Henry Kissinger says Russia War Validates Ukraine's NATO Bid

[lwf]

Its Nato's call what Nato wants to do, just as it is Russia's call what she will not tolerate on her borders? Capish?

And it's Ukraine's call whom it allies with. And the rest of the world is free to agree with and support Ukraine's decision and to disagree with and attempt to thwart Russia's decision.

 

[Juin]

.
Juin said:
Its Nato's call what Nato wants to do, just as it is Russia's call what she will not tolerate on her borders? Capish?

This is a silly comment that contributes nothing to the discussion.
All of us are engaging in discussions all the time on this forum about topics where our contributions have zero impact.
Debate the topic or not, but saying stuff like, "It's Russia's call" is just stupid.

My objection was not over whether lwf's views had an impact or not. We can debate all we want as to whether Russia gets a say over military alliances she considers hostile contracting for spaces on her borders. What I object to is what amounts to something more like a declaration as to what Russia has a say in or not. Obviously Russia has a say, otherwise what is her Army doing in Ukraine.

 

[Juin]

.
Juin said:
Its Nato's call what Nato wants to do, just as it is Russia's call what she will not tolerate on her borders? Capish?

And it's Ukraine's call whom it allies with.

And clearly that call has consequences. Small countries always face such consequences. Cuba faced consequences from the US back in 1962 if she had not stood down

And the rest of the world is free to agree with and support Ukraine's decision and to disagree with and attempt to thwart Russia's decision.

That "rest of the world" business again.

 

[lwf]

That "rest of the world" business again.

Substitute whatever group or individual want there. You saying it's Russia's decision, not mine is simply wrong. It is Russia's decision whether it wants to recognize Ukraine's right to ally with NATO, and it is my decision whether I view Russia's decision not to recognize Ukraine's sovereignty as just or not. I do not view Russia's decision as just. I support Ukraine's right to sovereignty, and I do not support Russia's belief that it has the right to tell Ukraine who it is allowed to ally with. And that is my decision, not Russia's, and not yours.

 

[Juin]

.
Juin said:
That "rest of the world" business again.

Substitute whatever group or individual want there.

And you are under no obligation to be accurate in your choice of words ?

You saying it's Russia's decision, not mine is simply wrong. It is Russia's decision whether it wants to recognize Ukraine's right to ally with NATO, and it is my decision whether I view Russia's decision not to recognize Ukraine's sovereignty as just or not.

The "decision" is Russia's; the "right to differ" is yours.

I have to disagree with you that sovereignty has no bounds, and avails a nation the right to pose a threat to others. That is silly. That is kind of like saying the US should have, back in '62, recognized as a sovereign right of Cuba inviting Russia to place nukes on its territory. The US correctly judged that as a threat to her, and placed her Navy around Cuba. I dont see that as a case of US not recognising Cuba's sovereign rights. The fact is that the concept of soverign rights can clash with the right to be secure of another.

I do not view Russia's decision as just.

I suppose you also object to JFK's decision back in 1962

I support Ukraine's right to sovereignty, and I do not support Russia's belief that it has the right to tell Ukraine who it is allowed to ally with. And that is my decision, not Russia's, and not yours.

I suppose you will also support Cuba's "right to sovereignty" tomorrow if she invites Russia to place nukes on her territory

 

[W_Heisenberg]

My objection was not over whether lwf's views had an impact or not. We can debate all we want as to whether Russia gets a say over military alliances she considers hostile contracting for spaces on her borders. What I object to is what amounts to something more like a declaration as to what Russia has a say in or not. Obviously Russia has a say, otherwise what is her Army doing in Ukraine.

People can offer their own opinions as to what they think Russia should do or should not do. And if those opinions are put forward in the form of an argument and you object to that argument you can then have a discussion about the merits of that argument. But what you're trying to do is shut people down when they offer their opinions about what Russia should or should not do by saying it's "Russia's call" as if that ends the matter. Don't be ridiculous! Furthermore, there is an objective reality that exists beyond the minds of Russian decision-makers. And we can discuss things in moral or ethical terms in ways that the Russians disagree with, and that's fine too. You could make the same argument about any topic taking place on this forum, and the end result is nobody debates any topic because every single topic is nobody's business. It's Trump's call. It's Biden's call. It's the Republican's call. It's the Democrat's call. It's that person's call. It's this person's call. How fun would that be? What's the point then to debate anything? Every topic would be off limits. You don't get to frame this discussion this discussion the way you want it framed so as to exclude criticism of Russia. Sorry, buddy!

 

[lwf]

.
Juin said:
That "rest of the world" business again.

And you are under no obligation to be accurate in your choice of words ?


The "decision" is Russia's; the "right to differ" is yours.

I have to disagree with you that sovereignty has no bounds, and avails a nation the right to pose a threat to others. That is silly. That is kind of like saying the US should have, back in '62, recognized as a sovereign right of Cuba inviting Russia to place nukes on its territory. The US correctly judged that as a threat to her, and placed her Navy around Cuba. I dont see that as a case of US not recognising Cuba's sovereign rights. The fact is that the concept of soverign rights can clash with the right to be secure of another.


I suppose you also object to JFK's decision back in 1962


I suppose you will also support Cuba's "right to sovereignty" tomorrow if she invites Russia to place nukes on her territory

No. Whether one nation is a threat to another is not a matter of opinion. It is an objective fact that can be proven or disproven. Russia was a direct threat to the United States in the 1960's just as the United States was a direct threat to Russia. I do not begrudge Russia's actions in the 1960's nor do I begrudge the U.S. response. They were in a cold war with one another.

There was no cold war in 2022. Neither the United States nor NATO were a direct threat to Russia in the 21st century and Russia was not a direct military threat to NATO or to the U.S. Russia claiming otherwise is Russia lying to the international community. They are creating a false narrative to justify military invasion to expand their borders. It would be no different than if the US declared Canada a direct military threat and used this to justify the military conquest of Ontario. It is not solely up to the US to decide who is a threat and who isn't. The international community gets a say in how they respond and who they support. The international community can see that Ontario is not a military threat to the United States, and so violating Canada's sovereignty and expanding US borders under the flimsy excuse that they "pose a threat" is objectively false. Therefore, the international community would be justified in supporting Ontario and subjecting the US to a mountain of sanctions. The US would not be justified in invading Ontario, and the excuse that Canada is a threat is objectively false.

The United States' excuse for responding the way it did to the Cuban missile crisis was legitimate, as was Russia's. Russia's excuse for the invasion of Ukraine is illegitimate. It is a falsehood meant to justify an expansion of their borders through military force. The international landscape is not the same as it was 60 years ago.

 

[Juin]

People can offer their own opinions as to what they think Russia should do or should not do. And if those opinions are put forward in the form of an argument and you object to that argument you can then have a discussion about the merits of that argument. But what you're trying to do is shut people down when they offer their opinions about what Russia should or should not do by saying it's "Russia's call" as if that ends the matter.

It was not stated as an opinion. It was stated as an imperative. Over and over.

Don't be ridiculous!

Really???

Furthermore, there is an objective reality that exists beyond the minds of Russian decision-makers.

Russian decicion makers are not at fault here. There is a problem when a poster in the western world is under the impression western reality is the objective reality. That is what it boils down to.

And we can discuss things in moral or ethical terms in ways that the Russians disagree with, and that's fine too.

And who is guilty of not doing that? A Russian can easily point out that the US also has a precedent in the case of Cuba when it comes to its security and the military alliance its neighbour contracts. Lwf brushes that aside. I believe you also brush that aside. And now you talk to me of objective reality? How objective is your reality if the west doing exactly the same thing as Russia is dismissed?

You could make the same argument about any topic taking place on this forum, and the end result is nobody debates any topic because every single topic is nobody's business. It's Trump's call. It's Biden's call. It's the Republican's call. It's the Democrat's call. It's that person's call. It's this person's call. How fun would that be? What's the point then to debate anything? Every topic would be off limits. You don't get to frame this discussion this discussion the way you want it framed so as to exclude criticism of Russia. Sorry, buddy!

Methinks thou doeth protesteth too much.

 

[Juin]

.

No. Whether one nation is a threat to another is not a matter of opinion. It is an objective fact that can be proven or disproven.

And what difference does it make? Was Cuba going to attack the US in 1962? The nukes were just an insurance policy in case the US had bigger and more lethal "bays of pigs" in the works for Cuba.

Russia was a direct threat to the United States in the 1960's just as the United States was a direct threat to Russia. I do not begrudge Russia's actions in the 1960's nor do I begrudge the U.S. response. They were in a cold war with one another.

There was no cold war in 2022. Neither the United States nor NATO were a direct threat to Russia in the 21st century and Russia was not a direct military threat to NATO or to the U.S. Russia claiming otherwise is Russia lying to the international community.

There is no Cold War in 2022? You must be living in another universe.

 

[Rogue Valley]

And what difference does it make? Was Cuba going to attack the US in 1962? The nukes were just an insurance policy in case the US had bigger and more lethal "bays of pigs" in the works for Cuba.

Was Ukraine going to attack Russia in 2022? Not even Russia claims this.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia therefore is an invasion of expansion by Moscow.

There is no Cold War in 2022? You must be living in another universe.

There was no 1945-1991 style Cold War in 2022.

War came solely because Russia invaded Western-leaning Ukraine.

 

[lwf]

And what difference does it make? Was Cuba going to attack the US in 1962? The nukes were just an insurance policy in case the US had bigger and more lethal "bays of pigs" in the works for Cuba.

Again. The geopolitical landscape of 1962 is not comparable to the geopolitical landscape of 2022. Six decades have gone by. Most of the people who were alive during the Bay of Pigs invasion are dead.

There is no Cold War in 2022? You must be living in another universe.

It is Russia that is living in another universe. One invented by Putin and his military advisors who were looking for an excuse to use their military to expand their territory. So they pretended that NATO was a threat by conjuring up ancient history and amplifying it to get Russian people on board with wrecking their own country in service to their leader's hubris, when in fact NATO was no threat to Russia at all.

 

[Juin]

.
Juin said:
And what difference does it make? Was Cuba going to attack the US in 1962? The nukes were just an insurance policy in case the US had bigger and more lethal "bays of pigs" in the works for Cuba.

Again. The geopolitical landscape of 1962 is not comparable to the geopolitical landscape of 2022.

I understand you cannot compare them

Six decades have gone by.

It wont matter if six centuries went by

Most of the people who were alive during the Bay of Pigs invasion are dead.

And what they did died with them?

It is Russia that is living in another universe. One invented by Putin and his military advisors who were looking for an excuse to use their military to expand their territory. So they pretended that NATO was a threat by conjuring up ancient history and amplifying it to get Russian people on board with wrecking their own country in service to their leader's hubris, when in fact NATO was no threat to Russia at all.

You are welcome to your take, Russians are entitled to theirs

 

[lwf]

It wont matter if six centuries went by

This is the problem right here. Russians can't let go of the cold war. The rest of the world moves on, and Russia is still stuck in the 1960's.

You are welcome to your take, Russians are entitled to theirs

And I am entitled to judge their take as irrational and not based in reality and to support Ukraine in their fight against a deluded military dictatorship bent on seizing their homeland.

 

[Juin]

This is the problem right here. Russians can't let go of the cold war. The rest of the world moves on, and Russia is still stuck in the 1960's.

That "rest of the world" again!

And I am entitled to judge their take as irrational and not based in reality and to support Ukraine in their fight against a deluded military dictatorship bent on seizing their homeland.

And Russians as well are entitled to their own judgements.

 

[SayMyName]

Henry Kissinger Says Russia War Validates Ukraine's NATO Bid

U.S. elder statesman Henry Kissinger on January 17 said Russia's invasion shows there is no longer a point to keeping Ukraine out of NATO, the long-held aspiration of Kyiv that he once opposed.

www.rferl.org

Kissinger caught significant flak last month when he suggested that Ukraine trade some of its oblasts in return for a cease-fire with Moscow.

Kissinger can not travel overseas without consulting his lawyers for fear of arrest in many countries.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Kissinger can not travel overseas without consulting his lawyers for fear of arrest in many countries.

Putin has that same problem.