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

[Possum Jenkins]

The war didn't start because of NATO expansion you useful idiot.

NATO expansion doesn't even make the bingo card.

Great argument.

I'll take the word of the Secretary-General of NATO over your bingo card meme though.

Russian propaganda works by throwing out as many different justifications as it can for it's war. Even if they contradict each other because while dozens may not work (or sound plain ridiculous) all you need is one to land.

One justification resonates with a useful idiot like yourself and they ignore all the other ridiculous justifications Russia has given.

Ukraine bombing it's own people works on some useful idiots
Biolabs works on some useful idiots
Nazi's works on other useful idiots
most corrupt country on earth other idiots
Protecting Russian speakers works on other useful idiots
*This was the justification for Germany's invasion of Poland btw*
Ancestral brothers works on other useful idiots
Historically Russian works on other idiots.
etc etc

You're too smart for all of those though aren't you?

Oh no wait... NATO EXPANSION!

You want to know where threats to Russian territory rates on Putin's justification tier list you should watch his interview with another useful idiot.

It's quite literally the first question asked:
8 minutes of answer later and he's still rambling about historical borders of Russia 800-500 years ago.

So because he talks about history first, he doesn't consider NATO expansion a factor?

You do know he talks at length and in detail about NATO and geopolitics as the specific reason for the war for about 50 minutes right after, right??

Bro your "intellectual" dropped his mask.

Don't get upset because your expert on geopolitical relations of the American Government thinks if Trump stayed president this would have all been avoided.

You should blame yourself for not voting for Trump. Smarter, more educated men like Meshwreiosej says so himself.

Yeah, the guy that in 1993 wrote that Ukraine should keep its nuclear weapons as a deterrent to a future Russian invasion... is really a Russian shill. The mask is off!

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mearsheimer-Case-for-Ukrainian-Nuclear-Deterrent.pdf

Some people's arguments are better than yours, get the fuck over it.

 

[Rod1]

WTF is this then?

That's an opinion of the guy writing the article not Stollenberg words.

You seem incapable of quoting Stollenberg without the addendum that preconditions the reader to draw the conclusions you want, because if you actually read what Stollenberg said, you basically draw the normal conclusion.

Putin was asking for the entire Eastern Europe to disarm with the pinky promise to not invade

Not weird at all. They're fine when they condemn African warlords and the odd Eastern European. But in the few instances when it criticizes US atrocities and US aggression, it's pointless, stupid, biased, a joke.

Not pointless or stupid, but trying to draw a moral equivalency between the US and Ortega is ridiculous.

Contras were literally fighting for democracy as shitty as their actions may had been (against an enemy that performed the same levels of atrocities) peace was achieved the moment Ortega allowed free and fair elections.

The thing is that Western countries are judged based on Western ideals, you don't judge non-Western countries on Western ideals, because they don't give a flying fuck about them.

West isn't perfect but it shows some degree of restraint.

Yeah but they did it gradually over centuries. From absolute monarchies to constitutional monarchies, to limited democracies, to full democracies with civil rights, etc.

Source? because very few countries actually went this route.

Most countries went straight from centuries of absolutist or oligarchic rule into democracy.

Russia had like 10 years of constitutional monarchy and then straight to single-party dictatorship for 70 years. Can't expect them to jump straight into late 20th century-style Western democracy just like that.

Japan went from centuries of military dictatorship, to an absolutist monarchy and then straight into democracy, most Asian democracies followed a similar path.

Most of Europe too, only a few nations which i guess you could call the "founders of modern democracy" went the route you are claiming.

Reckless NATO enlargement created the conditions under which Russia committed a criminal act. The blame should be shared.

Wouldn't take you for a supporter of victim blaming.

This is saying a woman that passes out at a frat party is equally guilty of being raped as the rapist, because she created the conditions in which the criminal decided to act.

 

[Rod1]

Source??

Germany Military spending, percent of GDP - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com

Germany: Military spending, percent of GDP: The latest value from 2022 is 1.39 percent, an increase from 1.33 percent in 2021. In comparison, the world average is 1.98 percent, based on data from 145 countries. Historically, the average for Germany from 1960 to 2022 is 2.31 percent. The minimum...

www.theglobaleconomy.com

Only America and countries that spent decades occupied by Russia were concerned about Russia.

France Military spending, percent of GDP - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com

France: Military spending, percent of GDP: The latest value from 2022 is 1.94 percent, an increase from 1.92 percent in 2021. In comparison, the world average is 1.98 percent, based on data from 145 countries. Historically, the average for France from 1960 to 2022 is 2.85 percent. The minimum...

www.theglobaleconomy.com

 

[Rod1]

I'll take the word of the Secretary-General of NATO over your bingo card meme though.

Weird, because you seem to be unable to quote him and HIM alone.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

That's an opinion of the guy writing the article not Stollenberg words.

Jesus fucking Christ. READ

https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper...n-behind-russian-invasion?rq=jens stoltenberg

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm?selectedLocale=en

It seems like you're doing your usual and more worried about typing away than reading or giving thought. A whole bunch of text doesn't mean you're winning an argument.

Source? because very few countries actually went this route.

Most countries went straight from centuries of absolutist or oligarchic rule into democracy.

You want me recount all of recent world history?

First it was the Glorious Revolution, then the Atlantic Revolutions (American, French, Latin American), then expansion of civil and labor rights in the 19th century. Then human rights in the 20th century. Meanwhile, Russia barely got a parliament in the 20th century! They were at least 300 years behind Western Europe

Japan went from centuries of military dictatorship, to an absolutist monarchy and then straight into democracy, most Asian democracies followed a similar path.

Most of Europe too, only a few nations which i guess you could call the "founders of modern democracy" went the route you are claiming.

The Meiji Restoration was certainly not absolutist. Japan copied just about everything from the West at that time including a constitutional monarchy structure.

China still hasn't achieved democracy so it obviously isn't easy.

Wouldn't take you for a supporter of victim blaming.

This is saying a woman that passes out at a frat party is equally guilty of being raped as the rapist, because she created the conditions in which the criminal decided to act.

Bad analogy. We can just go to events in world history.

This is the US going into Vietnam and destroying the place. Obviously it was a criminal, indefensible act, but it is explained (not justified) by a political party unfriendly to the West arising in a key strategic area.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Germany Military spending, percent of GDP - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com

Germany: Military spending, percent of GDP: The latest value from 2022 is 1.39 percent, an increase from 1.33 percent in 2021. In comparison, the world average is 1.98 percent, based on data from 145 countries. Historically, the average for Germany from 1960 to 2022 is 2.31 percent. The minimum...

www.theglobaleconomy.com

Only America and countries that spent decades occupied by Russia were concerned about Russia.

France Military spending, percent of GDP - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com

France: Military spending, percent of GDP: The latest value from 2022 is 1.94 percent, an increase from 1.92 percent in 2021. In comparison, the world average is 1.98 percent, based on data from 145 countries. Historically, the average for France from 1960 to 2022 is 2.85 percent. The minimum...

www.theglobaleconomy.com

Western European countries were spending less on the military because US-led NATO was more than making up for it. The growth of US bases encircling the Soviet Union during this time is a perfect example.

Since the US is part of the West (and in terms of military power, easily the biggest part), it's completely inaccurate to say the West was disarming.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Its pretty much irrefutable that NATO expansion has been the ultimate reason forcing Putins hand on this. I mean you have Jens Stoltenberg himself, former NATO secretary General openly admitting this which is actually shocking he would be that honest.
Logic though isn't enough to get the meessge across when you have forces of mass propaganda and media and group think creating an opposite narrative.


LMAO
How much acid do you need to drop bro before you realize you are basically in the centre of the evil empire for the past near 70 years now.
Of course it doesnt make you a bad person, just an oblivious peon who has been conditioned to live in a parrallel reality like the masses.

And now explain how US propaganda works. Lets see.

How about you explain how NATO expansion “forced” Putin to invade. This should be good.

Be specific. Let’s even pretend for a minute that NATO was even considering the idea. This obviously wasn’t the case, but I’ll play make believe with you for a minute so you can explain to me how Ukraine joining would have been the end of Russia

 

[Limbo Pete]

Jesus fucking Christ. READ

https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion?rq=jens stoltenberg

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm?selectedLocale=en

It seems like you're doing your usual and more worried about typing away than reading or giving thought. A whole bunch of text doesn't mean you're winning an argument.


You want me recount all of recent world history?

First it was the Glorious Revolution, then the Atlantic Revolutions (American, French, Latin American), then expansion of civil and labor rights in the 19th century. Then human rights in the 20th century. Meanwhile, Russia barely got a parliament in the 20th century! They were at least 300 years behind Western Europe



The Meiji Restoration was certainly not absolutist. Japan copied just about everything from the West at that time including a constitutional monarchy structure.

China still hasn't achieved democracy so it obviously isn't easy.



Bad analogy. We can just go to events in world history.

This is the US going into Vietnam and destroying the place. Obviously it was a criminal, indefensible act, but it is explained (not justified) by a political party unfriendly to the West arising in a key strategic area.

All the ranting and raving aside, it seems, friend, that you still miss the base point that the reason Russia is "threatened" by "NATO expansion" is specifically because it prevents them from invading and occupying their neighbors lol. You're complaining that people are putting locks on their door to keep out the burglars, and when anyone tries to point this out, it always comes back to "well America blah blah blah got to do it, so why can't Russia?" completely disregarding that Ukraine is its own country and really really doesn't want to be looted and occupied by Vladimir Putin lmao
Oh woe is the tankie, America is finally on the right side of an issue! The audacity! The outrage! Inconceivable!

 

[Rod1]

Jesus fucking Christ. READ

https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper...n-behind-russian-invasion?rq=jens stoltenberg

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm?selectedLocale=en
It seems like you're doing your usual and more worried about typing away than reading or giving thought. A whole bunch of text doesn't mean you're winnin

I am reading, Russia asked for ridiculous demand and gave nothing in return.

This was like William Wallace "negotations" scene.

Russia: "Disarm completely and then we may not consider invading Ukraine"
NATO: "that's ridiculous"
You: "See NATO is to blame".

You want me recount all of recent world history?

First it was the Glorious Revolution, then the Atlantic Revolutions (American, French, Latin American), then expansion of civil and labor rights in the 19th century. Then human rights in the 20th century. Meanwhile, Russia barely got a parliament in the 20th century! They were at least 300 years behind Western Europe

Most of Latin America was not democratic until very recently, sure they had "parliaments" but so does present day Russia and North Korea

The Meiji Restoration was certainly not absolutist. Japan copied just about everything from the West at that time including a constitutional monarchy structure.

Ah yes, the democracy where only 1% of the population was eligible to vote, Japan went from a military dictatorship, to an oligarchy and then to an absolute monarchy, it didn't have "centuries of democratic development".

China still hasn't achieved democracy so it obviously isn't easy.

Taiwan seems to disagree.

China isn't a democracy because of Mao.

Bad analogy. We can just go to events in world history.

This is the US going into Vietnam and destroying the place.

US went into South Vietnam because the North kept invading the South mind you, but as you have shown its clear, that only the West has any agency, the North Korean invasion of the South was never an issue.

Obviously it was a criminal, indefensible act, but it is explained (not justified) by a political party unfriendly to the West arising in a key strategic area.

Ok, but that's up to Russia, not NATO, appeasing criminals by telling them they can victimize people as long as they don't victimize too much isn't a viable strategy

 

[Limbo Pete]

How about you explain how NATO expansion “forced” Putin to invade. This should be good.

Be specific. Let’s even pretend for a minute that NATO was even considering the idea. This obviously wasn’t the case, but I’ll play make believe with you for a minute so you can explain to me how Ukraine joining would have been the end of Russia

It's power entitlement. The issue doesn't exist in reality, but rather as an extension of partisan virtue signaling. Russia represents The Team, America, and somehow by proxy Ukraine, represent The Other Team. And if it is one thing that simply cannot be tolerated, it's a disruption of the moral narratives that fuel this virtue signaling. America HAS to be either the explicit bad guy, or at least equally bad. This is marrow deep. Not one single thought for the sovereignty and actual agency of the country in question faced with a horrific occupation from a terrible, heinous mafia state.

 

[Rod1]

Western European countries were spending less on the military because US-led NATO was more than making up for it.

Yup, but it only showed that Western Europeans were not hostile to Russia and would most likely never sanction an invasion of Russia proper.

The growth of US bases encircling the Soviet Union during this time is a perfect example.

How many Russian bases are built on the border? it takes two to tango.

Maybe Russia shouldn't build as many bases near other people's countries.

Since the US is part of the West (and in terms of military power, easily the biggest part), it's completely inaccurate to say the West was disarming.

The bulk of US spending goes to the Navy and the Air Force, NATO forces and combat readiness around Russia was falling down until Russia invaded Ukraine.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

All the ranting and raving aside, it seems, friend, that you still miss the base point that the reason Russia is "threatened" by "NATO expansion" is specifically because it prevents them from invading and occupying their neighbors lol. You're complaining that people are putting locks on their door to keep out the burglars, and when anyone tries to point this out, it always comes back to "well America blah blah blah got to do it, so why can't Russia?" completely disregarding that Ukraine is its own country and really really doesn't want to be looted and occupied by Vladimir Putin lmao
Oh woe is the tankie, America is finally on the right side of an issue! The audacity! The outrage! Inconceivable!

No, America "didn't get to do it," because America hasn't invaded a neighbor in the 20th or 21st centuries. Why not? Because the Warsaw Pact has been disbanded and when it existed, it never established hundreds of bases in Canada or Mexico. It always comes back to that point because it's the one that can't be overcome. We KNOW how the US would react if it was in that same position

And if agreeing with a bunch American officials, diplomats and the most mainstream American scholars is a tankie position so be it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

No, America "didn't get to do it," because America hasn't invaded a neighbor in the 20th or 21st centuries. Why not? Because the Warsaw Pact has been disbanded and when it existed, it never established hundreds of bases in Canada or Mexico. It always comes back to that point because it's the one that can't be overcome. We KNOW how the US would react if it was in that same position

And if agreeing with a bunch American officials, diplomats and the most mainstream American scholars is a tankie position so be it.

I didn't say anything about America invading their neighbor; what I was getting at is how Russian invasions always get whataboutted to American expansionism. So you know, all the Russia-comparison whining that people do in this thread, and others, about our involvement in the Middle East. Furthermore, you don't KNOW anything that didn't happen, and counterfactuals are irrelevant anyway. Ukraine is fighting right now, and it is the _correct_ decision to help them prevent being absorbed and occupied. THAT is the point you and your cohort can't ever get past, because you don't give a single solitary fuck about the health and safety of the Ukrainian people... if it means having to concede that the US is on the right side of history for a change.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I am reading, Russia asked for ridiculous demand and gave nothing in return.

This was like William Wallace "negotations" scene.

Russia: "Disarm completely and then we may not consider invading Ukraine"
NATO: "that's ridiculous"
You: "See NATO is to blame".

Disarm completely??

They didn't ask for the dissolution of NATO (despite the fact that the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991), they didn't ask for NATO to expel a significant portion of its members. They asked for a removal of military infrastructure in post-1997 NATO members and some kind of reduced membership for them. That's very, very far from "disarm completely."

Most of Latin America was not democratic until very recently, sure they had "parliaments" but so does present day Russia and North Korea

They had very crude democracies throughout the 19th century coupled with a bunch of dictatorships.

They expanded their democratic structures through the early 20th century and only in the last decades had long stretches of firm democratic periods. Which is exactly my point: democracies take decades, centuries to improve.

Taiwan seems to disagree.

China isn't a democracy because of Mao.

Again, this just underscores my point that full democracies are hard to achieve and take a very long time to develop. Sometimes, they don't develop at all.

US went into South Vietnam because the North kept invading the South mind you, but as you have shown its clear, that only the West has any agency, the North Korean invasion of the South was never an issue.

The topic at hand is the behavior of powerful countries, not the agency of smaller ones.

Lots of countries have civil wars but the reason the US became involved in this specific one was because it challenged American state and business interests in an important part of the world. Explanation not equaling justification really can't be this hard to comprehend.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Yup, but it only showed that Western Europeans were not hostile to Russia and would most likely never sanction an invasion of Russia proper.

WTF no it didn't.

It showed that Western Europeans were willing to sacrifice much of their sovereignty in exchange for US protection.

How many Russian bases are built on the border? it takes two to tango.

Maybe Russia shouldn't build as many bases near other people's countries.

What? How many Russian bases are built on the US border? None

The bulk of US spending goes to the Navy and the Air Force, NATO forces and combat readiness around Russia was falling down until Russia invaded Ukraine.

First you said "the West was disarming" and have now shifted to "combat readiness around Russia was falling."

But even after moving goalposts, you're still wrong

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_222664.htm


And now you're gonna find another tangent and go on forever on that one...

 

[Natural Order]

I wonder how many will defect...

None, they've all been equipped with explosive collars.

 

[Rod1]

They didn't ask for the dissolution of NATO (despite the fact that the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991), they didn't ask for NATO to expel a significant portion of its members.

"they didn't asked to be expelled they just asked for them to be completely disarmed".

They asked for a removal of military infrastructure in post-1997 NATO members and some kind of reduced membership for them. That's very, very far from "disarm completely."

We are talking about microstates vs one of the largest countries in the world surrounded by Russian military bases to be completely left out of NATO military infrastructure, that is indeed asking for disarmament.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I didn't say anything about America invading their neighbor; what I was getting at is how Russian invasions always get whataboutted to American expansionism. So you know, all the Russia-comparison whining that people do in this thread, and others, about our involvement in the Middle East. Furthermore, you don't KNOW anything that didn't happen, and counterfactuals are irrelevant anyway. Ukraine is fighting right now, and it is the _correct_ decision to help them prevent being absorbed and occupied. THAT is the point you and your cohort can't ever get past, because you don't give a single solitary fuck about the health and safety of the Ukrainian people... if it means having to concede that the US is on the right side of history for a change.

Comparisons are a perfectly legitimate way to analyze events. Comparative politics, comparative history, even comparative literature are all academic fields. So comparing the behavior of Russia to the assumed behavior of the US seems perfectly fine with me. Of course, we have to do a thought experiment with the US because it enjoys such incredible security and power that we can't fully compare it to Russia's position after 1991. And Americans criticizing American aggression are much more principled than foreigners doing the same because they share a responsibility in the actions of the US government. The US is a democracy, after all.

As for Ukraine, what me and "my cohort" said way back when the war first started was that the best way out of this was to negotiate and make concessions because a military solution would just result in a stalemate with Ukraine being ruined. Almost three years later, that's exactly what's happened with no big changes in the horizon. So maybe it's your cohort that needs to rethink its position.

 

[Rod1]

WTF no it didn't.

It showed that Western Europeans were willing to sacrifice much of their sovereignty in exchange for US protection.

No, it showed that Western European nations considered the notion of a hot war on European soil to be ridiculous, same reason why Germany decided it was not a security risk to rely so heavily on Russian gas.

What? How many Russian bases are built on the US border? None

Are we talking NATO or USA here?

First you said "the West was disarming" and have now shifted to "combat readiness around Russia was falling."

Because we are talking Russia here isn't, is Russia worried that the US also defends SEA trade routes? or that it spends a considerable amount of money supporting allies in the ME?

But even after moving goalposts, you're still wrong

Not moving goalposts here, you simply are dishonest about what you mean and freely move between your curated words and your beliefs freely.

We can safely assume that

"Russian security concerns" = "Russian supremacy vis a vis the USA"
"NATO bases" = "US bases"
"Stollenber said Russia invaded" = "Russian calls for the disarmament of Eastern Europe are entirely reasonable".

 

[Rod1]

WTF no it didn't.

It showed that Western Europeans were willing to sacrifice much of their sovereignty in exchange for US protection.



What? How many Russian bases are built on the US border? None



First you said "the West was disarming" and have now shifted to "combat readiness around Russia was falling."

But even after moving goalposts, you're still wrong

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_222664.htm

And now you're gonna find another tangent and go on forever on that one...

Notice how as $ of GDP the tendency was on the low until after 2014, i wonder what happened then, and it was still below the 2% NATO goal.