Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 18, 2023 at 12:52 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The claim made by Bel (and others) that the reason for the war was potential NATO expansion is purest bullshit - if that was truly the reason, Russia would have invaded Finland by now.
The real reason is that Ukrainian identity sticks in Putin’s crop.
Boru
If this were really about NATO why didn't he invade Estonia,Latvia or Lithuania they all joined NATO
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?” –SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
'Twas ever thus. No country is perfect, and ours has given hostages to critics over the years ... but it takes bias to see only the bad decisions and none of the good -- or worse, as is the case here, to spin the good decisions with political bias and a dollop of conspiracy-theory is order to invent yet another line of critique.
(February 18, 2023 at 12:52 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The claim made by Bel (and others) that the reason for the war was potential NATO expansion is purest bullshit - if that was truly the reason, Russia would have invaded Finland by now.
The real reason is that Ukrainian identity sticks in Putin’s crop.
Boru
If this were really about NATO why didn't he invade Estonia,Latvia or Lithuania they all joined NATO
...and all of them are more anti-russian than you can imagine. In Bels imaginary world this would be due to "western indoctrination", the reality is: They once lived under russian rule, for a long, long time.
I vividly remember the stories my relatives from Lithuania told us.
One thing that I've learned from Bel's posts: if you launch and unprovoked, elective war and commit war crimes including rape, torture, forced relocations, and attacking civilians/civilian infrastructure, that doesn't make you the bad guy. And here I've been getting it wrong all these years...
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
I'll repost the list of statesmen who have opposed NATO expansion.
George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake.”
Kissinger in 2014 warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at “reconciliation.” He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO”
John Mearsheimer, a leading geopolitical scholar in the US today, said in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
William Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, wrote in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia.”
Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war.”
Stephen Cohen, scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential.”
CIA director Bill Burns said in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.”
Paul Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system.
Former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.”
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it.”
George Beebe, formerly the CIA's top Russia analyst, in January this year linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky.”
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.” Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance.”
Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych said in 2015 that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022”.
Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President wrote: "We kicked [Russia] when they were down, we expanded NATO. [...] It was a blunder of monumental proportions [and] a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Here is the letter signed by 50 foreign policy experts urging Clinton not to expand NATO:
February 19, 2023 at 6:32 am (This post was last modified: February 19, 2023 at 6:34 am by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(February 19, 2023 at 6:10 am)Belacqua Wrote: I'll repost the list of statesmen who have opposed NATO expansion.
George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake.”
Kissinger in 2014 warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at “reconciliation.” He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO”
John Mearsheimer, a leading geopolitical scholar in the US today, said in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
William Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, wrote in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia.”
Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war.”
Stephen Cohen, scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential.”
CIA director Bill Burns said in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.”
Paul Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system.
Former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.”
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it.”
George Beebe, formerly the CIA's top Russia analyst, in January this year linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky.”
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.” Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance.”
Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych said in 2015 that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022”.
Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President wrote: "We kicked [Russia] when they were down, we expanded NATO. [...] It was a blunder of monumental proportions [and] a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Here is the letter signed by 50 foreign policy experts urging Clinton not to expand NATO:
It is not and never was about NATO expansion - that’s a smoke screen for Putin’s land grab. If you weren’t so cowardly as to have literally dozens of us on ignore, you’d know this.
You also have a rather fuzzy conception of the word ‘statesmen’.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
February 19, 2023 at 7:30 am (This post was last modified: February 19, 2023 at 7:30 am by Deesse23.)
(February 19, 2023 at 6:32 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
(February 19, 2023 at 6:10 am)Belacqua Wrote: I'll repost the list of statesmen who have opposed NATO expansion.
George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake.”
Kissinger in 2014 warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at “reconciliation.” He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO”
John Mearsheimer, a leading geopolitical scholar in the US today, said in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
William Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, wrote in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia.”
Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war.”
Stephen Cohen, scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential.”
CIA director Bill Burns said in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.”
Paul Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system.
Former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.”
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it.”
George Beebe, formerly the CIA's top Russia analyst, in January this year linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky.”
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.” Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance.”
Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych said in 2015 that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022”.
Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President wrote: "We kicked [Russia] when they were down, we expanded NATO. [...] It was a blunder of monumental proportions [and] a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Here is the letter signed by 50 foreign policy experts urging Clinton not to expand NATO:
It is not and never was about NATO expansion - that’s a smoke screen for Putin’s land grab. If you weren’t so cowardly as to have literally dozens of us on ignore, you’d know this.
You also have a rather fuzzy conception of the word ‘statesmen’.
Boru
Like all the other things Bel ever posted, none of them justifies an invasion. Thats why he never responds to that point as in "xxx does justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Thats why he has all of us on ignore and is just spamming along, the troll he is.
(February 19, 2023 at 6:10 am)Belacqua Wrote: I'll repost the list of statesmen who have opposed NATO expansion.
George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake.”
Kissinger in 2014 warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at “reconciliation.” He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO”
John Mearsheimer, a leading geopolitical scholar in the US today, said in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
William Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, wrote in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia.”
Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war.”
Stephen Cohen, scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential.”
CIA director Bill Burns said in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.”
Paul Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system.
Former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.”
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it.”
George Beebe, formerly the CIA's top Russia analyst, in January this year linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky.”
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.” Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance.”
Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych said in 2015 that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022”.
Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President wrote: "We kicked [Russia] when they were down, we expanded NATO. [...] It was a blunder of monumental proportions [and] a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Here is the letter signed by 50 foreign policy experts urging Clinton not to expand NATO:
All very interesting, but why would Russia feel "threatened" or "provoked", when neither happened when Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia joined?
Why is it "existential for Russia"?
Or is it only existential for the Russian elites that insist on maintaining the vast majority of the country in poverty, while they live better than most of the rich folk in "the West"?
Is it fear that, if Ukraine could turn around their oligarchy, then the Russians would think why should Russia keep at it? See how well that sort of thing is working in North Korea.... I know, I know, smaller border, easier to control in NK. But it's the same principle.
Sooner or later, they get a French Revolution style event. I don't think Napoleon needed NATO to get it going.
Congrats you have done the foreign affairs equivalent of ID Proponents pushing their silly (Descent From Darwin List) or Climate Denialists pushing there (this many scientists don't agree with Man Made Climate Change) and it refutes just about as much.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?” –SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
February 19, 2023 at 9:50 pm (This post was last modified: February 19, 2023 at 9:53 pm by Belacqua.)
(February 19, 2023 at 7:00 pm)pocaracas Wrote: why would Russia feel "threatened" or "provoked", when neither happened when Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia joined?
They did feel threatened. It was obvious what was going on: the US was surrounding Russia with military bases. Russia put up with a certain amount, but drew a line past which they would not tolerate greater incursion. Ukraine has important resources and a strategic location.
Quote:Why is it "existential for Russia"?
This has been explained over and over. I'm surprised it's a question.
Many US officials have made no secret of the fact that the long-range goal is regime change in Russia. They would even like to break the country up, so as to ensure that it is permanently weakened.
Regime change, here, means a government chosen by America that is obedient to America. It is well known, in Africa, in Latin America, and elsewhere, that a puppet government run by the US imposes austerity on the people. The US wants its potential rivals weak, and has no interest in the lives of the populace. There are so many examples of this that only Americans are unaware -- everyone else knows what goes on.
It's been a commonplace since the 19th century to say that if Russia and Germany ever join forces they would be far stronger than the US. This is why the US constantly works to weaken both and to keep them at odds.
And perhaps the main reason the US wants a weak Russia is to counter China. China is eating America's lunch, in terms of economic production, innovation, trade surpluses, etc. Millions have been lifted out of poverty and the infrastructure, compared to America's, looks like a sci-fi picture of the future. America can't compete, so they can only attack.
Quote:Or is it only existential for the Russian elites that insist on maintaining the vast majority of the country in poverty, while they live better than most of the rich folk in "the West"?
Is the "vast majority of the country in poverty"? Really?
There was widespread poverty after Clinton and the IMF imposed "shock therapy" on the Russian economy. As the IMF always does, it privatized all public goods and handed them over to well-connected rich people. Regular Russians saw the value of their life savings drop to near zero, and life expectancy fell precipitously. (And keep your eyes on Ukraine, after the war is over and the US media forgets about it. Zelensky has turned the economy over to the IMF and Goldman Sachs, which means shock therapy and strict austerity for the surviving Ukrainians, whose infrastructure has mostly been destroyed.)
Putin is very popular in Russia because he tamed the oligarchs that the IMF created. Look what happened at Gazprom. While some shares were owned by regular Russians, the lion's share was turned over to private owners who stripped it of assets and refused to pay the agreed-upon dividends to the Russian government. Putin leveraged the government's shares to kick out these corrupt officials and demand payments of the government's share. Perhaps you think it's bad for the government to get money from the sale of the country's natural resources, but I'm old enough to remember when large profitable corporations had to pay the government a lot -- these used to be called "taxes," the kind of thing that US oligarchs, e.g. Exxon Mobile, no longer pay.
Putin returned the country to a semblance of economic normalcy and most people benefited. For example, Mercedes Benz does good business in Russia (or they did until they patriotically pulled out last year). And these sales don't go to oligarchs, who mostly live in London. Luxury brands and lifestyle brands do well in Russia -- most of them said they would pull out due to the war but didn't. Currently Chinese-made electric cars (like Teslas only good) are selling well in Russia. Sanctions have had almost no effect, and the economy is growing faster than that of Germany or Britain. There are poor people, of course, as there are everywhere. I would rather live in St. Petersburg than in Trenton, New Jersey.
So your image of a few mega-rich sitting on top of a suffering populace is not accurate.
Is it a utopia of transparent private enterprise? No. Putin knows how to use the oligarchs to his advantage. Is it more corrupt than the US? Maybe about the same. It is less corrupt than Ukraine.
Quote:Is it fear that, if Ukraine could turn around their oligarchy, then the Russians would think why should Russia keep at it? See how well that sort of thing is working in North Korea.... I know, I know, smaller border, easier to control in NK. But it's the same principle.
Sooner or later, they get a French Revolution style event. I don't think Napoleon needed NATO to get it going.
I see no comparison to North Korea. Perhaps you could explain to me why that's relevant.
The US needs a French Revolution style event more than Russia does. And I don't see the relevancy of Napoleon here. Russia defeated Napoleon. While many in Europe saw Napoleon as a new type of hero and a savior from the corrupt monarchy, that changed fast when they saw what he was really like.
Neither the North Korea comparison nor the Napoleon one make sense to me here.
![[Image: lh-area.gif]](https://d2z7bzwflv7old.cloudfront.net/cdn_image/exW_1200/images/maps/en/lh/lh-area.gif)
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
