- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 17,648
- Reaction score
- 10,462
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.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!
Some people's arguments are better than yours, get the fuck over it.
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 Putin had maps and historical documents at the ready.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.