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

[TheMaster]

@Whippy McGee "RUSSIA IS WHITE AND EUROPEAN, THEY SHOULD BE ALLIED TO US NOT CHINA".

That's not how it works, culture isn't carried in the genes and Russians feels closer to China than to the West.

Both were literally absolute monarchies during most of their history, in fact you could argue they still function closer to absolute monarchies than actual Republics.

Its also a Western perspective only when it suits them.
Germans/Anglo-Saxon have always considered themselves superior to Eastern Europeans (remember that even Poles were not considered white when they first came to the US).
Russians also see themselves as having a shared history with Iran and being Indo-Europeans which Western Europe has ignored to forge their recent 'white' identity.

Many eastern Russians also have an Asiatic streak linking them to the Mongols/Chinese on a genetic level.

Then as you say, Russia is governed much more traditionally with the Czar model surviving in its own way.
The pivot to the East is quite natural for them also.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I mentioned NATO's history of not invading other countries to absorb as its own....To simply show you that Russia doesn't have any viable proof to be terrified about "NATO expansionism" if they don't have nefarious intentions to invade (which they did).

WTF, you can't be serious. So because NATO (which is a military alliance, not a state) has never annexed a country, Russia should be ok with it expanding? Hey, the Warsaw Pact was also military alliance that never annexed anyone, if Mexico, Canada and Cuba wanted to join the US should have been totally cool with it. Shit, if China today starts moving troops into Mexico and China, the US should be cool with it because China hasn't annexed anyone since the early days of the Qing Dynasty?

That's a terrible argument. Great powers don't like other great powers encircling it with its military, period.

I am not justifying it either but you seem to use those conflicts to somehow wash the blood off Putin's hands. The War on Terror was an awful idea especially with the Bush Admin being the intervener, we can agree. But I never said it had to do with "border security", Russia's invasion doesn't either, they are just annexing shit for Putin to achieve more power. His entourage of statements undermining the legitmacy of their culture/statehood really highlights that, it doesn't take Einstein to realize that.

Also WTF is that parallel that you drawing between Zelensky and Hussein. Look up what Hussein was doing to the Kurds...Zelensky has not done anything remotely close to that, what hostility has NATO/Ukraine shown towards Russia to recognize NATO as this immense threat that warrants Russia annexing land and child trafficking Ukranian Children?

Overall, the way that you try to rationalize Putin being a colossal POS by drawing weak ass connections to American Foreign Policy is cringe.

Not washing blood off Putin's hand at all. I've said it several times already and I'm saying it again: Putin's invasion is criminal and needs to be stopped. Legitimate grievances can be followed by criminal actions. There's like a thousand examples of that in world history.

And of course Saddam was legitimate criminal while Zelensky isn't but the point is, what kind of harm do they bring to the US and Russia respectively? Saddam slaughtering Kurds and Iraqis doesn't do shit to harm US security. And absolutely no one believes that the US suddenly started caring about them in 2001 and that's the reason they went in. On the other hand, Zelensky courting NATO and the West absolutely harms Russia's security.

So if invading Ukraine to get rid of its leader is a weak argument (which it is), invading Iraq to get rid of its leader is far, far weaker and even more criminal.

My problem with you is that you seem to infantalize and somehow justify Russia's disgusting actions as it is a genuine response to "NATO" when in fact, there is no evidence to assume such. You indirectly keep implying "The U.S. was so mean to Russia in the 90s so Ukraine deserves to get shelled for it".....

You are a good poster but muh god, you have lost your mind here.

Again, explanation doesn't mean justification. Even the most heinous acts in history have explanations. European colonization, slavery, the rise of Hitler and Mussolini, etc., they all have explanations that deal with political, social, and especially geopolitical factors when war and states are involved. "They're just bad guys" doesn't cut it.

But it looks like we're going in circles here, homie. Good talk.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Cool, what does the ICJ thinks of Daniel Ortega's dictatorship?

It condemns it.

So it's correct in both instances. In the 80s, the US engaged in aggression on a miserably poor country, and in the 2020s, Ortega is a dictator.

Did you even read Stollenberg's words?

Yes.

He seems to think NATO expansion is a great thing (which is what you would expect from the Secretary fucking General of it) and also admits that NATO expansion is the reason, or one of the reasons at least, for Russia's invasion. That's been my point this whole time

America was wrong to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Russia is wrong for going against Ukraine.

Agree or disagree?

Of course agree.

 

[skysolo]

Well.... if Trump wins, he will be oh so happy to join the gang.

I wonder how "swwweeettt" that will be for you?

Bruh it was a reference to the WCW NWO.

I mean did you even read the OP?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Maybe put yourself in the shoes of the hundreds of millions of people trying to protect themselves from one of the most imperialistic empires the world has ever seen you horrible human being.

Get decimated in a world war, oppressed by a foreign regime for decades and have some arrogant cunt on the other side of the world say your wish to form defensive alliances makes your oppressor feel threatened.


Do you tell women that are the victims of domestic violence that their desire not to get hurt is provoking their abuser?

You're actively victim shaming and reducing real people and their desires of safety to stupid pawns.

You are a horrible brain washed human being.

Analyzing and understanding why something happened doesn't mean you agree with it happening in the first place.

I wish the US would have left Cuba the hell alone after 1959 but being 90 miles from its shores and having a government that was antithetical to US power and that was appealing to Latin American neighbors, the US decided to harshly punish it. I disagree strongly with this, but I understand its motivations. Not a hard distinction to make.

@Possum Jenkins want to explain this one?

I'm not Mearsheimer's manager or family member so I'm not particularly interested in defending every 50 second comment he's ever made. I agree with his opinion on NATO enlargement because I've read a lot about it, that's it.

And stop being a fucking spaz and tagging me on anything that pisses you off.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Many eastern Russians also have an Asiatic streak linking them to the Mongols/Chinese on a genetic level.

Then as you say, Russia is governed much more traditionally with the Czar model surviving in its own way.
The pivot to the East is quite natural for them also.

Yeah but Russia also has a long history of actively trying to Westernize. Peter the Great straight up copied Western European architecture, culture, and even a few political aspects. This is why St. Petersburg looks like Paris.

Russia is the most Asian of the big European nations but it's still pretty European. After 1991 there was a great opportunity to get closer to the West, much of the new leadership was for it. But for... various reasons... it didn't happen.

 

[CatchnShoot]

Bruh it was a reference to the WCW NWO.

I mean did you even read the OP?

Did read, did not watch the pathetic cosplay video.

It does track that THAT is what you choose to focus on though.


My bad.

 

[curryjunkie]

Good lord you are fuckin nasty lol

i honestly thought that guy had been banned ages ago, but ive had him on ignore for years

 

[curryjunkie]

Yeah but Russia also has a long history of actively trying to Westernize. Peter the Great straight up copied Western European architecture, culture, and even a few political aspects. This is why St. Petersburg looks like Paris.

Russia is the most Asian of the big European nations but it's still pretty European. After 1991 there was a great opportunity to get closer to the West, much of the new leadership was for it. But for... various reasons... it didn't happen.

nothing to do with the rampant gangsterism and carving up the state into feifdoms run by the former kgb? what about fuckin with european countries airspace repeatedly, shooting down airliners, or murdering critics of the regime on european soil? you dont think that had anything to do with reluctance to cosy up to russia? gorbachov was the last sane leader, after that its been manlets and drunks ..

 

[filthybliss]

Its also a Western perspective only when it suits them.
Germans/Anglo-Saxon have always considered themselves superior to Eastern Europeans (remember that even Poles were not considered white when they first came to the US).
Russians also see themselves as having a shared history with Iran and being Indo-Europeans which Western Europe has ignored to forge their recent 'white' identity.

Many eastern Russians also have an Asiatic streak linking them to the Mongols/Chinese on a genetic level.

Then as you say, Russia is governed much more traditionally with the Czar model surviving in its own way.
The pivot to the East is quite natural for them also.

I mean it is ironic that a country that is so hellbent on being the center of "Christian" values collaborates with the Taliban and the IRGC to continually oppress Christians......FFS, Russia is whatever fits him, it has nothing to do with genetics or religion or arrogant Western Europeans.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

nothing to do with the rampant gangsterism and carving up the state into feifdoms run by the former kgb? what about fuckin with european countries airspace repeatedly, shooting down airliners, or murdering critics of the regime on european soil? you dont think that had anything to do with reluctance to cosy up to russia? gorbachov was the last sane leader, after that its been manlets and drunks ..

Those also had something to do with it, sure.

But American unwillingness was a bigger factor. A weak state like Russia in the 90s couldn't be in a position to impose very strong conditions or to be intransigent. Plus, there were lots of pro-integration people in its new government.

 

[filthybliss]

And of course Saddam was legitimate criminal while Zelensky isn't but the point is, what kind of harm do they bring to the US and Russia respectively? Saddam slaughtering Kurds and Iraqis doesn't do shit to harm US security. And absolutely no one believes that the US suddenly started caring about them in 2001 and that's the reason they went in. On the other hand, Zelensky courting NATO and the West absolutely harms Russia's security.

So if invading Ukraine to get rid of its leader is a weak argument (which it is), invading Iraq to get rid of its leader is far, far weaker and even more criminal.

Yeah, we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. The U.S. had the moral obligation to get rid of Hussein because they propped him up and they owed it to the Kurds and everyone that suffered under his wrath......I don't think the Bush Admin had any of that shit in mind though. Nonetheless, that is a far more superior reason than Russia's here for invading Ukraine because Zelensky started making friends. I still disagree with your assesment on the "border security" and NATO expansion thing still. Russia had nothing to fear if it had no plans to attack Ukraine. But Putin's constant rhetoric seems to signal that he always had an invasion in mind. I rest my case. I think we are going in circle here lol

 

[skysolo]

Did read, did not watch the pathetic cosplay video.

It does track that THAT is what you choose to focus on though.


My bad.

It does track that you are having a brain malfunction. You could just have said you didn't understand the reference instead of the stupid nonsense above.

 

[Rod1]

It condemns it.

So it's correct in both instances. In the 80s, the US engaged in aggression on a miserably poor country, and in the 2020s, Ortega is a dictator.

Ok, glad to see that the ICJ is as useless as it gets.

"People should never fight against a dictator, because that's interventionism and that's bad you know".

The dictator of course can invite as many foreign troops and get as many foreign weapons as they want.

He seems to think NATO expansion is a great thing (which is what you would expect from the Secretary fucking General of it) and also admits that NATO expansion is the reason, or one of the reasons at least, for Russia's invasion. That's been my point this whole time

Ok, can you quote me EXACTLY where he says that? because you are drawing some conclusions and claiming he said stuff he didn't say.

 

[Rod1]

Of course agree.

And yet you keep blaming NATO and not Russia.

 

[Rod1]

Russia is the most Asian of the big European nations but it's still pretty European. After 1991 there was a great opportunity to get closer to the West, much of the new leadership was for it. But for... various reasons... it didn't happen.

"for various reasons... it didn't happen".

Im sure the collapse of democracy and the rise of an autocratic kleptocracy had nothing to do with that.

Do you honestly believe if Russia was a liberal western style democracy it would still be hostile to the West? it would already be in NATO and the EU would go from Lisbon to Vladivostok, but they chose to become an autocratic state.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Ok, glad to see that the ICJ is as useless as it gets.

Yeah, supporters of Western domination love to slag off the UN, the ICJ, international law and other international bodies. Any institution that questions is automatically useless or bullshit, or hypocritical, etc.

Ok, can you quote me EXACTLY where he says that? because you are drawing some conclusions and claiming he said stuff he didn't say.

The exact quote where he admits that NATO enlargement is why Putin went to war embedded in the original post you quoted.

And yet you keep blaming NATO and not Russia.

There's degrees of blame, culpability, justification, etc.

Russia had legitimate security concerns with NATO's expansion but invading Ukraine is still a criminal act.

"for various reasons... it didn't happen".

Im sure the collapse of democracy and the rise of an autocratic kleptocracy had nothing to do with that.

Do you honestly believe if Russia was a liberal western style democracy it would still be hostile to the West? it would already be in NATO and the EU would go from Lisbon to Vladivostok, but they chose to become an autocratic state.

You're not going to go from 700 years of autocratic rule to a Western-style democracy overnight. There were attempts at liberalizing and democratizing but they fell through.

NATO expansion also made it clear that the West was going to continue to be hostile to it.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

The only ally worth a damn militarily is probably China, just based on population and stolen technology.

North Korea is a can.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Russia had legitimate security concerns with NATO's expansion

No, no they didn't lol

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Ukraine is losing.

what now?