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

[Cid]

Great argument.

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



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??




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.

The guy was pitched a question specifically about western infringement and gave a big old spiel about how all of this area is historically Russian.

You don't read a single thing out of that?

The guy who said the the dissolution of the soviet union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. Putin had maps and historical documents at the ready. They were preprepared.

50 minutes bro. You watched 50 minutes of him talking just so you could say that he did in fact talk about NATO expansion.

When it was the first question.

That's your level of confirmation bias.


After 50 minutes of talking about his war he mentions YOUR reason and you're like:

Jesus fucking christ man. Just accept that when the first question asked takes 50 minutes to get to that it's not Putins primary motivator. He gave that right out the bat.

That was the important part for him. He wanted everyone to know this territory is historically Russian.

 

[Cid]

Geez.

I wonder what happened in 2014.


Fuck me you are one retarded individual.

 

[Rod1]

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.

The concessions being that Ukraine become a buffer vassal state like Belarus after its most economic prosperous territories were annexed.

While Russia gets massive incentives to try the same in Moldova and maybe the Baltics.

 

[Rod1]

The guy was pitched a question specifically about western infringement and gave a big old spiel about how all of this area is historically Russian.

You don't read a single thing out of that?

The guy who said the the dissolution of the soviet union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. Putin had maps and historical documents at the ready. They were preprepared.

50 minutes bro. You watched 50 minutes of him talking just so you could say that he did in fact talk about NATO expansion.

When it was the first question.

That's your level of confirmation bias.


After 50 minutes of talking about his war he mentions YOUR reason and you're like:

Jesus fucking christ man. Just accept that when the first question asked takes 50 minutes to get to that it's not Putins primary motivator. He gave that right out the bat.

That was the important part for him. He wanted everyone to know this territory is historically Russian.

The funniest part is that Stollenberg didn't even said it was the cause, he merely state Russia had a shitload of crazy demands for them not to fuck over Ukraine.

 

[Rod1]

Why not? Because the Warsaw Pact has been disbanded and when it existed, it never established hundreds of bases in Canada or Mexico.

I wonder why Russia never built bases in Canada or Mexico, its almost as if not being a complete ass to your neighbors was critical to national security.

 

[Limbo Pete]

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.

Oh what a load of nonsense. You said we KNOW -your word- what would happen if the US was in the same position, and that's baloney. You can't know what didn't happen. You aren't doing comparative history, you are projecting and rationalizing based off counterfactual claptrap. And again that completely blows past what the US is doing right now, which is the actual right thing. We are actually doing something good. So just cram that stuff back where it came from.
Furthermore, you still can't seem to wrap your head around both the concept of Ukrainian agency, and the entire premise of Russian geopolitical motivations. Putin is not concerned about "security" as we use the word; for him, "security" is the ability to invade and take, period. It is power as a zero sum game. Your idea that Ukraine should have "negotiated' operates from a premise in which Russian interests are in line with the fake idea of mutual interest, or that their specific interest is anything other than violent, repressive occupation of a lootable neighbor. You keep talking about this shit and never seem to acknowledge what the actual cost of Russian occupation would be, and that would be nothing less than the complete destruction of Ukrainian sovereignty and the squashing of their political and cultural distinction. So what is there to negotiate? Putin wants them ruined, but also wants to do so in a way that steals all their stuff. And if you give him concessions, give him time to rest and regroup, he is just going to invade again down the road, for ever and ever until everything that can be eaten up is eaten up. Quite frankly, this tankie bullshit makes me sick to my stomach lol, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for rationalizing the actions of Vladimir fucking Putin lmao.

 

[GhostZ06]

Jesus Christ....

 

[Cid]

The funniest part is that Stollenberg didn't even said it was the cause, he merely state Russia had a shitload of crazy demands for them not to fuck over Ukraine.

It's pretty clear the guy hears what he wants to hear


The invasion happened directly after Euromaiden. 5 Days after Yanukovic fled.

Not NATO talk.

Putin used the EU-UKR free trade agreement proposal as justification to instigate a trade war with the ultimate goal of turning Ukraine into a proxy state through Yanukovich.

It almost succeeded. Yanukovich tore up the agreement and undermined many of Ukraines democratic securities through out his administration and then had a bunch of Ukrainian protestors shot.

Pretty clear Ukraine was a proxy state right there.

Then Ukrainians overthrew that traitorous scum because nobody with a brain thinks that forsaking trade with Europe for Russia is in Ukraines best interest.

Not getting what he wanted via his "big 4d geopolitical chess mastery" Putin used the chaos and the final words of a fleeing wannabe despot to just take a big ass chunk of Ukraine by force.

5 days after Yanukovich fled.




That's just a coincidence though.

It's really all just because NATO is expanding and the west wants an enemy in Russia and is constantly provoking Russia

 

[ViD]

Since 1948... Norway is a founding member of NATO and shares a border with Russia.
Estonia IIRC became a member in 2004.

Norway, other Scandinavian nations and Finland are not a part of Russian sphere of influence, so them joining NATO is a concern, but not a “red line” concern

 

[Limbo Pete]

Norway, other Scandinavian nations and Finland are not a part of Russian sphere of influence, so them joining NATO is a concern, but not a “red line” concern

 

[lsa]

Norway, other Scandinavian nations and Finland are not a part of Russian sphere of influence, so them joining NATO is a concern, but not a “red line” concern

Denmark and Norway, joined before Russia was a thing, back in the 1940ties.
It was the Soviet Union.

Sweden started to really be interesting in NATO after Russia trained a nuclear strike on Stockholm.. I think it was 2017..

 

[filthybliss]

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

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


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.



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.

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.

Yall are going in circles. NATO expansion is not a "explanation" for Child Trafficking and Ethnic Cleansing even if they want to pretend that it makes "sense" for Russia to annex Kyiv or whatever....

Ukrainians accuse Russia of kidnapping, indoctrinating Ukrainian children

Ukraine's government says about 20,000 children have been taken by Russia, but adds it could be closer to 300,000. Ukrainian moms are traveling behind enemy lines to rescue their abducted children.

www.cbsnews.com

Client Challenge

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

I don’t know what is left because

1)NATO has never attacked Russia even if you don’t want to accept that it is a defense pact or even if you want infantalize Russia’s actions and ignore why NATO is expanding….

2)Putin constantly badgers about how Ukraine statehood is a myth

3)Russia didn’t give a shit about Finland joining NATO but I guess Finland is too far away to care about in your POV…So then joining such a hostile force like NATO that apparently wants to obliterate Russia is whatever?

Nonetheless, it seems like your stance is just based on contrarianism to say fuck you to the west which is fine. Just be honest about it. But, you can get the same feeling from watching Mia Khalifa getting twin towered on the Hub and it takes a lot less mental gymnastics

 

[filthybliss]

Oh what a load of nonsense. You said we KNOW -your word- what would happen if the US was in the same position, and that's baloney. You can't know what didn't happen. You aren't doing comparative history, you are projecting and rationalizing based off counterfactual claptrap. And again that completely blows past what the US is doing right now, which is the actual right thing. We are actually doing something good. So just cram that stuff back where it came from.
Furthermore, you still can't seem to wrap your head around both the concept of Ukrainian agency, and the entire premise of Russian geopolitical motivations. Putin is not concerned about "security" as we use the word; for him, "security" is the ability to invade and take, period. It is power as a zero sum game. Your idea that Ukraine should have "negotiated' operates from a premise in which Russian interests are in line with the fake idea of mutual interest, or that their specific interest is anything other than violent, repressive occupation of a lootable neighbor. You keep talking about this shit and never seem to acknowledge what the actual cost of Russian occupation would be, and that would be nothing less than the complete destruction of Ukrainian sovereignty and the squashing of their political and cultural distinction. So what is there to negotiate? Putin wants them ruined, but also wants to do so in a way that steals all their stuff. And if you give him concessions, give him time to rest and regroup, he is just going to invade again down the road, for ever and ever until everything that can be eaten up is eaten up. Quite frankly, this tankie bullshit makes me sick to my stomach lol, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for rationalizing the actions of Vladimir fucking Putin lmao.

Bro, space your paragraphs, my zoomer fried brain can’t take this and defending GWB’s war crimes before I was out of the nutsack

 

[Limbo Pete]

Bro, space your paragraphs, my zoomer fried brain can’t take this and defending GWB’s war crimes before I was out of the nutsack

Never!

 

[TheMaster]

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

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/

 

[Possum Jenkins]

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.

Yes, after years of pushing and threatening to expand NATO and westernize Ukraine, Russia began its first phase of military responses. Naturally, NATO is going to start rearming itself because it sees military dispute as at least a possibility.

But again, your original claim that "the West was disarming until 2022" is completely inaccurate.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

The concessions being that Ukraine become a buffer vassal state like Belarus after its most economic prosperous territories were annexed.

While Russia gets massive incentives to try the same in Moldova and maybe the Baltics.

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.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Oh what a load of nonsense. You said we KNOW -your word- what would happen if the US was in the same position, and that's baloney. You can't know what didn't happen. You aren't doing comparative history, you are projecting and rationalizing based off counterfactual claptrap. And again that completely blows past what the US is doing right now, which is the actual right thing. We are actually doing something good. So just cram that stuff back where it came from.
Furthermore, you still can't seem to wrap your head around both the concept of Ukrainian agency, and the entire premise of Russian geopolitical motivations. Putin is not concerned about "security" as we use the word; for him, "security" is the ability to invade and take, period. It is power as a zero sum game. Your idea that Ukraine should have "negotiated' operates from a premise in which Russian interests are in line with the fake idea of mutual interest, or that their specific interest is anything other than violent, repressive occupation of a lootable neighbor. You keep talking about this shit and never seem to acknowledge what the actual cost of Russian occupation would be, and that would be nothing less than the complete destruction of Ukrainian sovereignty and the squashing of their political and cultural distinction. So what is there to negotiate? Putin wants them ruined, but also wants to do so in a way that steals all their stuff. And if you give him concessions, give him time to rest and regroup, he is just going to invade again down the road, for ever and ever until everything that can be eaten up is eaten up. Quite frankly, this tankie bullshit makes me sick to my stomach lol, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for rationalizing the actions of Vladimir fucking Putin lmao.

Yeah, we don't "know" for sure but it's not a complete and total mystery. In 1962, when the Soviet Union actually returned an exact US action by placing nuclear missiles within striking range of its homeland, the US went nuts. We came within a cunt's hair of all being incinerated because the US considered that a major power setting up weapons so close to home was completely unacceptable. Not hundreds of permanent military bases surrounding it from all sides, nuclear missiles in ONE place. So the US is justified in reacting to military threats in its border but Russia isn't. Ok then.

As for the rest, yeah, we can't give Putin an inch because he's a mindless war monger that'll never stop until he achieves universal domination. During the Bush years I remember a lot of centrist, indoctrinated liberals sounding a lot like you. Terrorists (and Saddam) weren't to be negotiated with, they needed to eliminated militarily.

"Look, I know the US has made foreign policy mistakes in the past. We've deposed of democratic leaders and invaded a bunch of other countries. Totally not cool with that. But THIS TIME it's different, this time we're doing the right thing. Islamic fundamentalists have openly stated they won't rest until everyone converts! They openly chant death to America! They also, you know, attacked us and knocked down our buildings! They killed 3,000 of our people. You fucking commies make me sick because you hate America so much that even when it gets attacked it's wrong to retaliate. You don't care about the 3,000 dead!!!! DFJAHGKFHB!!!"

I guess we'll have to wait another 20 years to see how this one turns out. But of course, this time we're dealing with a state with nuclear weapons, not a bunch of dudes in caves.

 

[Rod1]

Yes, after years of pushing and threatening to expand NATO and westernize Ukraine, Russia began its first phase of military responses. Naturally, NATO is going to start rearming itself because it sees military dispute as at least a possibility.

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

But again, your original claim that "the West was disarming until 2022" is completely inaccurate.

If your objective is to win an internet discussion on a technicality be my guest, give yourself a medal.

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".

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.

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

Turn Ukraine into 1980s Afghanistan.

That's on Russia, not Ukraine or NATO.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Yeah, we don't "know" for sure but it's not a complete and total mystery. In 1962, when the Soviet Union actually returned an exact US action by placing nuclear missiles within striking range of its homeland, the US went nuts. We came within a cunt's hair of all being incinerated because the US considered that a major power setting up weapons so close to home was completely unacceptable. Not hundreds of permanent military bases surrounding it from all sides, nuclear missiles in ONE place. So the US is justified in reacting to military threats in its border but Russia isn't. Ok then.

As for the rest, yeah, we can't give Putin an inch because he's a mindless war monger that'll never stop until he achieves universal domination. During the Bush years I remember a lot of centrist, indoctrinated liberals sounding a lot like you. Terrorists (and Saddam) weren't to be negotiated with, they needed to eliminated militarily.

"Look, I know the US has made foreign policy mistakes in the past. We've deposed of democratic leaders and invaded a bunch of other countries. Totally not cool with that. But THIS TIME it's different, this time we're doing the right thing. Islamic fundamentalists have openly stated they won't rest until everyone converts! They openly chant death to America! They also, you know, attacked us and knocked down our buildings! They killed 3,000 of our people. You fucking commies make me sick because you hate America so much that even when it gets attacked it's wrong to retaliate. You don't care about the 3,000 dead!!!! DFJAHGKFHB!!!"

I guess we'll have to wait another 20 years to see how this one turns out. But of course, this time we're dealing with a state with nuclear weapons, not a bunch of dudes in caves.

First of all, NATO isn't a military threat to Russia's borders lol Russia is a threat to literally everyone they border who aren't in NATO and are weak enough to loot. Additionally, Russia has, as I've pointed out before, already shared a border with NATO for a very long time... so your whole thing here is pretty flaccid.

And L to the M A O at me being a fan of anything Bush did. Oh brother, if only you knew how wrong you are lololol

As for the rest of your rambling diatribe, God only knows what you are even going for, so I guess we will just let it be lol

Go touch some grass, friend