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

[KAZSoliloquy]

You can't look at Clinton administrations foreign policy. Then observe Bush's foreign policy. Then observe Obama's foreign policy and say there's some well planned scheme here.

literally all three of those made it a priority to antagonize the middle east.

 

[aerius]

literally all three of those made it a priority to antagonize the middle east.

US foreign policy since the end of WW2 has been as follows:
1) Suck Israel's cock
2) Fight communism
3) Fuck over 3rd world countries for their resources to benefit US corporations & interests

 

[LeonardoBjj]

It just shows where Russia is at. They went from half the world being its sphere of influence, to basically only having petty dictatorships like Belarus and North Korea in its corner.

- Russians were well liked. Putin ruined everything.

 

[TheGreatA]

- Russians were well liked. Putin ruined everything.

He was passable until the 2010s. After that he has been a blight on Russian society. Yet another sign that 8 to 10 year maximum terms are required for leaders. After that they begin to stagnate and corrupt, looking more forward to protecting their own interests rather than those of the citizens.

This whole Ukraine deal is just a part of Putin's hubris to go down as a "great leader" who was able to expand Russia's territory akin to the great conquerors of the past.

Believe me there's nothing I'd like to do more than good business with the Russians, because that's largely what contributed to our economic rise after WW2, but it's impossible when all that money is going into funding tanks and bombs that may be used to invade our territory.

 

[SurferH2O]

This all began in play years ago and proved how stupid the Democrat leadership is internationally.



How stupid... not only did Russia ally with China, but they took idiotic Joe's advice and allied with Iran too.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

US foreign policy since the end of WW2 has been as follows:
1) Suck Israel's cock
2) Fight communism
3) Fuck over 3rd world countries for their resources to benefit US corporations & interests

I think it can be summarized much simpler. The policy is simply "ensure your own safety and interest in a world with no supreme accountability authority". And that applies to most everyone's foreign policy.

That isn't to say the similarity of the driver means all outcomes would be equal, but reality is ideology is largely a smoke-screen. China and Russia have abandoned communism, but that's not going to prevent economic and/or military conflict with us because simply anybody that has the capability to be a threat is a threat in the world of international relations. There really isn't any bedfellow too strange for an alliance when it comes to pursuit of power.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I am sorry but you are overcomplicating all of this to find some sort of "America=bad" theme.

NATO is a defensive pact. Any nation in the world has the right to join it to exercise their sovereign rights. When was the last time that NATO invaded a country to indoctrinate them into their ilk? Now, when has Russia? Based on just that, why should Russia see NATO as some sort of boogeyman? The only reason that it would is if it still sees itself as entitled to controlling over pre-existing Soviet borders.

Besides that, "US NATO Enlargement" is not some sort of nefarious scheme pulled by the U.S., it is simply a reaction to Russia acting as a loose cannon and invading its neighbors when they are unable manipulate them entirely. You would have a point if Russia wasn't being a belligerent brute.

Nah, it's not "America = bad," it's "America = very similar to all other great powers in world history and not actually inherently, unavoidably benevolent."

If NATO was a defensive pact against Soviet aggression it would have stopped existing in 1991. Not only has it not stopped existing, it's continued to expand.

And Russia seeing NATO as a threat is just as natural as if the Warsaw Pact or some other coalition of states unfriendly to the US began encircling it. The US almost ended the world in 1962 when the USSR did to the US what the US did to them (placing nuclear missiles at its borders- the US put them in Turkey BEFORE the Soviets put them in Cuba) so we know what the reaction can be. When tiny, miserably poor Nicaragua began flirting with the Soviets in the 80s, the US just about destroyed it.

Russia was anything but a loose cannon during the 90s. It was weak and parts of its leadership were willing to integrate with the West. The US just decided to humiliate it further.

With all its faults, the United States is most certainly less belligerent than Russia is in the 21st Century. That is a hill that I am willing to die on. The Russian Invasion of Ukraine tops all of it.

I guess we'd have to crunch numbers but I really think Iraq + Afghanistan >>> Ukraine. And that's not even taking Israel into account.

 

[Sweater of AV]

 

[aerius]

I think it can be summarized much simpler. The policy is simply "ensure your own safety and interest in a world with no supreme accountability authority". And that applies to most everyone's foreign policy.

Correct, this is indeed what every sovereign nation does, however, the US carries out its policies in a highly antagonistic way which I believe is ultimately self-destructive.

 

[Rod1]

This all began in play years ago and proved how stupid the Democrat leadership is internationally.

How stupid... not only did Russia ally with China, but they took idiotic Joe's advice and allied with Iran too.

Yes, its the fault of Democrats that a corrupt, hostile autocracy decided to ally with other corrupt, hostile autocracies.

 

[filthybliss]

Nah, it's not "America = bad," it's "America = very similar to all other great powers in world history and actually inherently, impossibly benevolent."

If NATO was a defensive pact against Soviet aggression it would have stopped existing in 1991. Not only has it not stopped existing, it's continued to expand.

And Russia seeing NATO as a threat is just as natural as if the Warsaw Pact or some other coalition of states unfriendly to the US began encircling it. The US almost ended the world in 1962 when the USSR did to the US what the US did to them (placing nuclear missiles at its borders- the US put them in Turkey BEFORE the Soviets put them in Cuba) so we know what the reaction can be. When tiny, miserably poor Nicaragua began flirting with the Soviets in the 80s, the US just about destroyed it.

I can agree with your premise on America in a vacuum. But not the rest.

Furthermore, I fail to see how that is relevant to excuse how Russia is acting today. And again, the U.S. did not annex Nicargua and kidnap Nicarguan kids, give them new names and have them brainwashed to auction them for who knows what like Russia is doing with Ukraine here.

Also, you are deepthroating this Putin Propaganda so hard in regards to NATO.......Ask yourself why is NATO expanding? If "NATO expansion" was really this boogeyman despite its lack of history regarding sieging land and absorbing it as its own...Why was Russia so apathetic to Finland and Sweden joining NATO?

I mean do you really buy all that crock of shit when Putin is on record for constantly undermining Ukraine's autonomy and meddling with their elections (ex: Orange Revolution).

He has written erotica in regards to Ukraine and Russia forming as one....What else do you need?

"Russian President Vladimir Putin has made several dubious historical arguments, most notably in his 5,000-word essay “On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” published on the Kremlin’s website in July 2021. In it, he elaborates on his assertion that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people” as a precursor to and defense of Ukraine’s invasion."

"In his speech to the Russian nation on Monday, President Vladimir V. Putin buoyed his case for codifying the cleavage of two rebel territories from Ukraine by arguing that the very idea of Ukrainian statehood was a fiction."

Fact-checking Putin’s claims that Ukraine and Russia are ‘one people’

Rochester historian explains how Ukraine history is complicated and intertwined with many other nations, empires, ethnicities and religions.

www.rochester.edu

I guess we'd have to crunch numbers but I really think Iraq + Afghanistan >>> Ukraine. And that's not even taking Israel into account.

Death Toll doesn't equate to moral righteousness. Otherwise you would be arguing that GB was less morally righteous than Nazi Germany when they fought eachother in WW2. Also, Russia is backing Hamas/IRGC/Hezbollah/Tailban so they have blood on their hands for this conflict to in Gaza. Also, the War on Terror (I disagree with btw) is no shape or form similar to the Ukraine Invasion. I am curious why you are conflating the too as the reasons for each are quite different.

 

[Rod1]

If NATO was a defensive pact against Soviet aggression it would have stopped existing in 1991. Not only has it not stopped existing, it's continued to expand.

And Russia seeing NATO as a threat is just as natural as if the Warsaw Pact or some other coalition of states unfriendly to the US began encircling it. The US almost ended the world in 1962 when the USSR did to the US what the US did to them (placing nuclear missiles at its borders- the US put them in Turkey BEFORE the Soviets put them in Cuba) so we know what the reaction can be. When tiny, miserably poor Nicaragua began flirting with the Soviets in the 80s, the US just about destroyed it.

If Russia considers the West an enemy, it would be stupid for the West to try to appease Russia because Russia will always be threatened by the West.

 

[Rod1]

When tiny, miserably poor Nicaragua began flirting with the Soviets in the 80s, the US just about destroyed it.

The US didn't "about destroy" Nicaragua, it merely gave opposition the means to defend themselves against Daniel Ortega's attempt to become Somoza 2.0.

The alternative was to let Soviet-backed Cuba to conquer the entire continent in the name of neutrality.

 

[Rod1]

Correct, this is indeed what every sovereign nation does, however, the US carries out its policies in a highly antagonistic way which I believe is ultimately self-destructive.

All nations feel safer when their neighbors are similar to them and share the same values.

Same reason why Russia and China support autocracies everywhere, this fake "moral relativism" that was so prevalent among the far left but suddenly was championed by the far right is retarded.

A liberal, capitalist democracy isn't the same as an autocratic kleptocracy ruled by a satrap.

 

[Rod1]

That isn't to say the similarity of the driver means all outcomes would be equal, but reality is ideology is largely a smoke-screen. China and Russia have abandoned communism, but that's not going to prevent economic and/or military conflict with us because simply anybody that has the capability to be a threat is a threat in the world of international relations. There really isn't any bedfellow too strange for an alliance when it comes to pursuit of power.

Ideology isn't a smoke-screen its fundamental to how a nation acts, if a State doesn't believes in democracy then States that do believe in democracy and want to promote them abroad become a threat immediately.

Nations feel safer around their peers after all, Western Europe stopped wars the moment they all agreed that having capitalism and democracy was in the best interests of everyone involved.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Ideology isn't a smoke-screen its fundamental to how a nation acts, if a State doesn't believes in democracy then States that do believe in democracy and want to promote them abroad become a threat immediately.

Nations feel safer around their peers after all, Western Europe stopped wars the moment they all agreed that having capitalism and democracy was in the best interests of everyone involved.

Yeppers. A war with 20 million dead and a trajectory of only having deadlier weapons will do that.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I can agree with your premise on America in a vacuum. But not the rest.

Furthermore, I fail to see how that is relevant to excuse how Russia is acting today. And again, the U.S. did not annex Nicargua and kidnap Nicarguan kids, give them new names and have them brainwashed to auction them for who knows what like Russia is doing with Ukraine here.

Also, you are deepthroating this Putin Propaganda so hard in regards to NATO.......Ask yourself why is NATO expanding? If "NATO expansion" was really this boogeyman despite its lack of history regarding sieging land and absorbing it as its own...Why was Russia so apathetic to Finland and Sweden joining NATO?

It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. Often times, the best explanations for the behavior of others is by putting yourself in their shoes. The US would be extremely upset if a foreign military alliance grew in its sphere of influence, the Western Hemisphere. Shit, it's upset that China is extending is sphere of influence right outside its own borders! (the South China sea).

And criticism of NATO expansion is hardly Putin propaganda. In fact, it far predates Putin as a state leader or even major political figure. It's been given since the 90s and often by very mainstream, Western figures. I've posted a few in this thread but there's lots more if you google them. That Putin today uses legitimate concerns to engage in a criminal invasion is another issue. Those two things can be true at the same time. The concerns are legitimate but the actions criminal.

Death Toll doesn't equate to moral righteousness. Otherwise you would be arguing that GB was less morally righteous than Nazi Germany when they fought eachother in WW2. Also, Russia is backing Hamas/IRGC/Hezbollah/Tailban so they have blood on their hands for this conflict to in Gaza. Also, the War on Terror (I disagree with btw) is no shape or form similar to the Ukraine Invasion. I am curious why you are conflating the too as the reasons for each are quite different.

US actions in Iraq & Afghanistan and Russia in Ukraine don't have to be exactly the same in order to be compared. Ukraine has cultural ties to Russia going back 1,000 years and is a couple hundred miles away from its capital, Moscow. Meanwhile, Iraq and Afghanistan are half a world away from the US geographically, historically, culturally, etc.

The specific conditions are different but the larger actions are the same: big military powers exerting their influence over weaker, smaller nations.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

If Russia considers the West an enemy, it would be stupid for the West to try to appease Russia because Russia will always be threatened by the West.

I think the West considers Russia an enemy far more than the other way around.

Gotta remember, the West is far more powerful militarily, politically, economically, and even culturally than Russia. If it wanted to "draw" Russia in, it could

The US didn't "about destroy" Nicaragua, it merely gave opposition the means to defend themselves against Daniel Ortega's attempt to become Somoza 2.0.

The alternative was to let Soviet-backed Cuba to conquer the entire continent in the name of neutrality.

The International Court of Justice certainly thought it was a crime

Nicaragua v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[filthybliss]

It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. Often times, the best explanations for the behavior of others is by putting yourself in their shoes. The US would be extremely upset if a foreign military alliance grew in its sphere of influence, the Western Hemisphere. Shit, it's upset that China is extending is sphere of influence right outside its own borders! (the South China sea).

And criticism of NATO expansion is hardly Putin propaganda. In fact, it far predates Putin as a state leader or even major political figure. It's been given since the 90s and often by very mainstream, Western figures. I've posted a few in this thread but there's lots more if you google them. That Putin today uses legitimate concerns to engage in a criminal invasion is another issue. Those two things can be true at the same time. The concerns are legitimate but the actions criminal..

Dude, it is not an explanation for their behavior. Ukraine was not a NATO nation in 2022 and it was not seriously considering it then either. Putin just increased their likelihood of joining by being a hostile actor and proving why NATO needs to still remain a thing.

And once again, I'll ask you when has NATO used militant means to indoctrinate another country into their ilk? Now when has Russia? You keep avoiding this point.

US actions in Iraq & Afghanistan and Russia in Ukraine don't have to be exactly the same in order to be compared. Ukraine has cultural ties to Russia going back 1,000 years and is a couple hundred miles away from its capital, Moscow. Meanwhile, Iraq and Afghanistan are half a world away from the US geographically, historically, culturally, etc.

Cmon, you are smarter than this. Should India just start invading Pakistan for that same reason? You vacate a lot of “explanations” for future invasions by even mentioning this. It is more pathetic than the NATO expansion stuff.

Nonetheless, the U.S. reason for the war on terror is very much different than the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Yes, they both involve a larger country dicking around in a smaller one. But, the Bush admin had more valid reasons

1. The moral obligation to put down Saddam Hussein, a wild dog that America raised and needed to put down. They honestly should have expelled him after the Gulf War.
2. Intervention based on the clause of Hussein’s regime being guilty of genocide, grooming terrorists, and harassing neighboring states
3. Also, the whole 9/11 thing

Russia literally just invaded Ukraine because they couldn’t have their hand in Ukraine’s ass.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Dude, it is not an explanation for their behavior. Ukraine was not a NATO nation in 2022 and it was not seriously considering it then either. Putin just increased their likelihood of joining by being a hostile actor and proving why NATO needs to still remain a thing.

And once again, I'll ask you when has NATO used militant means to indoctrinate another country into their ilk? Now when has Russia? You keep avoiding this point.


Cmon, you are smarter than this. Should India just start invading Pakistan for that same reason? You vacate a lot of “explanations” for future invasions by even mentioning this. It is more pathetic than the NATO expansion stuff.

Nonetheless, the U.S. reason for the war on terror is very much different than the Russia's Invasion of Ukraine. Yes, they both involve a larger country dicking around in a smaller one. But, the Bush admin had more valid reasons

1. The moral obligation to put down Saddam Hussein, a wild dog that America raised and needed to put down. They honestly should have expelled him after the Gulf War.
2. Intervention based on the clause of Hussein’s regime being guilty of genocide, grooming terrorists, and harassing neighboring states
3. Also, the whole 9/11 thing

Russia literally just invaded Ukraine because they couldn’t have their hand in Ukraine’s ass.

Honestly, all of the moral posturing bullshit is totally irrelevant anyway, and just shows how little agency these tankies apply to the actual people fighting for their lives and freedom. American foreign policy in the middle east was a shit show, therefore Russia gets to erase Ukraine. You know, because America bad not good not good guys no benevolent America reeeeeeeeeeee. And his hero Dr. Mearsheimer does the same thing: they talk right past the actual wishes and conditions of the Ukrainian people. There's no agency for Ukraine in the tankies mind, just blind moral posturing. It's like.... what offends them isn't anything we are doing, but the very idea that we "get" to be on the right side. If they actually cared about freedom and decency, they would celebrate the US doing the right thing for the first God damn time in a million fucking years.