US/NATO Provoked Ukraine War Say Most Experts On Russia

[sanman]

And where in your conspiracy is the evidence it was a *NATO* operation in Ukraine? You have evidence it was a *US* operation.

OHHHHHHH! I'm so sorry -- ya got me! Ya got me!! I surrender. You win.

Provided the text of this supposed pledge and the NATO signatures to it.

I already surrender, man. I surrender to you and NATO. Victoria Nuland can come slap the cuffs on me.

 

[Questerr]

OHHHHHHH! I'm so sorry -- ya got me! Ya got me!! I surrender. You win.




I already surrender, man. I surrender to you and NATO. Victoria Nuland can come slap the cuffs on me.

Instead we’ll just keep giving the Ukrainian’s NLAW’s and Javelins to keep slapping HEAT into the vehicles of your beloved Russians.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you have no problem with Russia putting defensive missiles on the Canadian and Mexican borders. That's a POV I have not heard.

I suspect that Canada and Mexico would have a problem with that. BTW, when has any NATO nation attacked Russia?

 

[Cordelier]

No, expansion of that alliance, which is no longer defensive, is an act of aggression. You're waving a knife in someone's face, bring it to their throat, and saying "technically this isn't violence". Sorry, but this is needless wanton aggression. NATO expansion has pushed the situation a long way down the path to war -- and now you're nitpicking over who took the final steps off the precipice.

No longer defensive???

Let me ask you this.... exactly at what point do you feel NATO went from a defensive alliance to an offensive one?

 

[Questerr]

No longer defensive???

Let me ask you this.... exactly at what point do you feel NATO went from a defensive alliance to an offensive one?

He’s going to say Kosovo. Because apparently stopping ethnic cleansing is a great aggression.

 

[rickc]

Well if you had a choice would you join NATO or Russia.

 

[jnug]

It's like you just said "me waving my knife in your face and bringing it near your throat is not itself a violent action -- after all, I didn't actually cut you - yet"

Russia has historically been invaded time and time again from its western side. They have legitimate reason to be fearful for their security.
Repeated invasions of their homeland are what have made the Russians tough.



The solution here is to reduce conflict between all sides. But you don't want that -- you want a new war to fight -- because NATO was built for war, and it's been kept around to bring war back.

Russia has been the exporter of deception, thievery and corruption and thuggery from time incarnate BORIS which you conveniently forget or just don't even know. Their human intelligence assets are the best in the world because they have been at it longer than anybody else. Human Intelligence IS deception, thievery and corruption and thuggery. The more you can deceive, thieve and corrupt and thug, the better your Human Intelligence officers are at it, the better your Human Intelligence assets. That is what they have always had and that is what they use to make their way in the world. This is why they are so good at controlling their population domestically and it is how they survive internationally.,.....a steady stream of BULLSHIT.

While our esteemed BORIS in thread after thread whines about being attacked from the West ask him which country set up covert military training centers and military hardware engineering centers for the express purpose of the German military after WW1 when Germany could not grow its military overtly based on the Treaty of Versailles.

Here, I will give you the answer.....Russia did. These facilities were run all the way from the 1920's through the early 1930's......managed by Gernans rebuilding their weapons of war and their officer corp and willing to trade "some" of what they knew to the Russians in exchange for the use of the covert sites and access to facilities for engineering military hardware. The entire German officer corp at the top had been trained in these facilities. Each side contributed raw materials to the other depending on their needs all the way to 1940. There was one final commercial agreement in 1941 which can be said to be both parties simply yanking each other's chain.

The treaty agreements that carved up parts of Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union from 1937 to 1939 culminated in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In this agreement the Soviets were getting Eastern Poland with Germany getting Western Poland. The Soviets claimed that they were only interested in Eastern Poland because it contained territory that had previously been part of Russia. SOUND FAMILIAR!!!

Ultimately they both had the same plan. Bleed France and the continent, kick England back across the channel and then roll in and take over. Unfortunately for him, Stalin misjudged how rapidly Hitler would mow down Belgium, the Nordics and France pushing the Brits off the continent in the process. Hence Hitler beat Stalin to the punch turning East and stabbing him in the back before Stalin could stab Hitler in the back. It did not help Stalin that he did not trust his own officer corp fearing that they had been poisoned by their exposure to the German officer corp in the days of covert military development in the Soviet facilities. Predictably in Stalin's case, it led to Stalin's purge of the Russian Officer Corp.

In a word our esteemed forum BORIS and the other forum BORIS's are spinning out Putinesk BULLSHIT...not more and not less.

 

[watsup]

By a bunch of traitorous Republicans? Really?

 

[CaughtInThe]

The OP is a Russian propagandist. No one listen to a word he says.

 

[Cordelier]

He’s going to say Kosovo. Because apparently stopping ethnic cleansing is a great aggression.

Even if you accept that logic, though... the NATO bombing was still just an aerial campaign. We didn't actually go in on the ground.

I'm not saying it'd be ideal or legitimate... but if the Russians had decided to launch a similar aerial campaign against Ukraine, wouldn't we find ourselves in a much better position to come to a peace agreement than where we find ourselves today?

 

[Mithrae]

No longer defensive???

Let me ask you this.... exactly at what point do you feel NATO went from a defensive alliance to an offensive one?

Probably when the USA pushed for NATO members to start ramping up their military budgets again despite a long-lasting period of general peace.

Wait... it was Trump who did that and the war has to be blamed on the 'globalists' and aggressive NATO hates Trump for demanding more militarization and Putin never would have attacked if Trump had his way and...

 

[jnug]

Even if you accept that logic, though... the NATO bombing was still just an aerial campaign. We didn't actually go in on the ground.

I'm not saying it'd be ideal or legitimate... but if the Russians had decided to launch a similar aerial campaign against Ukraine, wouldn't we find ourselves in a much better position to come to a peace agreement than where we find ourselves today?

Why would you think Putin wants. peace agreement? He wants Ukraine.

Putin:
- used denazification as an excuse
- the Donbas as an excuse
- NATO as an excuse claiming he had to attack to defend

Its all bullshit. He wants Ukraine. His mistake was in thinking he would just roll into Ukraine and be treated as a liberator. NOT!!!!!!! Now Putin is stuck in a bloodbath of destruction and International criminality all of his own making.

 

[Cordelier]

Probably when the USA pushed for NATO members to start ramping up their military budgets again despite a long-lasting period of general peace.

Wait... it was Trump who did that and the war has to be blamed on the 'globalists' and aggressive NATO hates Trump for demanding more militarization and Putin never would have attacked if Trump had his way and...

Putin invaded Georgia in 2008, when Bush was in office. He invaded Crimea and the Donbas when Obama was in office.

Given those sequence of events, wouldn't you say that the pattern of aggression was in existence before Trump took office, and beefing up NATO defense spending was a justifiable response?

 

[Jkca1]

I suspect that Canada and Mexico would have a problem with that. BTW, when has any NATO nation attacked Russia?

What if the times change? Isn't the threat enough? Imagine IF Canada became a supporter of Russia. Would putting missiles defensive missiles there or troops be a reason to attack? Of course. I am amazed that so few in the intelligence community saw this coming.

 

[Callen]

What If Russia put missiles in Mexico and Canada would we stand for it? And the answer is of course not.

What if your mother was your father?

 

[jnug]

What if the times change? Isn't the threat enough? Imagine IF Canada became a supporter of Russia. Would putting missiles defensive missiles there or troops be a reason to attack? Of course. I am amazed that so few in the intelligence community saw this coming.

Saw what coming......Canada allying with Russia? I don't think that has happened or is likely. Not likely for Mexico either. Venezuela....a definite possibility.

 

[Questerr]

What if the times change? Isn't the threat enough? Imagine IF Canada became a supporter of Russia. Would putting missiles defensive missiles there or troops be a reason to attack? Of course. I am amazed that so few in the intelligence community saw this coming.

You realize Russia had defensive missiles in Cuba for decades, right? Before and after the Cuban Missile Crisis?

 

[Cordelier]

Why would you think Putin wants. peace agreement? He wants Ukraine.

Putin:
- used denazification as an excuse
- the Donbas as an excuse
- NATO as an excuse claiming he had to attack to defend

Its all bullshit. He wants Ukraine. His mistake was in thinking he would just roll into Ukraine and be treated as a liberator. NOT!!!!!!!

That's what I'm trying to get at. It's like the War in Vietnam.... we didn't want to conquer North Vietnam. We didn't want to invade North Vietnam. We just wanted to stop them from taking over the South.... and that's why we only bombed from the air. There has to be some proportionality between your objectives and the means you use in seeking to obtain them.

There's no proportionality between Putin's stated objectives and the means he is currently using in Ukraine. It's completely obvious he intends to take over the country.

 

[Jkca1]

You realize Russia had defensive missiles in Cuba for decades, right? Before and after the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Yes and you realize that Russia had the same fears then as they do today right? It's all about perceived threats;

"Robert Kennedy passed a message to the Soviet embassy, more than once, that the US would remove their missile basis from Turkey and Italy if the Soviets would remove theirs from Cuba. Khrushchev’s memoirs make it clear that this offer was the turning point for him: he would accept the offer to remove his missiles from Cuba in exchange for the removal of US Jupiter missiles with nuclear warheads in Turkey. (bold mine) Khrushchev wrote Kennedy that the Soviets accepted the terms of the agreement after Kennedy agreed to remove missile bases in Turkey.

 

[Questerr]

Yes and you realize that Russia had the same fears then as they do today right? It's all about perceived threats;

"Robert Kennedy passed a message to the Soviet embassy, more than once, that the US would remove their missile basis from Turkey and Italy if the Soviets would remove theirs from Cuba. Khrushchev’s memoirs make it clear that this offer was the turning point for him: he would accept the offer to remove his missiles from Cuba in exchange for the removal of US Jupiter missiles with nuclear warheads in Turkey. (bold mine) Khrushchev wrote Kennedy that the Soviets accepted the terms of the agreement after Kennedy agreed to remove missile bases in Turkey.

I don’t know why you’re quoting the Cuban missile crisis. Russia kept defensive missiles in Cuba for decades after it was over and the US did not care.

Defensive missiles are only a threat if you plan on attacking someone.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I don’t know why you’re quoting the Cuban missile crisis. Russia kept defensive missiles in Cuba for decades after it was over and the US did not care.

Defensive missiles are only a threat if you plan on attacking someone.

Were they NUCLEAR?
Doubt it.

 

[Questerr]

Were they NUCLEAR?
Doubt it.

No one is talking about putting nuclear missiles in Poland or Slovakia either.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

in 2008, NATO had formally stated its goal to incorporate both Ukraine and Georgia into the organization. This triggered sharp responses from Russian diplomats, and also led to the short war between Russia and Georgia. The 2014 Capitol Insurrection coup in Ukraine was the final straw for Russia.

NATO was formed to stop Soviet encroachment into European democracies.
Putin's invasion of Georgia, Putin's invasion of Crimea, and Putin's invasion of the rest of Ukraine is Soviet encroachment into European democracies, even if Putin is no longer a "Soviet".

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No one is talking about putting nuclear missiles in Poland or Slovakia either.

The missiles Kruschev installed in Cuba were, otherwise there wouldn't have ever been a Cuban missile crisis.

 

[Questerr]

The missiles Kruschev installed in Cuba were, otherwise there wouldn't have ever been a Cuban missile crisis.

Correct and a poster tried to compare the US putting missile defense sites in Eastern Europe with the Cuban Missile Crisis. When it was pointed out the missiles in Europe are defensive, they said some bullshit about “how would the US like it if Russia put defensive missiles in Canada or Mexico?”

I’ve rightly pointed out that Russia kept defensive missiles in Cuba for decades and we didn’t give a flying **** about it.