• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Putin is inching towards his nukes, threatening to annihilate the world if he fails to capture Ukraine, says foreign affairs expert

PoS said:
Whether he is or he isnt nuts, the world needs to be ready.
Click to expand...

The US government has spent the last ~80 years preparing for mutually assured destruction. The Soviet and US governments had a race to see who could create the conditions the fastest. The race very well might be near its end. It could be over at any second.
 
Last edited:
There was never an 'expert' quoted in that article; it was penned by the new voice of Ukraine or something. Which is not to say that it's completely off base but it's misleading.
 
multivita-man said:
There was never an 'expert' quoted in that article; it was penned by the new voice of Ukraine or something. Which is not to say that it's completely off base but it's misleading.
Click to expand...
Henry Kissinger?
 
MrNiceGuy said:
We wouldn't have this fight, and half of Ukraine wouldn't be destroyed right now, if we just agreed that they wouldn't join NATO.
Click to expand...

Ukraine has already agreed not to join NATO and Russia bombs them anyway - go figure.

No, that is not the reason Russia invaded Ukraine. They invaded because Ukraine wanted to become Western and democratic, which it has the right to do, like any sovereign country. Putin was afraid that Ukraine would have become a model for how to build a successful democratic state, and Putin wasn't about to let that happen next door. But that had nothing to do with NATO.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
So when Putin lied and said the massing of troops on the Ukraine border was simply an exercise, that was NATO's fault? When Putin's forces target hospitals and schoolhouses, that is NATO's fault? Putin has no choice but to flatten entire cities in Ukraine because NATO? And when Russia, a member of the UN Security Council, brought up these concerns at the UN, what was the response? Oh yeah, now I remember - Putin never raised any "Ukraine is going to join NATO!" issues.

Let me guess - you think Putin is a genius.
Click to expand...
Putin is to blame for the invasion, of course.

However, international politics and war are more complicated than that. The reasons Putin had for massing troops and for taking the action he did were known and predicted - one of those reasons was NATO expansion, especially Ukraine and Georgia. Had we simply settled on a world with Ukraine as a bridge, not a NATO member, Russia would very likely not have taken the actions that led up to the war. And, it's Trump saying that, and it's not right wing extremists saying that. It's scholars and diplomats, who were saying it 15 years ago.

Putin clearly had a choice - and the choice that he was left with was to not invade, in which case Ukraine would have become NATO, and there would be American forces in Ukraine.

Here is an article from 1995 talking about Russian objections to NATO expansion, and their deep concern about it - https://www.jstor.org/stable/40396653

“It would be extraordinarily difficult to expand Nato eastward without that action’s being viewed by Russia as unfriendly. Even the most modest schemes would bring the alliance to the borders of the old Soviet Union. Some of the more ambitious versions would have the alliance virtually surround the Russian Federation itself.” I wrote those words in 1994, in my book Beyond Nato: Staying Out of Europe’s Wars, at a time when expansion proposals merely constituted occasional speculation in foreign policy seminars in New York and Washington. I added that expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia”.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored | Ted Galen Carpenter

It has long been clear that Nato expansion would lead to tragedy. We are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

“Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance, and ask why the west should not do the same.” It was an excellent question, and neither the Clinton administration nor its successors provided even a remotely convincing answer.
Click to expand...

George Kennan, the intellectual father of America’s containment policy during the cold war, perceptively warned in a May 1998 New York Times interview about what the Senate’s ratification of Nato’s first round of expansion would set in motion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” Kennan stated. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”
Click to expand...

The last reasonably friendly warning from Russia that the alliance needed to back off came in March 2007, when Putin addressed the annual Munich security conference. “Nato has put its frontline forces on our borders,” Putin complained. Nato expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”
Click to expand...
 
Robert M Gates, who served as secretary of defense in the administrations of both George W Bush and Barack Obama, stated his belief that “the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George HW] Bush left office in 1993”. Among other missteps, “US agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation.” In an implicit rebuke to the younger Bush, Gates asserted that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into Nato was truly overreaching”. That move, he contended, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests”.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored | Ted Galen Carpenter

It has long been clear that Nato expansion would lead to tragedy. We are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Western (especially US) leaders continued to blow through red warning light after a red warning light, however. The Obama administration’s shockingly arrogant meddling in Ukraine’s internal political affairs in 2013 and 2014 to help demonstrators overthrow Ukraine’s elected, pro‐Russia president was the single most brazen provocation, and it caused tensions to spike. Moscow immediately responded by seizing and annexing Crimea, and a new cold war was underway with a vengeance.
Click to expand...

Events during the past few months constituted the last chance to avoid a hot war in eastern Europe. Putin demanded that Nato provide guarantees on several security issues. Specifically, the Kremlin wanted binding assurances that the alliance would reduce the scope of its growing military presence in eastern Europe and would never offer membership to Ukraine. He backed up those demands with a massive military buildup on Ukraine’s borders.

The Biden administration’s response to Russia’s quest for meaningful western concessions and security guarantees was tepid and evasive. Putin then clearly decided to escalate matters. Washington’s attempt to make Ukraine a Nato political and military pawn (even absent the country’s formal membership in the alliance) may end up costing the Ukrainian people dearly.
Click to expand...

History will show that Washington’s treatment of Russia in the decades following the demise of the Soviet Union was a policy blunder of epic proportions. It was entirely predictable that Nato expansion would ultimately lead to a tragic, perhaps violent, breach of relations with Moscow. Perceptive analysts warned of the likely consequences, but those warnings went unheeded. We are now paying the price for the US foreign policy establishment’s myopia and arrogance.
Click to expand...
 
multivita-man said:
Ukraine has already agreed not to join NATO and Russia bombs them anyway - go figure.

No, that is not the reason Russia invaded Ukraine. They invaded because Ukraine wanted to become Western and democratic, which it has the right to do, like any sovereign country. Putin was afraid that Ukraine would have become a model for how to build a successful democratic state, and Putin wasn't about to let that happen next door. But that had nothing to do with NATO.
Click to expand...
Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine under President Viktor Yanukovych, who was removed by a US supported coup in 2014. Zelensky's statement in March 2022 about not joining NATO was (a) not formal Ukraine policy, and (b) was a tepid suggestion that he had "cooled" on the idea of joining NATO after NATO had suggested it was not "ready." So, that is by far not a statement with any teeth or commitment. Clearly, NATO could become ready, and Zelensky can then warm to the idea again. That's not what any country would rely on after US secretary of state James A. Baker made assurances to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990, that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17, 1990 in Brussels? These kinds of verbal assurances don't work.

Yes, it is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia was fine with democratic countries, as they had been with other former eastern bloc countries doing so. Do you have any evidence of Russia or Putin taking military action to "stop democracy?" Where have you learned this?
 
snakestretcher said:
You can never be 'ready' for a thermonuclear exchange. What would you do; where would you go? What would your government do?
Click to expand...
Steps can be taken to neutralize the cause, provided the intel is accurate. Of course, there are many risks to this action, but it beats inaction.

Antiwar said:
The US government has spent the last ~80 years preparing for mutually assured destruction. The Soviet and US governments had a race to see who could create the conditions the fastest. The race very well might be near its end. It could be over at any second.
Click to expand...
OK, so what do you suggest?
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine under President Viktor Yanukovych, who was removed by a US supported coup in 2014. Zelensky's statement in March 2022 about not joining NATO was (a) not formal Ukraine policy, and (b) was a tepid suggestion that he had "cooled" on the idea of joining NATO after NATO had suggested it was not "ready." So, that is by far not a statement with any teeth or commitment. Clearly, NATO could become ready, and Zelensky can then warm to the idea again. That's not what any country would rely on after US secretary of state James A. Baker made assurances to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990, that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17, 1990 in Brussels? These kinds of verbal assurances don't work.

Yes, it is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia was fine with democratic countries, as they had been with other former eastern bloc countries doing so. Do you have any evidence of Russia or Putin taking military action to "stop democracy?" Where have you learned this?
Click to expand...
Oh please, your logic goes like this: Russia invaded Ukraine, which previously vowed not to join NATO, to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. The argument, such as it is, doesn’t explain why Russia is now threatening to invade Moldova — but the Russian aggression has prompted Finland to download the NATO entrance application and send in the application fee.
 
MTAtech said:
Oh please, your logic goes like this: Russia invaded Ukraine, which previously vowed not to join NATO, to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. The argument, such as it is, doesn’t explain why Russia is now threatening to invade Moldova — but the Russian aggression has prompted Finland to download the NATO entrance application and send in the application fee.
Click to expand...
Ukraine did not "vow" not to join NATO. Zelensky said he had "cooled" to the idea, because NATO wasn't "ready."

Once again - I have supported my assertion of the fundamental reasons for Russia's actions, which from experts in the arena, over the last 30 years - all predicating the same thing. I've cited Secretaries of State and other folks of that stature. I'm not "parroting Putin" or the like.

Yes, the Russia aggression has prompted finland to consider application, yes. That doesn't change the underlying reasons for Russia's actions. And, yes, an invasion is wrong and Russia is to blame for that. But that doesn't mean things couldn't have been done differently to spare Ukraine its destruction.

Look at Taiwan, for example. If China invades, is it to be viewed in a vacuum, as if it was just an unprovoked attack and China is wrong, so come hell or high water there is to be no analysis of how we got here and how it could have been avoided? Of course not - we know China views Taiwan as its territory, and that it has been its territory since before the Communist revolution.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine under President Viktor Yanukovych, who was removed by a US supported coup in 2014. Zelensky's statement in March 2022 about not joining NATO was (a) not formal Ukraine policy, and (b) was a tepid suggestion that he had "cooled" on the idea of joining NATO after NATO had suggested it was not "ready." So, that is by far not a statement with any teeth or commitment. Clearly, NATO could become ready, and Zelensky can then warm to the idea again. That's not what any country would rely on after US secretary of state James A. Baker made assurances to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990, that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17, 1990 in Brussels? These kinds of verbal assurances don't work.

Yes, it is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia was fine with democratic countries, as they had been with other former eastern bloc countries doing so. Do you have any evidence of Russia or Putin taking military action to "stop democracy?" Where have you learned this?
Click to expand...
Oh no. Russia has made it very clear that they are liberating Ukraine from Nazis. You remember Nazis, right? They started WWII and were led by a Jew named Hitler. I learned that from the Russian foreign minister.
 
Putin is a lunatic, with way too many supporters and enablers (no matter how passive they may be about it.)
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Ukraine did not "vow" not to join NATO. Zelensky said he had "cooled" to the idea, because NATO wasn't "ready."

Once again - I have supported my assertion of the fundamental reasons for Russia's actions, which from experts in the arena, over the last 30 years - all predicating the same thing. I've cited Secretaries of State and other folks of that stature. I'm not "parroting Putin" or the like.

Yes, the Russia aggression has prompted finland to consider application, yes. That doesn't change the underlying reasons for Russia's actions. And, yes, an invasion is wrong and Russia is to blame for that. But that doesn't mean things couldn't have been done differently to spare Ukraine its destruction.

Look at Taiwan, for example. If China invades, is it to be viewed in a vacuum, as if it was just an unprovoked attack and China is wrong, so come hell or high water there is to be no analysis of how we got here and how it could have been avoided? Of course not - we know China views Taiwan as its territory, and that it has been its territory since before the Communist revolution.
Click to expand...
I read your argument as a justification of Russia’s unprovoked, brutal and unjustified invasion. No country has the right to invade another sovereign nation — certainly to prevent joining a defense organization. Rational countries don’t reduce cities to rubble and kill countless civilians for such a narrow objective.

Based upon Russia’s aggression, other countries are justified considering NATO admission — exactly the opposite of what Russia wants.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I am not buying that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine had NATO not expanded. The NATO crap is just an excuse that Putin tricked you with apparently. Do you always believe lying dictators like Putin, Do you believe Kim and Xi as well?
Click to expand...
You are unfamiliar with the history here. I've cited sources warning about this war since the early 1990s. If Putin tricked me, then he tricked Henry Kissinger, too.

Putin reaffirmed the assurances he needed to stop the buildup of forces at the Ukraine border. The bottom line is that our military-industrial complex wanted this war. I have little doubt now that Russia is going to lose this war, and Russia is to blame - they were the aggressor, no argument here. However, what saddens me is the price Ukrainians are paying for this, which was unnecessary, had sober heads - the adults in the room - been listened to at some point over the last 30 years.
 
MTAtech said:
I read your argument as a justification of Russia’s unprovoked, brutal and unjustified invasion. No country has the right to invade another sovereign nation — certainly to prevent joining a defense organization. Rational countries don’t reduce cities to rubble and kill countless civilians for such a narrow objective.

Based upon Russia’s aggression, other countries are justified considering NATO admission — exactly the opposite of what Russia wants.
Click to expand...
Well, then you can't read, I guess.

Of course, no country has the right to invade another sovereign nation, sure. However, understand how the real world works, and if Russia somehow started monkeying around in Mexico City and they were making strides toward bringing Mexico into the CTSO, what do you think the US would do? I'll give you three guesses.

Also, take the Cuban missile crisis - what was the US willing to do - even though Cuba was a "sovereign nation" and had every "right" to join up with Russia and put nukes on its soil ready to fire at the US?

What about the US's invasions of sovereign nations - Syria, Libya, Iraq.

I'm not justifying the invasion, and I'm not justifying US actions in invading certain nations. But what I am doing is understanding the reasons. One can understand the reasons without claiming those reasons are justifications in a moral or legal sense.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
You are unfamiliar with the history here. I've cited sources warning about this war since the early 1990s. If Putin tricked me, then he tricked Henry Kissinger, too.

Putin reaffirmed the assurances he needed to stop the buildup of forces at the Ukraine border. The bottom line is that our military-industrial complex wanted this war. I have little doubt now that Russia is going to lose this war, and Russia is to blame - they were the aggressor, no argument here. However, what saddens me is the price Ukrainians are paying for this, which was unnecessary, had sober heads - the adults in the room - been listened to at some point over the last 30 years.
Click to expand...
You parroting Henry Kissinger is not remarkable. But you are also parroting currently Putins propaganda, so I do not really believe your crap.
 
MTAtech said:
I read your argument as a justification of Russia’s unprovoked, brutal and unjustified invasion. No country has the right to invade another sovereign nation — certainly to prevent joining a defense organization. Rational countries don’t reduce cities to rubble and kill countless civilians for such a narrow objective.

Based upon Russia’s aggression, other countries are justified considering NATO admission — exactly the opposite of what Russia wants.
Click to expand...

This is my favorite part, the hypocrisy. Where were you when the US was toppling regimes and destroying nations for funnsies? How many evil dictators have we installed and supported because they carried our water? Why is it ok for us to do these things, but then act aghast when another uses the same playbook?

FreedomFromAll said:
You parroting Henry Kissinger is not remarkable. But you are also parroting currently Putins propaganda, so I do not really believe your crap.
Click to expand...

Is it propaganda if it was something said long before Putin said it? Or is Putin parroting others? Or maybe it is just a fact that others recognize and you do not?
 
MrNiceGuy said:
You are unfamiliar with the history here. I've cited sources warning about this war since the early 1990s. If Putin tricked me, then he tricked Henry Kissinger, too.

Putin reaffirmed the assurances he needed to stop the buildup of forces at the Ukraine border. The bottom line is that our military-industrial complex wanted this war. I have little doubt now that Russia is going to lose this war, and Russia is to blame - they were the aggressor, no argument here. However, what saddens me is the price Ukrainians are paying for this, which was unnecessary, had sober heads - the adults in the room - been listened to at some point over the last 30 years.
Click to expand...
Henry "Peace with honor is at hand" Kissinger? Seriously. 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam! We were there for over ten years and within 48 hours of us leaving the North took over. That Henry Kissinger? Gimmie a ****ing break!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom