International Putin signs mutual defence pact with North Korea, heralds 'New World Order' in meeting with Iranian president

[Possum Jenkins]

Like seriously, changing names, selling children, and putting them in Russian "education" camps....This conflict is not complex…..I mean what is Russia's solution here other than violent expansion? What would it take for you to maybe say that NATO enlargement was a BS explanation for the invasion? @Possum Jenkins @TheMaster

Russia's been warning that NATO expansion is unacceptable for over a decade.

There's a historical/cultural aspect but it's far in the background.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Russia's been warning that NATO expansion is unacceptable for over a decade.

There's a historical/cultural aspect but it's far in the background.

Russia has no fucking right to force Ukraine into their country
And for the millionth time, "NATO exapansion" is "unacceptable" specifically because it prevents Russia from invading.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

If NATO had the goal to invade Russia or at least threaten Russia why was it disarming?

No one is saying they were going to invade Russia, but it is a rival military power.

There's less than 0 chance that China (or any country) could ever invade the US. But if China somehow agrees with Mexico or Canada to set up military bases, the US would freak the hell out.

Ill rephrase the original argument then "Western Europe was disarming and increasingly becoming more economically dependent on Russia, so any claims that Russia felt threatened is weak, if anything Russia was emboldened by what it perceived was NATO weakness to invade Ukraine and he proved ultimately right, Western Europe were caught with their pants down, years of military neglect along with them being hooked on Russian gas showed they never even considered a war with Russia".

So NATO constantly expanding post 1991 is actually "NATO weakness"?? Holy shit.

Russia was voicing its disapproval of this for a while. It didn't start in 2022.

America kind of did that during WW2, are you telling me America should had just the let Nazis win?

Yeah, Hitler and the Nazis has been go-to excuse for Western/American aggression since 1945. Absolutely everything can be boiled down to "Oh, you don't think ___________ is a threat? So you want to appease them like Chamberlain did Hitler??"

Enter any "enemy" you want in that blank and it works great.

But if you actually analyze it, it falls apart. Militarily, economically, and ideologically, late 1930s Germany isn't remotely comparable to anything today.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Russia has no fucking right to force Ukraine into their country
And for the millionth time, "NATO exapansion" is "unacceptable" specifically because it prevents Russia from invading.

Of course it doesn't have a right to do it. The invasion is criminal. But for the millionth time, they had legitimate security concerns.

NATO is a military alliance from a rival country. Just because you don't think Russia should feel threatened that it's making inroads in a country with historical ties to Russia and a couple of hundred miles away from Moscow doesn't mean it doesn't.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Fuck it then, let's keep throwing more and more weapons at Ukraine and let them fight it out. All solutions can be military solutions if you wait long enough and are willing to sacrifice enough people.100k dead Ukrainians isn't enough so let's keep going until we reach 200k or 500k.

Turn Ukraine into 1980s Afghanistan.

If Ukrainians want to be conquered, they can always just surrender. We're not forcing them to fight back; just helping them. I can't imagine thinking that just leaving them to slaughter is morally acceptable.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Of course it doesn't have a right to do it. The invasion is criminal. But for the millionth time, they had legitimate security concerns.

NATO is a military alliance from a rival country. Just because you don't think Russia should feel threatened that it's making inroads in a country with historical ties to Russia and a couple of hundred miles away from Moscow doesn't mean it doesn't.

They 10000000% did not have legitimate security concerns lol gentle CHRIST
Russia invaded Ukraine because they WANT it, full stop. Putin wasn't preemptively thwarting a NATO invasion. Your brainworms have their own brainworms. Yeeesh, and you call me indoctrinated

 

[Limbo Pete]

If Ukrainians want to be conquered, they can always just surrender. We're not forcing them to fight back; just helping them. I can't imagine thinking that just leaving them to slaughter is morally acceptable.

It is if you don't think they have actual agency, and desperately crave the US getting a black eye (and think this will do that)

 

[Possum Jenkins]

If Ukrainians want to be conquered, they can always just surrender. We're not forcing them to fight back; just helping them. I can't imagine thinking that just leaving them to slaughter is morally acceptable.

I'm not saying pack up and leave, I'm saying work out a ceasefire agreement.

If you want to reduce harm to the Ukrainian people, you have to work out a diplomatic agreement because you're not going to beat Russia militarily. This was clear from the beginning. The only way to beat them was to put NATO boots on the ground and of course, that would open up an extremely dangerous can of worms that no one wants.

Zelensky himself knows Ukraine alone can't beat Russia which is why he's been pushing for direct NATO intervention from the beginning.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

They 10000000% did not have legitimate security concerns lol gentle CHRIST
Russia invaded Ukraine because they WANT it, full stop. Putin wasn't preemptively thwarting a NATO invasion. Your brainworms have their own brainworms. Yeeesh, and you call me indoctrinated

Guess we got another stalemate.

But if I'm indoctrinated, I do have to wonder what kind doctrine can include people like George Kennan, the current CIA chief, a few other US diplomats, a bunch of elite academics, etc.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Guess we got another stalemate.

But if I'm indoctrinated, I do have to wonder what kind doctrine can include people like George Kennan, the current CIA chief, a few other US diplomats, a bunch of elite academics, etc.

It's not a stalemate, you're just wrong lol

 

[Limbo Pete]

I'm not saying pack up and leave, I'm saying work out a ceasefire agreement.

If you want to reduce harm to the Ukrainian people, you have to work out a diplomatic agreement because you're not going to beat Russia militarily. This was clear from the beginning. The only way to beat them was to put NATO boots on the ground and of course, that would open up an extremely dangerous can of worms that no one wants.

Zelensky himself knows Ukraine alone can't beat Russia which is why he's been pushing for direct NATO intervention from the beginning.

Being occupied by Russia _IS_ harm, particularly given Putin's views on the very notion of Ukrainian political and cultural distinction

 

[Rod1]

No one is saying they were going to invade Russia, but it is a rival military power.

If they weren't a threat why would they have any security concern? you are at the same time saying "NATO is a threat to Russia" while at the same time saying "NATO isn't going to attack Russia"

So why is it a threat?

 

[Rod1]

Yeah, Hitler and the Nazis has been go-to excuse for Western/American aggression since 1945. Absolutely everything can be boiled down to "Oh, you don't think ___________ is a threat? So you want to appease them like Chamberlain did Hitler??"

You are literally asking for countries to cease to exist and be annexed like Austria and Checoslovakia because otherwise Putin may get angry and start destroying countries.

Im sorry but it doesnt gets any close in resemblance.

 

[Rod1]

So NATO constantly expanding post 1991 is actually "NATO weakness"?? Holy shit.

NATO only becomes a threat in the case of Article 5 being triggered, and the only way it gets triggered is if Russia decides to invade a NATO country.

Otherwise the military "threat" is all up to individual countries and the largest and more powerful European nations (AKA Putin neighbors) were disarming and underfunding their military.

 

[Rod1]

. But if China somehow agrees with Mexico or Canada

Why would Mexico or Canada accept bases from China.

Because i can say "somehow" the US would be ok with that.

 

[Yehudim]

Russia's been warning that NATO expansion is unacceptable for over a decade.

There's a historical/cultural aspect but it's far in the background.

Refresh my memory…how close was Ukraine to joining NATO prior to the invasion?

 

[Rod1]

I'm not saying pack up and leave, I'm saying work out a ceasefire agreement.

If you want to reduce harm to the Ukrainian people, you have to work out a diplomatic agreement because you're not going to beat Russia militarily. This was clear from the beginning. The only way to beat them was to put NATO boots on the ground and of course, that would open up an extremely dangerous can of worms that no one wants.

Zelensky himself knows Ukraine alone can't beat Russia which is why he's been pushing for direct NATO intervention from the beginning.

What prevents Ukraine from negotiating with Russia?

 

[filthybliss]

How about this, I will answer with a counter question which if you can answer will in turn answer your question

What was so bad about the Soviet Union placing nukes in Cuba (Aka the Cuban missile crisis)?

How is this directly relevant the issues going on today in Ukraine with the possibility of NATO expansion?

Answer this based on your understanding and we can see where your head is on this one.
Some resources to help you if necessary:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/russia-says-ukraine-could-turn-into-re-run-cuban-missile-crisis-2021-12-09/

Who watches Chomsky anymore?


But your Cuban Missile Crisis to Ukrainian Invasion comparison is flimsy. Russia invaded before Ukraine touched NATO whereas Cuba was already allied with the Soviet Union and was getting packed with missiles. I mean for petesake, Ukraine was not armed with nukes and it wasn't in NATO in the 2014 invasion.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

If they weren't a threat why would they have any security concern? you are at the same time saying "NATO is a threat to Russia" while at the same time saying "NATO isn't going to attack Russia"

So why is it a threat?

For the same reason Cuba joining the Warsaw Pact wasn't even a thought during the Cold War. The USSR was very unlikely to attack the much more powerful US but despite that, having a rival military alliance is going to be seen as a threat.

It really comes down to applying standards equally.

Why would Mexico or Canada accept bases from China.

Because i can say "somehow" the US would be ok with that.

The "why" is irrelevant. The US wouldn't give a fuck.

There's no scenario where the US would say "Oh ok, that's a great reason to join up with China. Yeah, go ahead set up a bunch of bases with missiles pointed at us."

Great powers don't behave that way and never have.

Refresh my memory…how close was Ukraine to joining NATO prior to the invasion?

Most experts point to the 2008 Bucharest Summit as the start of it all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#Bucharest_summit

You are literally asking for countries to cease to exist and be annexed like Austria and Checoslovakia because otherwise Putin may get angry and start destroying countries.

Im sorry but it doesnt gets any close in resemblance.

Extremely unlikely that Ukraine gets annexed and "ceases to exist."

It's one thing to defeat a country, another to occupy it, and another to annex it. As both the US and the Soviet Union learned, occupying weak, Middle Eastern/Central Asian countries is extremely hard. So there's just no way that a much weaker Russia today is going to annex a much more militarily powerful country like Ukraine with its 30m people who will be understandably hostile to it.

Hitler's Germany is much, much, much more powerful than Putin's Russia.

 

[Limbo Pete]

For the same reason Cuba joining the Warsaw Pact wasn't even a thought during the Cold War. The USSR was very unlikely to attack the much more powerful US but despite that, having a rival military alliance is going to be seen as a threat.

It really comes down to applying standards equally.



The "why" is irrelevant. The US wouldn't give a fuck.

There's no scenario where the US would say "Oh ok, that's a great reason to join up with China. Yeah, go ahead set up a bunch of bases with missiles pointed at us."

Great powers don't behave that way and never have.



Most experts point to the 2008 Bucharest Summit as the start of it all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#Bucharest_summit


Extremely unlikely that Ukraine gets annexed and "ceases to exist."

It's one thing to defeat a country, another to occupy it, and another to annex it. As both the US and the Soviet Union learned, occupying weak, Middle Eastern/Central Asian countries is extremely hard. So there's just no way that a much weaker Russia today is going to annex a much more militarily powerful country like Ukraine with its 30m people who will be understandably hostile to it.

Hitler's Germany is much, much, much more powerful than Putin's Russia.

Except of course that they are literally fighting to occupy it right now lol