In the present, Russia is trying to swallow up Ukraine because of Putin’s delusions that Ukraine shouldn’t exist as a country. If Ukraine had been in NATO, it’s very unlikely Putin would have tried this because there’s no chance Russia could defeat NATO.
That is of course a possible or likely scenario.
I do not 100% agree. From the time the USSR fell till last February so many things did happen, but could have happened differently. It is very hard to say.
The current director of the CIA. Pretty recent.
It’s easy (and factually correct) to say that Ukraine was correct that Russia was a dangerous aggressor, and Ukraine was correct to seek NATO membership to protect against Russian aggression.
I think folks could at least see why I think the expansion of NATO was one, maybe the major cause for the invasion. I didn’t just make it up. Did not find the theory on some crackpot site.
I’m struggling to think of a reason why anyone would be against the expansion of NATO other than the inherent difficulties of invade countries under the NATO “umbrella”. Maybe you could help me think of one?
(I mean, having mutual defense treaties, an attack on one is an attack on all, seems like an obviously good idea.)
Yes. Mutual defense treaties are great. They can be difficult in some situations. Can lead to unintended results. But the concept is great. In a perfect world they are the best thing to avert wars.
But very often, ones outside the treaty for some reasons, real or imagined, can see them as a threat. Feel like they are being ganged up on. The concept plays out on levels from nations, to small groups of people.
I have not looked into it in depth. But have sometimes come across one explanation for the start of the First World War. Not the explanation. But one theory. A cascade effect resulting from what seemed a small event / trigger. Many countries had treaties that got triggered. Maybe in some cases the treaties were used as an excuse, others in good faith. A very simplified example.
So I do think mutual defense is a great concept. But it can be difficult.
You are of course technically correct. Partially, at least. The threat of NATO expansion, tripping Russian paranoia about being encircled, was indeed probably one of the triggers for the war. Imperial aggrandizement being another, since Ukraine had ceased being a compliant puppet after the coup.
It is however it might be equally accurate to say David Berkowitz started murdering people because he thought his neighbor’s dog, Sam, was a demon ordering him to do so (assuming you give any credence to Berkowitz). Or more concretely that Osama bin Laden launched the 9/11 attacks because the United States placed non-Muslim troops on Arabian soil during the Gulf War.
Sure there are reasons - there are always reasons. Doesn’t make them good or rational reasons. Russia is paranoid about NATO, yes. And paranoia is a mental disorder.
The overall concept of NATO is good.
But it does not constrain it’s members to act in unison on all foreign affairs issues, and other “extracurricular activities”. A nation outside the treaty will have relations with one or more of the members in various realms. Some squabbles may arise. Hopefully they are negotiated to some mutual satisfaction, nation to nation. But a mutual defense. ( Damn. I always type defence. If you defence, you lessen your defense.) But a mutual defense treaty can be used by one or more members to skew the negotiations. Some times other members even find it necessary to try and tone down a member who is seen to be relying on the mutual defense treaty to strong arm another nation in some instance.
So that is one type of instance where mutual defense can be threatening to other nations. It can warp relations in some ways.
I’ve tried to not feed the troll here, but sometimes the bullshit is so egregious that I have to make a brief response in case anyone might actually believe it.
Citing the Beinart article is stupid on many different levels. One is that it completely fails to support – and tries to detract from – the earlier stupid arguments that Kedikat has made and which I documented in my earlier post, that Russia was somehow “justified” in invading Ukraine, and what a fine and popular fellow Putin was. (Of course you’re going to appear “popular” if everyone who even slightly opposes you is either dead or in jail. Thinking of Putin as a particularly ruthless Mob gangster conveys the right general impression.)
Peter Beinart’s record as a pundit is uneven and controversial, to put it kindly. He is, for instance, a liberal who strongly supported Bush the Younger’s second Iraq war, a position he came to deeply regret. His depiction of William Burns is a mess of exaggerations and outright distortions; in fact, the only thing in that article that is accurate is that Burns described the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO as a bright red line for Putin and his gang of thugs.
Of course it was. This is not news to anyone. Putin and his gang of plundering oligarchs saw the westernization and progressive democratization of neighbouring countries, especially Ukraine, as a threat to his kleptocracy, which was both immensely comfortable and mind-bogglingly lucrative for them. Ukraine had no prospect of joining NATO anyway in any foreseeable future, as a number of key factors – not the least of which was border disputes – disqualified it. Ukrainians are suffering and dying, not because of NATO, but because Putin and his gang of thieves were, in the worst style of mob gangsters, protecting their domain and their comforts and wealth and seeking to extend it even further beyond Russia’s borders.
Again, you are a lying sack of shit and camouflaging your trolling behind a veneer of ersatz “politeness” makes me sick. We’ve seen it here many times before.
This is the amazing thing about all this — that he persists in the charade because he still thinks he’s fooling someone. If anyone has the potential for being taken in by his Soviet Sea Lion act, they’re not participating in these threads.
So stop feeding.
Some of the posts I find interesting, so I try and give a reply. Some are said so as to make me want to reply. If nobody bothers with the thread, I will have no reason to bother either.
Johnny_L.A. decided to start the thread.
So I did drop in.
Lock it. Ignore it. Ban me from it.
It will go away.
I find it less interesting all the time. But I did like some of the comments today.
But. Don’t just carry on bad mouthing me, if I drop it.
I noticed I was attacked in the other thread after the moderator had requested it be dropped. Which I did. So if people wish it dropped here too. Fine.
But don’t come back in dissing me, and expect me to not reply.
The troll? C’mon, just admit it. The mods will be be merciful and quick.
One group involved in defending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is…antivaxers.
I was aware of Natural News’ Mike Adams pushing this line along with Dutch anti-Covid-19 restrictions/anti-Covid-19 vaccine activist Willem Engel, but Mother Jones has documented other creepy instances of cross-fertilization between antivaxers and pro-Russian apologists.
Aren’t they in for a surprise when they learn (not that that’s a possibility here) about . . . Sputnik V!
From the other thread:
Occasionally The New Atlas has Ukraine war updates and explanations. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVkSF37pPXkZbElFjBwUsEA
It was already pointed out to you that odysee is a far-Right site that is unreliable.
The New Atlas is an anti-Western source and should not be trusted.
But many sites, including some I list are also still on Youtube. Odysee does not have a far right only admittance rule.
I often look at information sources that may in general, go against my personal leanings. Particularly ones that try to cite the information sources they use. I try and aggregate the most legitimate information from many sites, to get an idea of what is closest to the reality.
In the current atmosphere of ideological censorship, in too extreme extent. Even middle and left sources are being censored too much on many sites. Many sites, on various sides of issues are spreading out to more venues to avoid possible, unexpected, censoring. It becomes less obvious which sites are whacko, extreme, just because they are on a certain provider, or multiple providers.
Also. I stopped pulling stuff over from the other thread. The posters there, may not care to have me drag their stuff around the site. Some did on their own accord. Fine.
As this thread was started to seemingly target me. I chose to stop posting here. The replies were mostly crap. Excepting the very few good ones. I feel no need to reply to most.
Am I pro Russia or Ukraine?
I am pro facts. I am anti war. But war is a continuing fact. The war started. I am trying to follow the facts as to what is happening now. I also look into the past to try and see what led to the war. I look at various opinions as to where it might lead from here.
As far as how the war is going. Ukraine started a ways back from the start line. Has done amazingly well. But is always at a disadvantage for several reasons. That is just facts. Not pro Russia. One side wins. That is just a fact. So far, it seems advantage is Russia. Not morally. Militarily.
This thread was started because you are a Putin apologist, and because your posts were not appropriate to the other thread. I started this thread to give you a forum for your views, because you seemed too cowardly to start it yourself. You only perceive the replies as ‘crap’ because your position is indefensible, Mr. Sea Lion.
You are pro-Russia. Your protestations that you are ‘anti-war’ are belied by the fact that Putin started a war of aggression without provocation.