- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Are you reading that literally?This has to be satire. Has someone tried rebooting the simulation?
Are you reading that literally?This has to be satire. Has someone tried rebooting the simulation?
Former Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev: Putin's claim of NATO's so-called aggressive expansionism is just a "conviction of convenience" because he needs a foreign enemy to blame for Russia's disastrous economy.Ok, do you have something for me to read from an expert who doesn't see provocation? I am happy to read it, seriously, please.
For someone that wants his own country to become a dictatorship you really have very little understanding of how a dictatorship works.No, I am explaining to you the law of war as it is understood to apply. And then explaining that Sergey lavrov does not admit to violating it. Sergei Lavrov’s words contain no admission of violating the law.
They are literally throwing people in concentration camps, and I don’t believe for one second that Shana will fight a war in Taiwan cleaner than the Russians have been fighting in Ukraine. People in Taipei will wish they were living in Grozny when China is done witsh them if they resist too hard.
I do not wish for America to become a dictatorship.For someone that wants his own country to become a dictatorship you really have very little understanding of how a dictatorship works.
Yes.What you replied with was to be taken seriously?
I feel like the cold war was a very formative experience for Putin.I also feel that it is partly to buy into the Russian way of looking at the different countries, were it is either west or Russia and that every country is part of one of those. Russia feels their "cut" has been unfavorable.
1. Yanukovych campaigned and won based on closer ties to the West (political association and trade agreements with the EU). That's what the Ukrainian people wanted.You asked where the illegality of the coup was, I told you. When the coup toppled the government in 2014 and replaced it with a new government, that was outright unconstitutional in Ukraine, something even Ukraine admitted, they just felt they had to do it anyway. Again imagine if a Chinese backed coup toppled the Mexican government and then helped install a new pro-chinese government which promptly began allowing chinese troops into the country and took concrete steps towards a military alliance.
I believe a tactical mistake just has been made. Sergej Lavrov said in a press conference after the talks with his Ukrainian contrapart that the attack on the maternity hospital was justified because the hospital had no patients and was taken in by the oppositions forces.
Do you write fiction for Russia?
"NATO expansionism and/or aggression" is a bullshit excuse for this war. Period.
1. Yanukovych campaigned and won based on closer ties to the West (political association and trade agreements with the EU). That's what the Ukrainian people wanted.
2. Yanukovych broke his campaign promise and was subsequently impeached by the Ukrainian parliament (not one vote opposing impeachment). That's not a coup, unless you live in the alternate world of Putin's lies.
That you have a viewpoint? I replied did I not?No, you simply refuse to even acknowledge my viewpoints
Whether you do it purposely or not, it has the same net effect.and your counterargument relies on the (false) assumption that I'm justifying Russia invading Ukraine when I'm simply just pointing out the West's role.
Whataboutism is a poor argument.If we wanna talk about past behavior literally look at NATO's actions in the Middle East, as well as America's numerous coups of democratically elected governments in Latin America and beyond due to the Red Scare.
That may very well be, but it is still not a valid reason to kill civilians.That's hypocrisy at its finest.
Your line of reasoning amounted to it.Furthermore, you seem to have come to the conclusion that I'm a "Putin apologist" despite not supporting it anywhere in my posts.
The problem with NATO is that it's inherently designed as a counter to the USSR, and the Soviet, (and Russian) leadership view it as such. Ofc therefore they would be viewing the eastern expansion with no lack of apprehension, and would not take the a rival rolling up to their border well. This expansion also coincides with the isolation of Russia. The politicians in Congress know this but they continue this course of action deliberately under the guise of expanding freedom. This is what irks me, that the West knew what this path would only result in conflict.I appreciate your response to my post. I don't have time right now to address all the points, but I wanted to say one thing.
I said this some thousands of posts ago in this thread, but I actually don't think NATO is the problem. I know I know, but hear me out. Is the problem that a defensive military alliance exists? Or is the problem that some of the members of that alliance are imperialist powers? I don't feel like the existence of NATO is what allowed the US to invade Iraq, but it has benefited the smaller soviet block nations immensely. The strongest proponent of NATO isn't the US. We don't need NATO. In recent years, the countries that NATO is most relevant for are countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, etc.
Essentially, I don't really think that NATO or more countries joining NATO is a bad thing.
Just to let you know how serious we are taking it here in Sweden. The military has now started weekly pressconferences that will be live broadcasted in the 2 most watched channels...
The "provocations" are bullshit. Everyone in the world who has their head screwed on straight knows that no NATO nation was EVER going to be an aggressive threat to Russia.To be clear, I am not suggesting that Putin is justified in his war, I am simply saying that there were provocations for him to go to war. Those two things are not the same.
What do you think the odds are of Sweden joining NATO?Just to let you know how serious we are taking it here in Sweden. The military has now started weekly pressconferences that will be live broadcasted in the 2 most watched channels...
The "provocations" are bullshit. Everyone in the world who has their head screwed on straight knows that no NATO nation was EVER going to be an aggressive threat to Russia.
To believe otherwise is to live in an alternate reality where a historical precedent for such a threat actually exists. NATO is only a threat to rogue nations who would wage wars of aggression to steal countries.
The only threat that a West-leaning Ukraine would pose to Russia would be to halt Putin's ability to "annex" the old Soviet Union back together.
Don't be fooled. Putin doesn't want "buffer states" for security, he wants puppet states like Belarus for power.
What do you think the odds are of Sweden joining NATO?
I think they are 50/50, but I would still say that we wont.What do you think the odds are of Sweden joining NATO?
1. You cannot prove that the impeachment was unconstitutional. Nobody can, because it was an unaccounted-for gray area since Yanukovych had skipped town. Nothing in the Ukrainian constitution prohibits what parliament did.Here's the rub, the impeachment by the Ukrainian parliament was illegal because it failed to follow the constitutionally prescribed methods and steps.
It was, but for a few decades it didn't really have much of a purpose.The problem with NATO is that it's inherently designed as a counter to the USSR
This is a weird way of framing it. NATO didn't come to countries like Latvia begging them to join NATO, Latvia applied to join NATO. The West didn't expand NATO, in fact many countries that were already part of NATO were often hesitant to allow these smaller soviet block countries that didn't have much to offer back to NATO. For countries like Germany, the US, the UK...NATO is largely meaningless. It's the Eastern block countries for which NATO is important.The politicians in Congress know this but they continue this course of action deliberately under the guise of expanding freedom. This is what irks me, that the West knew what this path would only result in conflict.
I think they are 50/50, but I would still say that we wont.
1. You cannot prove that the impeachment was unconstitutional. Nobody can, because it was an unaccounted-for gray area since Yanukovych had skipped town. Nothing in the Ukrainian constitution prohibits what parliament did.
2. It was not a "coup".
Swedish PM rejects opposition calls to consider joining NATO
Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson on Tuesday rejected opposition calls to consider joining NATO following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, saying an application now would destabilize security in Europe.www.reuters.com
Does 50-50 mean something different in Sweden?
A poll on Friday by Demoskop and commissioned by Aftonbladet newspaper showed 51% of Swedes were in favour of NATO membership, up from 42% in January. People against joining fell to 27% from 37%. It's the first time such a poll has shown a majority in favour.
Finland and Sweden have close military ties and a move by one to join NATO would put added pressure on the other to apply.
And I'll post this, for the 3rd time:I will say it for a fifth time. Does anyone have a source where a non-political military expert or analyst has said there was no provocations by the West?
Putin can shit in his hat and call it ice cream if he wants. A government controlled by Ukrainian people is, by definition, not a puppet government.Putin would also make the argument that the US and West just want a puppet government as well courtesy of a coup.