despite being hated in Russia. That's also why, prior to 2014, Western media largely gave good coverage of Russia- human rights do not matter, money matters. Otherwise, Israel would have been sanctioned a long time ago. You care now because it affects European stability- but not if it happens somewhere else. I hope you reflect on why this is, why the media selectively applies this criteria of human rights
9
@davidfaraday7963 "Either they" is referring to the only subject in this thread- Sweden. You really need to brush up on your grammar. 'Admit' as a verb has two meanings- one, meaning 'confess', and two, meaning 'to allow someone/thing to enter a place'. In the context of the example I gave, I am talking about Ukraine's admission into NATO. Got it? Regarding the actual context of my example: there was fierce debate over whether to even announce that Ukraine and Georgia would be allowed to enter NATO. Since no real political commitments were made, any public statement concerning their membership would be meaningless, if only to spite Russia. Germany, Italy, and France were the main opposition to such empty promises, while the US nad UK were the main proponents. Ultimately, the US' camp won out and the announcement was made. 2 weeks later, Russia entered Georgia.
6
@eblita3698 Actually the original proposal was a Europeann security architecture that includes Russia but excludes the US-- Europe becomes its own gepolitical bloc, with a military to defend itself (instead of relying on shipped American weaponry). The US, for obvious reasons, shot down this "Third Pillar" idea and insisted that NATO keep existing, despite the USSR being gone. Ironically, it is the presence of NATO which suggested to Russia that it needs to secure its border and be aggressive. Without NATO? After a century of turmoil, I think Russia would have been happy to open up to trade and normal relations.
4
@honved1 Not really. In the case of both South Ossetia and especially Abkhazia, regional governments made formal requests that Moscow intervene. Both minorities were afriad of being Kartvelified (Georgian-ised), and were conducting protests. In the case of Abkhazia, the Georgian military started dropping mortar shells on Sumhumi.
2
people will come up with new reasons. Sometimes it is because things are zero-sum: why is China interested in Taiwan? Not b/c it's "afraid of a prosperous democracy on its border!!" that's been the case for decades, and China has advanced well past Taiwan anyway. The real reason is because Taiwan, being a US ally, presents a threat to China's access to trade through the ocean. The US wants to control that access, because it can get political and economic concessions from China by threatening it. The US meanwhile has nothing blocking its access to either ocean. So even if all memory was erased, China would still want to secure its access to the ocean. If any country opposes that, there would be a conflict of interests, and fighting. You could replace China, Taiwan, and US with any other countries, it is geography which creates these conflicts, not people.
2
@costascostas1760 Suppose that's true but you would need to define what "memory wipeout" includes. I assume people could still speak, so they'd have different languages and would form different groups again
2
@ChrisVillagomez If Spain and Mexico bordered each other, and both were part of the same state, before being split up by foreign powers? You would call that re-unification, not conquering lol
1
@ChrisVillagomez Lol, they are the same people. Sorry. Both are East Slavic, descended from tribes living in the area since Roman times. "Ukraine" did not begin to exist as a concept separate from Russia until the 1300s. Modern-day Ukraine has been settled by humans for longer, but the people there never saw themselves as Ukrainian. Originally, there wasn't even a nationalist concept of either "Russia" or "Ukraine" (nationalism is a new concept)-- rather, there was the Rus state and its subjects. After the Mongol invasion destroyed the Rus state, the Rus line (royal family, government) died out in southern Rus, but survived in the north. In the time that Moscow took to regain Rus' independence from the Mongols, the southern portion of Rus was captured by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and was being Polonized. It was at this time that the people living there had their culture, language, mindset, modified into something separate from the original conception of "part of Rus". Hence, even the idea of Ukraine came strictly in relation to Rus, later Russia. Russia continued the government that originally ruled the entire Rus lands, Ukraine did not. This is why they have to resort to arguing that they as a people are connected to Rus-- because they have nothing besides that. No continuation of power, un-tainted culture, founding city (Novgorod). By the way-- Kiev is even older than Rus itself, so would that not make it entirely something different? They cannot have it both ways-- either they accept the legacy of Rus and embrace the cultural significance of Russia's role, or reject it and all the claims that come with it.
1
@ChrisVillagomez Tldr, Rus was founded in modern day Russia, Russia kept the monarchy alive (there was no concept of "Rus nation" back then), and we carry on much of the cultural legacy of the Rus, aka 40% of our language isn't Polish. Scream "cope" all you want, but Ukraine is using nazi tools of propaganda to demonize the soldiers when they win, and make them seem like victims of russia when they lose. They don't care about presenting the truth, just winning. Which is fine, but they need to admit that
1
@farzana6676 Pro-NATO people keep repeating the same lines verbatim, like you're trying to convince yourself. Or maybe you've all received the same training Either way, the video doesn't lie. Prior to their application into NATO (since both Sweden and Finland only applied within the last 6 months), there was external pressure from existing NATO members to join. What is so hard to understand here? A country being the one to initiate the application process means nothing-- it's like saying anyone signing a contract did it completely willingly and made the choice on their own, because they signed the paper ! Do you understand the concept of coercion, or duress?
1
@janalucke9739 Poor soldier conscripts when they are losing, evil orcs when they are winning. You call putin hitler, yet use nazi propaganda techniques to further your political ideas. "The Jews are strong (threat!), yet they are weak (we must attack!)"
1
Actually, he did. The Iraq War and specifically the US sponsoring rebels in Libya to kill him, was what changed Putin. Reportedly he watched the video of him getting hanged over and over... realizing that the US was not a reliable partner, and would topple any country no longer useful to it (like Hussein-- US backed in the 70s-90s, then they tossed him aside and destroyed Iraq). The realized that the US was not going to follow the international order (Kosovo bombings were admitted to be "illegal but moral"), so he decided that he was not going to tie his own hands just to please the US.
1
@juliemclean6743 >when you can't explain how he's wrong
1
@Blanka1100 We had a chance to change, and the West ruined it. Maybe next time dont allow oligarchs to steal Russians' money and keep it in London and New York?? Dont support Yeltsin's corruption, dont help him rig 1996 elections, dont hold wargames in Baltic? Wy macie klapki na oczach, nie rozumiecie ze to wy spowodowaliscie stan bycia wspolczesnej rosji
1
@tonupharry Not really, the oligarchs were a direct result of the US-sponsored Loans for Shares program undertaken by Yeltsin in the 1990s. The US had no problem ruining and prospects of a democratic Russia as long as they could loot the country first
1