Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[bourbons]

Determining their own status, yes. The thought occurs that someone, somewhere, has to define or identify who it is that has the right to determine their own status to begin with, and that military intervention (among other forms of intervention) is far from off the table in attempts to reinforce that right on the behalf of one party or another, but you know... I can't recall anyone saying they don't have that right. Perhaps you'll show me where I did, at least?

notsureifserious.jpg

Beyond amazing this apparently has to be spelled out, but Russia is saying Ukraine doesn't have that right.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Well, that would go a long way toward explaining your understanding of the world.
A little background reading on how Montaigne used the phrase "What do I know?" might have cleared a few things up for you almost immediately, but I suppose if you don't read, you wouldn't have known that.
That bit I've quoted above did make me laugh a little. Again, if you'd actually read Montaigne or even knew who he was, you might understand why.

Obviously I am now under fire for having the temerity to actually taking some time to think about it.
Something which the entire world hasn't been able to achieve, you and yours demand an answer to in ten minutes or less, and then resort to insults and derision when you don't get what you want, when you want it. Or, of course, in "simple English", you and some others chucked a tanty.
Such demanding children. I mean, who raised you?

I know what I would have done years ago. Now, well, I'm not so sure. But seeing as you demand an answer in five minutes:

As a starting point, an immediate end to hostilities, Russia withdraws to pre-war borders (as per Feb 2022), NATO is immediately dissolved as an organisation, and all foreign bases in Europe are immediately handed over to the host nations and an international law drawn up to prevent foreign militaries from being based anywhere other than in their own nation's territory. All parties involved in the war (including Russia) pay for the mess (in the form of donations, financial or otherwise, and not investment - matching their contribution to the war in terms of ordinance and support measures if not actively involved) and the reconstruction of Ukraine. All trade restrictions (including sanctions) immediately removed.
The immediate reformation of the UN in such a manner as it is truly an international organisation, and held accountable when it doesn't do the job it was formed to do.

That's my five minute answer. Problems regarding the policing of which, among other issues, would probably be an indication of why I deem a five minute answer to be a ridiculous demand to make - but not an entirely unexpected one from those who exist in the twitterverse.

How does one hold the UN accountable (and the corollary how does the UN have authority to do anything)

 

[jatz14]

Well, that would go a long way toward explaining your understanding of the world.
A little background reading on how Montaigne used the phrase "What do I know?" might have cleared a few things up for you almost immediately, but I suppose if you don't read, you wouldn't have known that.
That bit I've quoted above did make me laugh a little. Again, if you'd actually read Montaigne or even knew who he was, you might understand why.

Obviously I am now under fire for having the temerity to actually taking some time to think about it.
Something which the entire world hasn't been able to achieve, you and yours demand an answer to in ten minutes or less, and then resort to insults and derision when you don't get what you want, when you want it. Or, of course, in "simple English", you and some others chucked a tanty.
Such demanding children. I mean, who raised you?

I know what I would have done years ago. Now, well, I'm not so sure. But seeing as you demand an answer in five minutes:

As a starting point, an immediate end to hostilities, Russia withdraws to pre-war borders (as per Feb 2022), NATO is immediately dissolved as an organisation, and all foreign bases in Europe are immediately handed over to the host nations and an international law drawn up to prevent foreign militaries from being based anywhere other than in their own nation's territory. All parties involved in the war (including Russia) pay for the mess (in the form of donations, financial or otherwise, and not investment - matching their contribution to the war in terms of ordinance and support measures if not actively involved) and the reconstruction of Ukraine. All trade restrictions (including sanctions) immediately removed.
The immediate reformation of the UN in such a manner as it is truly an international organisation, and held accountable when it doesn't do the job it was formed to do.

That's my five minute answer. Problems regarding the policing of which, among other issues, would probably be an indication of why I deem a five minute answer to be a ridiculous demand to make - but not an entirely unexpected one from those who exist in the twitterverse.

So, dissolve the security arrangements that enabled a country like Germany, with it's militaristic past, to devote historically low portions of it's GDP towards killing people?

Do you work for the armaments industry?

Because I cannot see any rationale for a policy designed to see a historic blowout in spending on the arms industry, beyond a devotion to the industry.

Or do you just hanker for the days when the world was awash in German armoured divisions?

Has it entirely missed your notice that of the many nations that Russia has attacked, bullied or undermined, none have been in NATO?

A point not lost on any of the nations involved, even if it's lost on you.

Also, am I to guess that Russian security arrangements are also to be dissolved, and troops withdrawn from places like Belorussia and Chechnya?

Your peace plan is to involve a Russian state that invaded a country in order to militarise its borders, voluntarily demilitarizing it's border?

And no, securing a peaceful border for Russia will not induce it to demilitirise uts border, because it's never been about peace and security, it's always been about power projection and empire.

The internet doesn't have enough lol's for that suggestion.

You want to create the power vacuum that Russia desired, into which it can project it's military, something every country anywhere near Russia understands.

Seriously, if I was an evil genius, and I wanted to start a nuclear war to end the world, I might start with your peace plan.

NATO dissolves, Germany has nukes within the year, guaranteed for a start.

I suspect Poland wouldn't be far behind.

Fun and games for all concerned then.



On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Episode IV]

Can't have that, he has to be ever the poor put-upon independent thinker and smartest person in the room, surrounded on all sides by buffoons and war mongers incapable of rational thought to such a degree that their positions are entirely the result of twitter propaganda.

I wouldn't have put it in terms quite like those, the representation of all parties involved being a little caricaturist, but it's not a terrible assessment.
Have you considered that there might have been a reason for it, which does not necessarily involve you directly and might serve as more of a demonstration, in the form of a gedanken?
As a collective, I'll just direct you to Carly Simon's "You're so Vain", including the ongoing controversy as to who it was written about/for, as a little joke... of sorts.

Which is perhaps the ultimate irony, considering he apparently thinks NATO disbanding would ensure Russia stays on its own side of the fence.

I never said anything of the sort.
Put together with other measures, I do think it would result in Russia not feeling quite so threatened, more assured of its place in the world and less likely to act militarily in response to a perceived threat - particularly when more temperate measures, or at least a recognition and address of the situation, have been in the past dismissed as the ravings of a madman, an attitude which has resulted in, or at least contributed toward, the current situation. But I wouldn't use the word "ensure" in this context at all.
That's a word you hardliners tend to use.

If you take a look around, there are a lot of people and countries in the world who are sympathetic to my position, such as it is and to the extent to which I've chosen to make it clear. Or, you know, I am to theirs, whichever way you'd like to spin it dependent on whatever authority I'm perceived to have on the matter.
How much they're prepared to speak on the subject, or take action in order to rectify it, is largely dependent upon their capability to do so, when other constraints are taken into account. Freedom and the right to self-determination, it appears, are concepts arbitrarily applied, and the methods by which they are (or aren't) enforced vary, but are not limited to military action.
When the politicians say things like "rules based world order", they're talking about neither equality of opportunity, nor equality of outcome. It's even preferred to stay well away from the subject of who makes the rules at all, for much the same reason.

There has been much talk of a Russia stuck in the 19th century, around here. I think that there hasn't been enough mention of how much other nations are still firmly ensconced in the later half of the twentieth.

How does one hold the UN accountable (and the corollary how does the UN have authority to do anything)

I did say something about policing problems, and for the second half of that question I'll ask you why you think NATO was used as a pretext for support of a non-member nation, rather than the UN... or unilateral intervention.

There is more than one answer to that question, but I think I've said enough in this thread. I'm sure there are many who would agree on that point.

*edit - other than to add that I've just rewatched Black Mirror again recently... "The Waldo Moment" giving me a bit of a smile.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I wouldn't have put it in terms quite like those, the representation of all parties involved being a little caricaturist, but it's not a terrible assessment.
Have you considered that there might have been a reason for it, which does not necessarily involve you directly and might serve as more of a demonstration, in the form of a gedanken?
As a collective, I'll just direct you to Carly Simon's "You're so Vain", including the ongoing controversy as to who it was written about/for, as a little joke... of sorts.

I never said anything of the sort.
Put together with other measures, I do think it would result in Russia not feeling quite so threatened, more assured of its place in the world and less likely to act militarily in response to a perceived threat - particularly when more temperate measures, or at least a recognition and address of the situation, have been in the past dismissed as the ravings of a madman, an attitude which has resulted in, or at least contributed toward, the current situation. But I wouldn't use the word "ensure" in this context at all.
That's a word you hardliners tend to use.

If you take a look around, there are a lot of people and countries in the world who are sympathetic to my position, such as it is and to the extent to which I've chosen to make it clear. Or, you know, I am to theirs, whichever way you'd like to spin it dependent on whatever authority I'm perceived to have on the matter.
How much they're prepared to speak on the subject, or take action in order to rectify it, is largely dependent upon their capability to do so, when other constraints are taken into account. Freedom and the right to self-determination, it appears, are concepts arbitrarily applied, and the methods by which they are (or aren't) enforced vary, but are not limited to military action.
When the politicians say things like "rules based world order", they're talking about neither equality of opportunity, nor equality of outcome. It's even preferred to stay well away from the subject of who makes the rules at all, for much the same reason.

There has been much talk of a Russia stuck in the 19th century, around here. I think that there hasn't been enough mention of how much other nations are still firmly ensconced in the later half of the twentieth.


I did say something about policing problems, and for the second half of that question I'll ask you why you think NATO was used as a pretext for support of a non-member nation, rather than the UN... or unilateral intervention.

There is more than one answer to that question, but I think I've said enough in this thread. I'm sure there are many who would agree on that point.

*edit - other than to add that I've just rewatched Black Mirror again recently... "The Waldo Moment" giving me a bit of a smile.

NATO is only organisation which can the military resources to oppose Russia would seem to be the obvious reason.

 

[jatz14]

Well, that would go a long way toward explaining your understanding of the world.
A little background reading on how Montaigne used the phrase "What do I know?" might have cleared a few things up for you almost immediately, but I suppose if you don't read, you wouldn't have known that.
That bit I've quoted above did make me laugh a little. Again, if you'd actually read Montaigne or even knew who he was, you might understand why.

Obviously I am now under fire for having the temerity to actually taking some time to think about it.
Something which the entire world hasn't been able to achieve, you and yours demand an answer to in ten minutes or less, and then resort to insults and derision when you don't get what you want, when you want it. Or, of course, in "simple English", you and some others chucked a tanty.
Such demanding children. I mean, who raised you?

I know what I would have done years ago. Now, well, I'm not so sure. But seeing as you demand an answer in five minutes:

As a starting point, an immediate end to hostilities, Russia withdraws to pre-war borders (as per Feb 2022), NATO is immediately dissolved as an organisation, and all foreign bases in Europe are immediately handed over to the host nations and an international law drawn up to prevent foreign militaries from being based anywhere other than in their own nation's territory. All parties involved in the war (including Russia) pay for the mess (in the form of donations, financial or otherwise, and not investment - matching their contribution to the war in terms of ordinance and support measures if not actively involved) and the reconstruction of Ukraine. All trade restrictions (including sanctions) immediately removed.
The immediate reformation of the UN in such a manner as it is truly an international organisation, and held accountable when it doesn't do the job it was formed to do.

That's my five minute answer. Problems regarding the policing of which, among other issues, would probably be an indication of why I deem a five minute answer to be a ridiculous demand to make - but not an entirely unexpected one from those who exist in the twitterverse.

The more I read this the more bonkers it becomes, and the more indefensible it becomes, and I am no longer willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The purpose of a united defensive organisation like NATO is paradoxical. It reduces the risk of war by ostensibly raising the risk for each state.

Every country commits it's military to defend any other country in the alliance, so now, instead of being at war when your attacked, your at war when any one of 20 odd other countries are attacked.

But the cost of attacking these countries becomes so high, it becomes impossible, so while you are committed to defending all these countries, the actual risk falls to almost zero.

This is magnified in Europe's case because historically each of the countries in NATO was most likely to be attacked by other countries in NATO.

So much so, that when it comes to wars, the highly divided and concentrated area of Europe was the most dangerous place on earth.

Central to Nato's success at providing a period of peace in Europe unmatched in history, is embedding militaries in each other's countries.

Countries like Germany, Poland, France, would build their defensive perimeters, and stare at the powerful militaries of their neighbours suspiciously, and wonder when the next attack was coming. Maybe it would be better if we got in first, attack them before they attack us. Basically the plot of world war 1.

Now, they have militaries deeply embedded in each other, centralized command structures, bases willingly allowed in places that used to be the enemy, even converging political structures.

It makes Germany secretly planning an attack on Poland utterly impossible.

Hence, the militarised borders between these places have disappeared.

NATO has allowed the existence of the EU, and the most stable and most peaceful period in European history.

Now, I understand the Soviets being suspicious of NATO, NATO was powerful, and they had just recovered from a devastating attack from Europe.

But Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and NATO isn't new anymore. If NATO was going to attack Russia, it would have done it after the collapse of the Soviet military machine, and before Putin's rebuild.

Russia was weak and disorganized and NATO did nothing.

But Putin is obsessed with the organisation that has bought peace and stability to a Europe that has been the source of trouble for Russia in the past, he should be glad.

Why isn't he happy that his troublesome war prone and usually armed to the teeth neighbour has been peaceful and stable and steadily demilitarizing for decades?

Because if a stable economically strong Europe tied together with a strong military alliance isn't a threat, it also cannot be exploited.

People like Putin thrive in chaos and division. It's how he became ruler of Russia.

He cannot do anything about any of the individual states in NATO, while NATO exists. The mighty all conquering Czar Putin, absolute ruler of all the Russia's, cannot even intimidate lowly Latvia. Oh the humiliation.

In a world without NATO and a united Europe, Latvia is licking Putin's boots. And he so badly wants his boots to be licked.

It's like Putin is the local gang lord in a shitty run down neighborhood, and everyone in that neighborhood has to treat him like a lord, because if they don't, what follows is threats, intimidation, violence. All held together with bribes and graft for his boys who run it all for him.

But the next neighborhood over has a big security wall around it, and guard dogs, and patrols, and cops he cannot bribe or threaten. He doesn't go there, it scares him, but it's where all the money is.

Putin's problem is, everyone else in his neighborhood, wants to be behind those walls, and they petition to be allowed in, and every time that happens, that wall extends out a little further, and the number of people that are on the other side, immune from him goes up, and the number left on his side of the wall falls.

He knows, nobody in his neighborhood likes him. His boys do it for the graft, and everyone else for the fear, but the moment they can get on the other side of that wall, they will.

He is in the process of trying to beat up the last guy that expressed an interest in getting out of his shitty violent neighborhood and behind that wall, but this guy isn't taking it anymore and is fighting back.

Your plan to stop the fight is to tear down the wall, get rid of the cops, fire the security guards, and stop the residents cooperating with each other for protection. Because Putin is upset that his subjects have a safe place to escape to.

All these people in this neighborhood, to give up their protection, to stop a fight Putin started.


I used to think you didn't know what you were saying, I apologize, I now recognize you do.

Putin says wants NATO gone, and cooperative defence in general gone, because this lets him undermine smaller nations one by one. Sow division and disorder, hopefully start a war or two.

This is why he wants NATO gone. This is why you want it gone. NATO stands between Putin and a chaotic violent Europe he can undermine and exploit.

I am not sure why you want this, but I don't think there is any doubt any longer, that it is indeed what you want.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Episode IV]

jatz14
I'm not going to waste any time questioning your premises or logic, your historical knowledge... or even this rather odd belief you seem to have that you can read other people's minds - mine and Putin's, at least.

I'm just popping in here to express my admiration for the sheer effort you've apparently put into using just about every logical fallacy in the book. There are a couple missing, an Appeal to Authority for example... although I think in that case you might have some trouble finding one in support of your, er, case.
So that's understandable.

I was almost tempted to give you a like myself.

 

[jatz14]

jatz14
I'm not going to waste any time questioning your premises or logic, your historical knowledge... or even this rather odd belief you seem to have that you can read other people's minds - mine and Putin's, at least.

I'm just popping in here to express my admiration for the sheer effort you've apparently put into using just about every logical fallacy in the book. There are a couple missing, an Appeal to Authority for example... although I think in that case you might have some trouble finding one in support of your, er, case.
So that's understandable.

I was almost tempted to give you a like myself.

You want to end NATO, as a condition for ending the war between Russia and Ukraine.

No logical fallacy, no logic at all.

 

[jatz14]

jatz14
I'm not going to waste any time questioning your premises or logic, your historical knowledge... or even this rather odd belief you seem to have that you can read other people's minds - mine and Putin's, at least.

I'm just popping in here to express my admiration for the sheer effort you've apparently put into using just about every logical fallacy in the book. There are a couple missing, an Appeal to Authority for example... although I think in that case you might have some trouble finding one in support of your, er, case.
So that's understandable.

I was almost tempted to give you a like myself.

I am disappointed though, I would have liked to see you pull apart all the logical fallacies I made. Let me do it for you.

Ad Hominem attack? Pity, I dont see it. I mean, I did say a mean thing about you, but that's just me being mean, my attack was against your statement, not your personality, so, no, not Ad hominem.

Statement of fact? You could argue this one, except you didn't, so I suspect you cannot. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could have a go? Europe has experienced its greatest ever period of peace and stability under the framework of Nato, the security organisation you want to see gone, in the interests of peace. I mean, you could argue Pax Romana as the greatest period of peace, but that was due to empire built by conquest, They created a desert and called it peace. Or Pax Britannica, a period of peace created by triumphant British empire building and the gradual collapse of competing powers. But these are peace created by a victor astride the spoils, not a peace created cooperatively, so I contend they are inferior. Argue if you wish. The statement Nato didnt invade Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Was this a logical fallacy in your view, or some other statement?

Straw man argument? Hmmm, dont think so. I was responding to your suggestion that Europe should give up on Nato, and withdraw all forces to national borders, in order to make them much more vulnerable to Russia, oops, sorry. In order to create an environment for peace. You absolutely said this, I can cut and paste if you wish. Now, it isn't really possible to straw man this, as you just made statements of, they should do this, with no real rational argument as to why this would achieve what you stated you want. I was just making the countervailing claim that the practical outcome of these actions would be the exact opposite of what you said you desired. This isnt me putting a false argument in your mouth, this is me making my argument to your rather absurd and entirely unargued statements.

Appeal to authority, as you said, no.

Red Herring? No, don't see it, feel free to point it out.

False dilemma? Hmm.

As for mind reading. Yes, I, along with every other person on the planet, am a mind reader. This is the process whereby people observe actions, statements and outcomes, and from them, infer motive, intent and state of mind. It is an essential component of the human condition. If it wasn't, then other people would be just things that moved around, made noises and did stuff, all apparently randomly.

You say things that lead people to draw conclusions of motive and intent.
You dont like those conclusions.
Sucks to be you I guess.

 

[faible]

Ouch. Jatz has really gone for it this morning.

 

[Zidane98]

Jatz goes boom!


That's rather comprehensive. NATO isn't going anywhere and will continue to expand as long as Russia feels the need to threaten / invade / attack neighboring former soviet states. If Putin wants NATO to stop expanding he knows what to do.


I do predict Moscow will lose Kazakhstan to the Chinese within 5-10 years. But in that case I don't see Vlad dare try to create the "independent People's Republic of North Kazakhstan". China's military is right there and will crush Russia. Plus North Korea would also be on China's side and Vladivostok may come into play for China taking it back.

 

[bourbons]

I wouldn't have put it in terms quite like those, the representation of all parties involved being a little caricaturist, but it's not a terrible assessment.
Have you considered that there might have been a reason for it, which does not necessarily involve you directly and might serve as more of a demonstration, in the form of a gedanken?
As a collective, I'll just direct you to Carly Simon's "You're so Vain", including the ongoing controversy as to who it was written about/for, as a little joke... of sorts.

I never said anything of the sort.
Put together with other measures, I do think it would result in Russia not feeling quite so threatened, more assured of its place in the world and less likely to act militarily in response to a perceived threat - particularly when more temperate measures, or at least a recognition and address of the situation, have been in the past dismissed as the ravings of a madman, an attitude which has resulted in, or at least contributed toward, the current situation. But I wouldn't use the word "ensure" in this context at all.
That's a word you hardliners tend to use.

If you take a look around, there are a lot of people and countries in the world who are sympathetic to my position, such as it is and to the extent to which I've chosen to make it clear. Or, you know, I am to theirs, whichever way you'd like to spin it dependent on whatever authority I'm perceived to have on the matter.
How much they're prepared to speak on the subject, or take action in order to rectify it, is largely dependent upon their capability to do so, when other constraints are taken into account. Freedom and the right to self-determination, it appears, are concepts arbitrarily applied, and the methods by which they are (or aren't) enforced vary, but are not limited to military action.
When the politicians say things like "rules based world order", they're talking about neither equality of opportunity, nor equality of outcome. It's even preferred to stay well away from the subject of who makes the rules at all, for much the same reason.

There has been much talk of a Russia stuck in the 19th century, around here. I think that there hasn't been enough mention of how much other nations are still firmly ensconced in the later half of the twentieth.

Right, so you'd equally accept a hypothetical Russian rationale that they feel threatened by the possibility of the Incredible Hulk emerging from a Ukraine biolab and laying waste to the motherland. Coz, again, thats roughly as plausible as feeling threatened by an offensive NATO invasion that categorically would never happen.

Weird how they've shared borders with NATO countries for years with no problem, but as soon as Ukraine wants to join its unacceptable isn't it? Any idea why that might be?

But sure, oh yes of course, poor Russia, we simply must "assure them of their place in the world" mustn't we. No need for any recognition or reflection on their own actions over and extended period to be undertaken in Russia of course during this process, everyone else just has to forgive and forget, give them a big cuddle and everything will be fine. Nothing about their previous behaviour and clearly stated geopoitical views suggest any problems might arise in future

You seem to have 'missed' one of my other replies to you mate - do you at least accept that Russia is telling Ukraine they don't have a right to determine their own status?

 

[Episode IV]

I am disappointed though, I would have liked to see you pull apart all the logical fallacies I made. Let me do it for you.

That is pretty much your modus operandi. Sort of a self-own in some respects, but I doubt you'd see it that way. I'm not going to indulge in a response on that the subject of logical fallacies on a line-by-line basis, (feel free to tell me that is because I can't... oh wait. There's one) but if I pick up any (more) along the way whilst writing this response I'll let you know.

With regard to your position on NATO, you've also worked almost exclusively under the premise that if there is peace in Europe now and if that has lasted since the end of the Second World War, then that must have been the result of enforcement under the terms of NATO.
I disagree with that premise, too. I think it extremely unlikely there would have been another war fought between European nations, in Europe; at least not for a very long time, NATO or no NATO.
Two world wars taught them all a rather valuable lesson. I've a further opinion that the member countries most willing to engage in conflict now are the same ones who were least materially affected by it. One came home with a booming economy, a healthy balance sheet, a pile of loans to call in and not a shell crater in sight.

You mentioned a reduction in defence spending, celebrated that Germany is spending less on defence than ever.
NATO's defence spending as an organisation is steadily increasing, year on year. Bit of a drop around 2015 or so from memory, but the overall trajectory is up, not down. Oh, there's your red herring, by the way.

The decreased spending on military by Germany (soon to change, if I recall), set as a distraction to the fact that NATO's defence spending in general is increasing, also highlights a couple of other points to consider. If there is a net increase in NATO spending, and Germany's share (I'm not sure they're the only ones decreasing spending, just running with your example) is decreasing, then that points to certain controlling interests becoming... well, more controlling.
I'll draw your attention to the fact that article 5 has only ever been invoked twice - both times by the USA. After 9/11 from memory.
I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself the attitude of other NATO member states whose participation in Operation Eagle Assist was deemed mandatory by a controlling member state who apparent were worried they weren't able to defend themselves against... someone.

Oh, and there was that one time, when NATO bombed the shit out of a sovereign nation, caused numerous civilian causalities in the process, and then carved up the aforementioned sovereign nation into a couple of smaller ones... while the UN waved a finger in admonition.

I suppose I could give you a list of all NATO operations (they didn't act militarily at all before 1991), but you'd end up with a list of punitive actions against smaller opponents largely unable to defend themselves (or in some cases, no clearly defined opponent at all) in defence of... well, the economic interests of its members. In at least one of those actions, the right to self-determination was told to go have intercourse with itself.
Back in the 80's, we used to call it "Peace through Superior Firepower".

The purpose of a united defensive organisation like NATO is paradoxical. It reduces the risk of war by ostensibly raising the risk for each state.
Every country commits it's military to defend any other country in the alliance, so now, instead of being at war when your attacked, your at war when any one of 20 odd other countries are attacked.
But the cost of attacking these countries becomes so high, it becomes impossible, so while you are committed to defending all these countries, the actual risk falls to almost zero.
This is magnified in Europe's case because historically each of the countries in NATO was most likely to be attacked by other countries in NATO.

Basically the plot of World War One, indeed. You see, the logic behind the member nations of those military alliances was that attacking one was an attack on all of them, or as a defensive measure against all the other alliances... which...
Oh never mind. Here.


NATO has enjoyed a period of supremacy for quite a long time now, mostly due to the fact that that really wasn't anyone capable of challenging it after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But with the rise of other players on the global stage, there does seem to be a worry developing that that supremacy might soon become challenged again.
And if it is challenged again, particularly as a result of it failing to adhere to it's ostensible defensive posture, or of an increasing tendency for it to serve as the military arm of an economic bloc, and if other states form alliances of their own capable of challenging it, then the entire plan becomes, once again... bollocks.
The fallout of which, in all probability, would be significantly greater than that following the First World War. Yes, intended.

So yes, I do understand your point of view regarding that aspect of NATO. The problem I have with it, however, is that it almost entirely Eurocentric... in a world increasingly not. It is subject to hysterical responses based upon relatively minor events such as the Shooting of an archduke a missile veering off course a border shooting (dang, someone used that one before too) as a pretext for involving an entire organisation into something potentially devastating they aren't involved in, don't particularly want to be involved in, but are forced to be involved in because of a 70 year old treaty.
I think that NATO is an outdated institution and has become more an arm for the EU than anything else. I'm far from the only one who believes that.

As mentioned previously, NATO is a dominant Eurocentric alliance. If any powerful non-European alliances are formed in the future, they'll be formed as a defence against NATO, although not on an obvious level.
So I suppose we've got a bit of a chicken and egg argument going on here.

Now, I understand the Soviets being suspicious of NATO, NATO was powerful, and they had just recovered from a devastating attack from Europe.

No, they'd just recovered from a devastating attack by Germany and a couple of her allies. After they'd joined Germany in attacking Poland, too... how rude of Germany. The rest of Europe was engaged in fighting against Germany... although not necessarily on behalf of Russia.

But Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and NATO isn't new anymore.

Agreed. I'm not sure why you think this is in support of your argument and not mine, but ok.

If NATO was going to attack Russia, it would have done it after the collapse of the Soviet military machine, and before Putin's rebuild.

I don't recall saying NATO would have attacked Russia at all. I did say at some point (not recently from memory) that Russia perceives NATO as a threat, and got howled down for it. Poland's recent reaction to Wagner being near its border would seem to bear out the opinion that foreign military presence on the borders of a nation does indeed make everyone a little twitchy.
A part of my proposed solution was to stop making everyone twitchy by getting rid of the thing making them twitchy, and let them trade with whomever the hell they want, even if it is someone you don't like. There's that self-determination thing again.
Again, it is not an isolated opinion.

But Putin is obsessed with the organisation that has bought peace and stability to a Europe that has been the source of trouble for Russia in the past, he should be glad.

A peaceful and safe Europe is one way of looking at it - particularly from within that peaceful and safe Europe.
If you're locked outside it, however, and all the guns are pointed in your direction... I don't think I'd be feeling all that relaxed. Nor glad.

Nor is a reduction in the military spending of Germany in any way an indication that NATO has been "steadily demilitarizing for decades." The opposite is true.
It is NATO Russia is nervous about, not Germany.

I'm going to skip a substantial part of the rest, being mostly waffle about what you think Putin thinks.. and what I think, based upon your "observation".
You know, If I were to stand Putin and Biden side by side in a room, and asked them both to give a speech stating their position on world affairs, I think I'd come to the conclusion Putin appears more sane than most of the US presidents that have come and gone during his tenure. A little more harried lately, but that's to be expected.

As for mind reading. Yes, I, along with every other person on the planet, am a mind reader.

It would seem that a significant portion of the planet have the advantage over me, then. I cannot read minds at all.
I can, however,

observe actions, statements and outcomes, and from them, infer motive, intent and state of mind. It is an essential component of the human condition.

make judgments on those I deem proficient, and those who are not. Including myself, which ties in to the concept of the NPC below and one factor which differentiates between a person in possession of a considered opinion, and one who isn't.

If it wasn't, then other people would be just things that moved around, made noises and did stuff, all apparently randomly.

There has been increased talk about that lately. The term "NPC's" used in a non-gaming context. I disagree that it's random, although I'll concede it might appear that way to you.
A subset of those are state actors, and obviously their counterparts, non-state actors. State actors are free to act with the tacit support or approval of the state and therefore enjoy a great deal of freedom and licence in the pursuit of their own goals, non-state actors will often find themselves in a position where they must be significantly more circumspect.

and on that note:

Weird how they've shared borders with NATO countries for years with no problem, but as soon as Ukraine wants to join its unacceptable isn't it? Any idea why that might be?

Yes. Several. I've already mentioned some things on the matter. Bit disingenuous to say "with no problem", don't you think? It has been a problem for thirty years.
It's actually a subject popping up in public discourse quite regularly, various promises made by NATO and the Americans dating back to... about '92, I think, either broken or never followed up on, Ukraine being central in later years.
Some of the Democrat candidates in America I've been watching have discussed it. I haven't caught up on the Republicans yet.

You seem to have 'missed' one of my other replies to you mate - do you at least accept that Russia is telling Ukraine they don't have a right to determine their own status?

I've missed quite a few. There are an awful lot of you, and only so many hours in a day.

This whole "Right to determine their own status" thing is something enforced arbitrarily and subjectively, usually when there is some sort of profit involved on the part of the one doing the enforcing. I get the impression the entire discussion serves mostly as a distraction. It's a nothing phrase. A dog whistle. Right up there with "rules based world order".

The only time the "Right to Self Determination" appears to be relevant is when the people controlling discussions seem to have decided it's a good way to get you onboard for the ride, or throw you off it.

How do you feel about the right to self determination for the Donbas? Afghanistan? Iran? Iraq? The Basques? Sudan? Oooh, what about the natives of Australia and the USA? South America?
Let me see. What about... hmm. Nope, better not get into that one.

I might think differently if it was regarded as a universal right, and applied universally, but it isn't.

 

[jatz14]

That is pretty much your modus operandi. Sort of a self-own in some respects, but I doubt you'd see it that way. I'm not going to indulge in a response on that the subject of logical fallacies on a line-by-line basis, (feel free to tell me that is because I can't... oh wait. There's one) but if I pick up any (more) along the way whilst writing this response I'll let you know.

With regard to your position on NATO, you've also worked almost exclusively under the premise that if there is peace in Europe now and if that has lasted since the end of the Second World War, then that must have been the result of enforcement under the terms of NATO.
I disagree with that premise, too. I think it extremely unlikely there would have been another war fought between European nations, in Europe; at least not for a very long time, NATO or no NATO.
Two world wars taught them all a rather valuable lesson. I've a further opinion that the member countries most willing to engage in conflict now are the same ones who were least materially affected by it. One came home with a booming economy, a healthy balance sheet, a pile of loans to call in and not a shell crater in sight.

You mentioned a reduction in defence spending, celebrated that Germany is spending less on defence than ever.
NATO's defence spending as an organisation is steadily increasing, year on year. Bit of a drop around 2015 or so from memory, but the overall trajectory is up, not down. Oh, there's your red herring, by the way.

The decreased spending on military by Germany (soon to change, if I recall), set as a distraction to the fact that NATO's defence spending in general is increasing, also highlights a couple of other points to consider. If there is a net increase in NATO spending, and Germany's share (I'm not sure they're the only ones decreasing spending, just running with your example) is decreasing, then that points to certain controlling interests becoming... well, more controlling.
I'll draw your attention to the fact that article 5 has only ever been invoked twice - both times by the USA. After 9/11 from memory.
I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself the attitude of other NATO member states whose participation in Operation Eagle Assist was deemed mandatory by a controlling member state who apparent were worried they weren't able to defend themselves against... someone.

Oh, and there was that one time, when NATO bombed the s**t out of a sovereign nation, caused numerous civilian causalities in the process, and then carved up the aforementioned sovereign nation into a couple of smaller ones... while the UN waved a finger in admonition.

I suppose I could give you a list of all NATO operations (they didn't act militarily at all before 1991), but you'd end up with a list of punitive actions against smaller opponents largely unable to defend themselves (or in some cases, no clearly defined opponent at all) in defence of... well, the economic interests of its members. In at least one of those actions, the right to self-determination was told to go have intercourse with itself.
Back in the 80's, we used to call it "Peace through Superior Firepower".


Basically the plot of World War One, indeed. You see, the logic behind the member nations of those military alliances was that attacking one was an attack on all of them, or as a defensive measure against all the other alliances... which...
Oh never mind. Here.


NATO has enjoyed a period of supremacy for quite a long time now, mostly due to the fact that that really wasn't anyone capable of challenging it after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But with the rise of other players on the global stage, there does seem to be a worry developing that that supremacy might soon become challenged again.
And if it is challenged again, particularly as a result of it failing to adhere to it's ostensible defensive posture, or of an increasing tendency for it to serve as the military arm of an economic bloc, and if other states form alliances of their own capable of challenging it, then the entire plan becomes, once again... bollocks.
The fallout of which, in all probability, would be significantly greater than that following the First World War. Yes, intended.

So yes, I do understand your point of view regarding that aspect of NATO. The problem I have with it, however, is that it almost entirely Eurocentric... in a world increasingly not. It is subject to hysterical responses based upon relatively minor events such as the Shooting of an archduke a missile veering off course a border shooting (dang, someone used that one before too) as a pretext for involving an entire organisation into something potentially devastating they aren't involved in, don't particularly want to be involved in, but are forced to be involved in because of a 70 year old treaty.
I think that NATO is an outdated institution and has become more an arm for the EU than anything else. I'm far from the only one who believes that.

As mentioned previously, NATO is a dominant Eurocentric alliance. If any powerful non-European alliances are formed in the future, they'll be formed as a defence against NATO, although not on an obvious level.
So I suppose we've got a bit of a chicken and egg argument going on here.



No, they'd just recovered from a devastating attack by Germany and a couple of her allies. After they'd joined Germany in attacking Poland, too... how rude of Germany. The rest of Europe was engaged in fighting against Germany... although not necessarily on behalf of Russia.

Agreed. I'm not sure why you think this is in support of your argument and not mine, but ok.

I don't recall saying NATO would have attacked Russia at all. I did say at some point (not recently from memory) that Russia perceives NATO as a threat, and got howled down for it. Poland's recent reaction to Wagner being near its border would seem to bear out the opinion that foreign military presence on the borders of a nation does indeed make everyone a little twitchy.
A part of my proposed solution was to stop making everyone twitchy by getting rid of the thing making them twitchy, and let them trade with whomever the hell they want, even if it is someone you don't like. There's that self-determination thing again.
Again, it is not an isolated opinion.


A peaceful and safe Europe is one way of looking at it - particularly from within that peaceful and safe Europe.
If you're locked outside it, however, and all the guns are pointed in your direction... I don't think I'd be feeling all that relaxed. Nor glad.

Nor is a reduction in the military spending of Germany in any way an indication that NATO has been "steadily demilitarizing for decades." The opposite is true.
It is NATO Russia is nervous about, not Germany.

I'm going to skip a substantial part of the rest, being mostly waffle about what you think Putin thinks.. and what I think, based upon your "observation".
You know, If I were to stand Putin and Biden side by side in a room, and asked them both to give a speech stating their position on world affairs, I think I'd come to the conclusion Putin appears more sane than most of the US presidents that have come and gone during his tenure. A little more harried lately, but that's to be expected.


It would seem that a significant portion of the planet have the advantage over me, then. I cannot read minds at all.
I can, however,

make judgments on those I deem proficient, and those who are not. Including myself, which ties in to the concept of the NPC below and one factor which differentiates between a person in possession of a considered opinion, and one who isn't.


There has been increased talk about that lately. The term "NPC's" used in a non-gaming context. I disagree that it's random, although I'll concede it might appear that way to you.
A subset of those are state actors, and obviously their counterparts, non-state actors. State actors are free to act with the tacit support or approval of the state and therefore enjoy a great deal of freedom and licence in the pursuit of their own goals, non-state actors will often find themselves in a position where they must be significantly more circumspect.

and on that note:

Yes. Several. I've already mentioned some things on the matter. Bit disingenuous to say "with no problem", don't you think? It has been a problem for thirty years.
It's actually a subject popping up in public discourse quite regularly, various promises made by NATO and the Americans dating back to... about '92, I think, either broken or never followed up on, Ukraine being central in later years.
Some of the Democrat candidates in America I've been watching have discussed it. I haven't caught up on the Republicans yet.

I've missed quite a few. There are an awful lot of you, and only so many hours in a day.

This whole "Right to determine their own status" thing is something enforced arbitrarily and subjectively, usually when there is some sort of profit involved on the part of the one doing the enforcing. I get the impression the entire discussion serves mostly as a distraction. It's a nothing phrase. A dog whistle. Right up there with "rules based world order".

The only time the "Right to Self Determination" appears to be relevant is when the people controlling discussions seem to have decided it's a good way to get you onboard for the ride, or throw you off it.

How do you feel about the right to self determination for the Donbas? Afghanistan? Iran? Iraq? The Basques? Sudan? Oooh, what about the natives of Australia and the USA? South America?
Let me see. What about... hmm. Nope, better not get into that one.

I might think differently if it was regarded as a universal right, and applied universally, but it isn't.

Lets keep the reply simple, and back to basics shall we.

You are comparing the status of Europe pre world war 1 to NATO?

Seriously?

Im not sure whats worse, a Europe with no alliances, or a Europe with a bunch of competing, overlapping, and hostile alliances. The alliances reduce somewhat the risk of war, but greatly magnify the possible scale of one, if it does start.

Putting all these countries in one security structure, that involved actual cooperation, and not just promises, was, to a significant degree, to stop that happening again, because everybody recognised the dangers of a bunch of uncooperative interests being loose in Europe again.

And my red herring? Natos military budget is rising, what a disingenuous little post that is. Like omitting to mention that this was a slight upward trend after a significant and much larger downward trend for the previous years. Omitting things like pre WW1, Germany, France, the UK, all averaged a larger percentage of GDP on their military than they did in the later part of Nato.

Omitting to mention that this rise FOLLOWED a large rise in Russian military expenditure

Omitting that the newer Nato countries, that border Russia have had HUGE increases in defence spending over the last half dozen years. Why is that do you think? How does that military spending change do you think, if Nato, and the Nato troops stationed there leave?

 

[Zidane98]

That is pretty much your modus operandi. Sort of a self-own in some respects, but I doubt you'd see it that way. I'm not going to indulge in a response on that the subject of logical fallacies on a line-by-line basis, (feel free to tell me that is because I can't... oh wait. There's one) but if I pick up any (more) along the way whilst writing this response I'll let you know.

With regard to your position on NATO, you've also worked almost exclusively under the premise that if there is peace in Europe now and if that has lasted since the end of the Second World War, then that must have been the result of enforcement under the terms of NATO.
I disagree with that premise, too. I think it extremely unlikely there would have been another war fought between European nations, in Europe; at least not for a very long time, NATO or no NATO.
Two world wars taught them all a rather valuable lesson. I've a further opinion that the member countries most willing to engage in conflict now are the same ones who were least materially affected by it. One came home with a booming economy, a healthy balance sheet, a pile of loans to call in and not a shell crater in sight.

You mentioned a reduction in defence spending, celebrated that Germany is spending less on defence than ever.
NATO's defence spending as an organisation is steadily increasing, year on year. Bit of a drop around 2015 or so from memory, but the overall trajectory is up, not down. Oh, there's your red herring, by the way.

The decreased spending on military by Germany (soon to change, if I recall), set as a distraction to the fact that NATO's defence spending in general is increasing, also highlights a couple of other points to consider. If there is a net increase in NATO spending, and Germany's share (I'm not sure they're the only ones decreasing spending, just running with your example) is decreasing, then that points to certain controlling interests becoming... well, more controlling.
I'll draw your attention to the fact that article 5 has only ever been invoked twice - both times by the USA. After 9/11 from memory.
I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself the attitude of other NATO member states whose participation in Operation Eagle Assist was deemed mandatory by a controlling member state who apparent were worried they weren't able to defend themselves against... someone.

Oh, and there was that one time, when NATO bombed the s**t out of a sovereign nation, caused numerous civilian causalities in the process, and then carved up the aforementioned sovereign nation into a couple of smaller ones... while the UN waved a finger in admonition.

I suppose I could give you a list of all NATO operations (they didn't act militarily at all before 1991), but you'd end up with a list of punitive actions against smaller opponents largely unable to defend themselves (or in some cases, no clearly defined opponent at all) in defence of... well, the economic interests of its members. In at least one of those actions, the right to self-determination was told to go have intercourse with itself.
Back in the 80's, we used to call it "Peace through Superior Firepower".


Basically the plot of World War One, indeed. You see, the logic behind the member nations of those military alliances was that attacking one was an attack on all of them, or as a defensive measure against all the other alliances... which...
Oh never mind. Here.


NATO has enjoyed a period of supremacy for quite a long time now, mostly due to the fact that that really wasn't anyone capable of challenging it after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But with the rise of other players on the global stage, there does seem to be a worry developing that that supremacy might soon become challenged again.
And if it is challenged again, particularly as a result of it failing to adhere to it's ostensible defensive posture, or of an increasing tendency for it to serve as the military arm of an economic bloc, and if other states form alliances of their own capable of challenging it, then the entire plan becomes, once again... bollocks.
The fallout of which, in all probability, would be significantly greater than that following the First World War. Yes, intended.

So yes, I do understand your point of view regarding that aspect of NATO. The problem I have with it, however, is that it almost entirely Eurocentric... in a world increasingly not. It is subject to hysterical responses based upon relatively minor events such as the Shooting of an archduke a missile veering off course a border shooting (dang, someone used that one before too) as a pretext for involving an entire organisation into something potentially devastating they aren't involved in, don't particularly want to be involved in, but are forced to be involved in because of a 70 year old treaty.
I think that NATO is an outdated institution and has become more an arm for the EU than anything else. I'm far from the only one who believes that.

As mentioned previously, NATO is a dominant Eurocentric alliance. If any powerful non-European alliances are formed in the future, they'll be formed as a defence against NATO, although not on an obvious level.
So I suppose we've got a bit of a chicken and egg argument going on here.



No, they'd just recovered from a devastating attack by Germany and a couple of her allies. After they'd joined Germany in attacking Poland, too... how rude of Germany. The rest of Europe was engaged in fighting against Germany... although not necessarily on behalf of Russia.

Agreed. I'm not sure why you think this is in support of your argument and not mine, but ok.

I don't recall saying NATO would have attacked Russia at all. I did say at some point (not recently from memory) that Russia perceives NATO as a threat, and got howled down for it. Poland's recent reaction to Wagner being near its border would seem to bear out the opinion that foreign military presence on the borders of a nation does indeed make everyone a little twitchy.
A part of my proposed solution was to stop making everyone twitchy by getting rid of the thing making them twitchy, and let them trade with whomever the hell they want, even if it is someone you don't like. There's that self-determination thing again.
Again, it is not an isolated opinion.


A peaceful and safe Europe is one way of looking at it - particularly from within that peaceful and safe Europe.
If you're locked outside it, however, and all the guns are pointed in your direction... I don't think I'd be feeling all that relaxed. Nor glad.

Nor is a reduction in the military spending of Germany in any way an indication that NATO has been "steadily demilitarizing for decades." The opposite is true.
It is NATO Russia is nervous about, not Germany.

I'm going to skip a substantial part of the rest, being mostly waffle about what you think Putin thinks.. and what I think, based upon your "observation".
You know, If I were to stand Putin and Biden side by side in a room, and asked them both to give a speech stating their position on world affairs, I think I'd come to the conclusion Putin appears more sane than most of the US presidents that have come and gone during his tenure. A little more harried lately, but that's to be expected.


It would seem that a significant portion of the planet have the advantage over me, then. I cannot read minds at all.
I can, however,

make judgments on those I deem proficient, and those who are not. Including myself, which ties in to the concept of the NPC below and one factor which differentiates between a person in possession of a considered opinion, and one who isn't.


There has been increased talk about that lately. The term "NPC's" used in a non-gaming context. I disagree that it's random, although I'll concede it might appear that way to you.
A subset of those are state actors, and obviously their counterparts, non-state actors. State actors are free to act with the tacit support or approval of the state and therefore enjoy a great deal of freedom and licence in the pursuit of their own goals, non-state actors will often find themselves in a position where they must be significantly more circumspect.

and on that note:

Yes. Several. I've already mentioned some things on the matter. Bit disingenuous to say "with no problem", don't you think? It has been a problem for thirty years.
It's actually a subject popping up in public discourse quite regularly, various promises made by NATO and the Americans dating back to... about '92, I think, either broken or never followed up on, Ukraine being central in later years.
Some of the Democrat candidates in America I've been watching have discussed it. I haven't caught up on the Republicans yet.

I've missed quite a few. There are an awful lot of you, and only so many hours in a day.

This whole "Right to determine their own status" thing is something enforced arbitrarily and subjectively, usually when there is some sort of profit involved on the part of the one doing the enforcing. I get the impression the entire discussion serves mostly as a distraction. It's a nothing phrase. A dog whistle. Right up there with "rules based world order".

The only time the "Right to Self Determination" appears to be relevant is when the people controlling discussions seem to have decided it's a good way to get you onboard for the ride, or throw you off it.

How do you feel about the right to self determination for the Donbas? Afghanistan? Iran? Iraq? The Basques? Sudan? Oooh, what about the natives of Australia and the USA? South America?
Let me see. What about... hmm. Nope, better not get into that one.

I might think differently if it was regarded as a universal right, and applied universally, but it isn't.

Here you go tovarisch. You've worked hard to earn this award comrade.



Everything you post comes down to "but what about what NATO / USA did". Do try and actually answer questions posed to yourself rather than constantly engaging in deflections / obfuscation.



Right now Russia and its fascist leader are invading Ukraine. Torture / kidnapping by Russian forces are being carried out on civilians. No matter what political discourse you attempt to inject into this discussion the fact remains that whatever Russia's griveances are its actions now are simply unacceptable at any level. Just as Hitler being pissed about the treaty of Versailles was irrelevant in relation to Nazi Germany's actions.

 

[Andre]

LOL. Russia invades Crimea, then fully invades Ukraine. LOOK HOW BAD THE WEST IS FOR INCREASING MILITARY SPENDING AFTER THOSE!

It comes down simply to why should Russia have some special place in the world, where other countries have to bow to them, even if they don't want to? We've been here before as Western Europe decolonised after WW2. There were complaints then, from those wanting to hold onto their Empires, but they got over it. Russia hasn't gotten around to the decolonisation is required mindset yet. They aren't communist anymore, but haven't let go of the past and accepted (like Britain for example), that they are really a middle power these days, not a great power.

 

[bourbons]

Yes. Several. I've already mentioned some things on the matter. Bit disingenuous to say "with no problem", don't you think? It has been a problem for thirty years.
It's actually a subject popping up in public discourse quite regularly, various promises made by NATO and the Americans dating back to... about '92, I think, either broken or never followed up on, Ukraine being central in later years.
Some of the Democrat candidates in America I've been watching have discussed it. I haven't caught up on the Republicans yet.

Is this the "not one inch eastward" shtick? Thats always a great one blokes like you love going to, pity its bullshit.

Links please to Russia threatening war over NATO borders with countries other than Ukraine.

I've missed quite a few. There are an awful lot of you, and only so many hours in a day.

This whole "Right to determine their own status" thing is something enforced arbitrarily and subjectively, usually when there is some sort of profit involved on the part of the one doing the enforcing. I get the impression the entire discussion serves mostly as a distraction. It's a nothing phrase. A dog whistle. Right up there with "rules based world order".

The only time the "Right to Self Determination" appears to be relevant is when the people controlling discussions seem to have decided it's a good way to get you onboard for the ride, or throw you off it.

How do you feel about the right to self determination for the Donbas? Afghanistan? Iran? Iraq? The Basques? Sudan? Oooh, what about the natives of Australia and the USA? South America?
Let me see. What about... hmm. Nope, better not get into that one.

I might think differently if it was regarded as a universal right, and applied universally, but it isn't.

Haha wow, that sure is alot of words to completely avoid the question, weak weak stuff. You really backed away fast from that pretense of rationality presented in your first post discussing the right to self-determination didn't you

When your argument is "its kinda understandable that Russia is denying via aggressive military force another sovereign nation's right to take actions and join frameworks as they see fit", and your entire basis for that is "US and others bad historically"... well, not that I expect you will, but might be time to re-asses

 

[wannabejack]

Whatever reasons one may give for Russia invading Ukraine, none can justify Russian war crimes.

War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jatz14]

Is this the "not one inch eastward" shtick? Thats always a great one blokes like you love going to, pity its bullshit.

Links please to Russia threatening war over NATO borders with countries other than Ukraine.


Haha wow, that sure is alot of words to completely avoid the question, weak weak stuff. You really backed away fast from that pretense of rationality presented in your first post discussing the right to self-determination didn't you

When your argument is "its kinda understandable that Russia is denying via aggressive military force another sovereign nation's right to take actions and join frameworks as they see fit", and your entire basis for that is "US and others bad historically"... well, not that I expect you will, but might be time to re-asses

I like the way he professes to not be able to read minds, yet knows the reason Putin invaded Ukraine is for security reasons due to NATO, and not for the empire building the Slavic ethno nationalists he surrounds himself with advocate for.


On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Episode IV]

View attachment 1763243

Here you go tovarisch. You've worked hard to earn this award comrade.

Everything you post comes down to "but what about what NATO / USA did". Do try and actually answer questions posed to yourself rather than constantly engaging in deflections / obfuscation.

Right now Russia and its fascist leader are invading Ukraine. Torture / kidnapping by Russian forces are being carried out on civilians. No matter what political discourse you attempt to inject into this discussion the fact remains that whatever Russia's griveances are its actions now are simply unacceptable at any level. Just as Hitler being pissed about the treaty of Versailles was irrelevant in relation to Nazi Germany's actions.

I suppose I should point out that this thread is entitled "Backdrop to the war in Ukraine". The intent, I assumed, was to discuss that backdrop and determine the effect past events had and have on the current situation.

I haven't addressed how I "feel" about war crimes committed by either side at all, other than to note (here or elsewhere) that in the modern world, it's very difficult to determine who is doing what. Generally speaking, I tend to adopt a position of caution in that regard.

So, what you're saying here appears to be that, given Russia's current actions in isolation, this entire thread is irrelevant. I disagree, and I'll give your (mis)use of the word "whataboutism" here about as much attention as it deserves.

My initial comments here were moved from that other thread to here, an action with which I have no problem at all.
Do you?

 

[Episode IV]

Is this the "not one inch eastward" shtick? Thats always a great one blokes like you love going to, pity its bullshit.

Is it? do you have any means by which you're going to support that statement?

Links please to Russia threatening war over NATO borders with countries other than Ukraine.

Are you asking me?

Haha wow, that sure is alot of words to completely avoid the question, weak weak stuff. You really backed away fast from that pretense of rationality presented in your first post discussing the right to self-determination didn't you

How so? Where? Details, lad.

When your argument is "its kinda understandable that Russia is denying via aggressive military force another sovereign nation's right to take actions and join frameworks as they see fit", and your entire basis for that is "US and others bad historically"... well, not that I expect you will, but might be time to re-asses

More paraphrasing. Another strawman. Sigh.
I don't feel any need to reassess. If anything, my presence here is for you to give me reasons to do so.

Feel free to step up.

 

[Zidane98]

Is it? do you have any means by which you're going to support that statement??

Fact-checking claims that NATO broke agreement on expansion

Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine with an assault that intelligence officials had warned was coming, conservative c

www.politifact.com

Documented conversations in here

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

There absolutely was no agreement made with the USSR about NATO expansion. Further to this NATO has an open door policy. Members join because they want to join - instead of the Russian way which is attack / undermine / invade neighbors that do not want to be part of the Russian orbit.

Also, the USSR no longer exists either. Russia has only been around since 1991 as a nation.

Russia also signed the NATO-Russia founding act in 1997 - recognising NATO. Russia participated in many joint exercises with NATO and on security issues.


Anyone claiming that NATO have broken promises to Russia are just posting dishonestly with an ulterior motives.



Russia's only concern with NATO is it prevents Russia from keeping former Soviet states as puppet nations.


I will add that Ukraine, despite having CSTO membesr Belarus and Russia on two sides surrounding it has never once complained about the CSTO.

 

[Saint]

Fact-checking claims that NATO broke agreement on expansion

Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine with an assault that intelligence officials had warned was coming, conservative c

www.politifact.com

Documented conversations in here

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

There absolutely was no agreement made with the USSR about NATO expansion. Further to this NATO has an open door policy. Members join because they want to join - instead of the Russian way which is attack / undermine / invade neighbors that do not want to be part of the Russian orbit.

Also, the USSR no longer exists either. Russia has only been around since 1991 as a nation.

Russia also signed the NATO-Russia founding act in 1997 - recognising NATO. Russia participated in many joint exercises with NATO and on security issues.


Anyone claiming that NATO have broken promises to Russia are just posting dishonestly with an ulterior motives.



Russia's only concern with NATO is it prevents Russia from keeping former Soviet states as puppet nations.


I will add that Ukraine, despite having CSTO membesr Belarus and Russia on two sides surrounding it has never once complained about the CSTO.

It's not just that their puppets have alternatives.

It's because when they leave the autocracy of the Russian Sphere for the democracy of the European sphere, it sets a terrible example to those remaining states. When Belarussians see Latvians, Estonians and Poles enjoying freedoms, booming economies, indoor toilets, it simply makes Russia and its sphere look like the backwards, autocratic slave states that they are.

 

[Episode IV]

I like the way he professes to not be able to read minds, yet knows the reason Putin invaded Ukraine is for security reasons due to NATO, and not for the empire building the Slavic ethno nationalists he surrounds himself with advocate for.


On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

I don't "know" anything. There are some viewpoints I tend to pay more attention to than others, not least because those security reasons have been a part of political discourse for at least thirty years, and have been considered on the sidelines not only in Russia, or other parts of the world, but in America itself. As I've demonstrated, there are democratic candidates in the USA right now who are considering that perspective as part of their electoral platforms.
Noam Chomsky wrote a book entitled "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" back in the early 2000's (I think) which discussed the situation as it was then at length. Much of it is still relevant today. While some aspects of it might be a little dated now, due to it having been written twenty years ago so that more recent events are not considered by way of refutation or otherwise (including the current American domestic situation), I did at least take the time to read it, and consider it in entirety rather than those parts I agreed with. Or didn't.
It's generally referred to as having a well-rounded opinion.

As to who I'm currently surrounding myself with... that would consist of a couple of older people I don't discuss this sort of thing with, a few dogs, and a few acres of dirt with quite a few useful and not so useful fauna.
Not too many Slavic Ethno-nationalists around this way. More of your sort, really, when I think about it.

 

[Episode IV]

Fact-checking claims that NATO broke agreement on expansion

Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine with an assault that intelligence officials had warned was coming, conservative c

www.politifact.com

Documented conversations in here

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

There absolutely was no agreement made with the USSR about NATO expansion. Further to this NATO has an open door policy. Members join because they want to join - instead of the Russian way which is attack / undermine / invade neighbors that do not want to be part of the Russian orbit.

Also, the USSR no longer exists either. Russia has only been around since 1991 as a nation.

Russia also signed the NATO-Russia founding act in 1997 - recognising NATO. Russia participated in many joint exercises with NATO and on security issues.


Anyone claiming that NATO have broken promises to Russia are just posting dishonestly with an ulterior motives.



Russia's only concern with NATO is it prevents Russia from keeping former Soviet states as puppet nations.


I will add that Ukraine, despite having CSTO membesr Belarus and Russia on two sides surrounding it has never once complained about the CSTO.

"At one extreme, there’s a position you sometimes hear from the American side, that none of this ever came up, it’s a total myth, the Russians are psychotic," Johns Hopkins University’s Mary Sarotte, the author of a book examining the issue, told the New Yorker. "On the other end, you have the very adamant Russian position: ‘We were totally betrayed, there’s no doubt about it.’ Unsurprisingly, when you get into the evidence, the truth looks to be somewhere in between."

So, I suppose Gorbachev should have got it in writing, and been more specific about NATO's future plans when he did. Such a lack of foresight.
You've left little doubt as to which side of the spectrum you're on, however - and how far down it you stand.

So what about the rest? Got anything else to add?