War, War, War

[zenith]

https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Jacques_Baud?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

Kremlin propagandist.  I suspect paid.

that must be it, it couldn't be that he's who he says he is and you're awash in american propaganda. wikipedia is great at doing hit pieces. can you show me the fbi arrest warrant for bin laden doing 9-11? you can't because there never was one, i wonder why? the grayzone also 'debunked' that chemical weapons story in syria and the white helmuts.

richard doesn't even understand the basics of ukraine history, even wikipedia gets it more correct and that's saying something when the issue is contentious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_border
"In 1954, First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev transferred the peninsula of Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. This event was viewed as an insignificant "symbolic gesture", as both republics were a part of the Soviet Union and answerable to the government in Moscow.[13][14][15] Crimean autonomy was re-established after a referendum in 1991, 11 months prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union"
----------

The narrative of the “unprovoked war” in Ukraine falls apart
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/05/11/gfgh-m11.html

"The mantra of the “unprovoked war” has become to Ukraine what “weapons of mass destruction” was to the Iraq War, or “Remember the Maine” was to the Spanish-American War.

The idea behind the endless repetition is the theory that “the bigger the lie, the more readily it will be believed.” The public is expected to accept that this is the first war in history without any historical antecedents or economic motives, the first war based entirely on the psychology of one man.

But on Tuesday, the Washington Post published an interview with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who stated that the war in Ukraine “didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014.”

Stoltenberg continued, “And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War… Until 2014, NATO allies were reducing defense budgets. Since 2014, all allies across Europe and Canada have significantly increased their defense spending... this is a huge transformation of NATO that started in 2014.”

Thus, according to Stoltenberg, the war did not begin in February 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but in 2014, eight years earlier."
----------------

his writings from 2014 are on pg. 25, start there.
https://www.thenation.com/authors/stephen-f-cohen/?pageno=25


February 12, 2014
Distorting Russia
How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/distorting-russia/

[zenith]

beautiful story

This all sounds wonderful, on paper, at face value, in theory. But in practice, it's a lot more complicated, and you have to leave out a lot of important stuff to make the story work. And it's the same story every time, again and again, based on the superiority of western values and perspectives, ignoring the rest of the barbaric world. When enough people believe these simplified stories, there's all the backing and support that is needed to do evil things (at the behest of wealth concentration, mostly).

It happened before and during the conflicts in Palestine, Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and now Ukraine.  Every time it's the same story.

You talk about international laws and rules, and the USSR, and what Putin thinks and wants. A beautiful story, full of historic revisionism and assumptions, leaving out the fraught history of what is called 'Ukraine', how dysfunctional and corrupt it has become since 1990, how there is an ethnic divide instead of a cultural-linguistic monolith, how US soft power invaded Ukraine through its NGOs and the descendants of Ukrainian Nazis who were imported to the US at the end of WW2. Most importantly of all, your story doesn't address the fact that the Ukrainian people are being sacrificed to sell weapons and destabilize Russia.

And so it goes, each time. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the list is endless. Then, over the course of 10-20 years, the beautiful story slowly changes into the real story and it becomes common knowledge. But nobody learns from the stories. A new story comes along and Richard Rathbone will faithfully reproduce it, as if he's being evaluated by some parent or school teacher of whom he seeks the approval or hopes to get a good grade, a pat on the head.

All these people here who continue to persevere into believing and spreading the beautiful story of international law and evil Russians, they are simply obeying, analogous to what Etienne talked about with regards to Eichmann In Jerusalem. But it's even worse in a way, this evil is even more banal. They are not actively involved, their lives do not depend on it, they're not even a party in the conflict, but still, they obey. Even if they perhaps can't do anything about it, they can afford to be less slavishly supportive and seek to be more neutral, to strive for peace. But they don't. They obey.

When, at the end of this particular conflict, the full scale of the result of your obedience and 'support' for 'Ukraine' has become undeniable, and the comparison of that result to what could have easily been achieved if enough people had resisted the beautiful story is as clear as a blue sky, some of you will be kindly asked to not ever discuss war or politics in this part of the forum, others will not be asked kindly, and a handful will be banned from this forum forever.

And then you can go believe in and spread about the next beautiful story, somewhere else. And never learn anything about how wars work, playing your banal little role in making them happen.

zero learning curve but learning only happens when someone wants to learn...

[gerontocrat]

Progress in turning the West Bank into GAZA-2 continues, at a faster pace. Illegal Israeli settlements proliferate just about everywhere.

International reaction and action? Of zero effect.

Tragedy seems so often to be the final outcome of a series of events any of which could have been prevented.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c207j6wy332o

Extremist settlers rapidly seizing West Bank land

Last October, Palestinian grandmother Ayesha Shtayyeh says a man pointed a gun at her head and told her to leave the place she had called home for 50 years.

She told the BBC the armed threat was the culmination of an increasingly violent campaign of harassment and intimidation that began in 2021, after an illegal settler outpost was established close to her home in the occupied West Bank.

The number of these outposts has risen rapidly in recent years, new BBC analysis shows. There are currently at least 196 across the West Bank, and 29 were set up last year - more than in any previous year.

The outposts - which can be farms, clusters of houses, or even groups of caravans - often lack defined boundaries and are illegal under both Israeli and international law.

But the BBC World Service has seen documents showing that organisations with close ties to the Israeli government have provided money and land used to establish new illegal outposts.

The BBC has also analysed open source intelligence to examine their proliferation, and has investigated the settler who Ayesha Shtayyeh says threatened her.

Experts say outposts are able to seize large swathes of land more rapidly than settlements, and are increasingly linked to violence and harassment towards Palestinian communities.

BBC InDepth: Israeli settlers are seizing Palestinian land under cover of war - they hope permanently Link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c624qr3mqrzo

Official figures for the number of outposts do not exist. But BBC Eye reviewed lists of them and their locations gathered by Israeli anti-settlement watchdogs Peace Now and Kerem Navot - as well as the Palestinian Authority, which runs part of the occupied West Bank.

We analysed hundreds of satellite images to verify that outposts had been constructed at these locations and to confirm the year they were set up. The BBC also checked social media posts, Israeli government publications and news sources to corroborate this and to show that outposts were still in use.

Our analysis suggests almost half (89) of the 196 outposts we verified have been built since 2019.



Some of these are linked to growing violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank. Earlier this year, the British government sanctioned eight extremist settlers for inciting or perpetrating violence against Palestinians. At least six had established, or are living on, illegal outposts.

Responding to our findings in this article, a UK Foreign Office spokesperson said in a statement: “We strongly condemn the unprecedented levels of settler violence against the Palestinian community, as shown in the report, and have urged the Israeli authorities to end the culture of impunity and clamp down on those responsible.”

A former commander of the Israeli army in the West Bank, Avi Mizrahi, says most settlers are law-abiding Israeli citizens, but he does admit the existence of outposts makes violence more likely.

“Whenever you put outposts illegally in the area, it brings tensions with the Palestinians… living in the same area,” he says.

One of the extremist settlers sanctioned by the UK was Moshe Sharvit - the man Ayesha says threatened her at gunpoint. Both he and the outpost he set up less than 800m (0.5miles) from Ayesha's home, were also sanctioned by the US government in March. His outpost was described as a “base from which he perpetrates violence against Palestinians”.

“He’s made our life hell,” Ayesha says, who must now live with her son in a town close to Nablus.



Outposts lack any official Israeli planning approval - unlike settlements, which are larger, typically urban, Jewish enclaves built throughout the West Bank, legal under Israeli law.

Both are considered illegal under international law, which forbids moving a civilian population into an occupied territory. But many settlers living in the West Bank claim that, as Jews, they have a religious and historical connection to the land.

In July, the UN’s top court, in a landmark opinion, said Israel should stop all new settlement activity and evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Israel rejected the opinion as “fundamentally wrong” and one-sided.

Despite outposts having no legal status, there is little evidence that the Israeli government has been trying to prevent their rapid growth in numbers.

The BBC has seen new evidence showing how two organisations with close ties to the Israeli state have provided money and land used to set up new outposts in the West Bank.

One is the World Zionist Organization (WZO), an international body founded more than a century ago and instrumental in the establishment of the state of Israel. It has a Settlement Division - responsible for managing large areas of the land occupied by Israel since 1967. The division is funded entirely by Israeli public funds and describes itself as an “arm of the Israeli state”.

Contracts obtained by Peace Now, and analysed by the BBC, show the Settlement Division has repeatedly allocated land on which outposts have been built. In the contracts, the WZO forbids the building of any structures and says the land should only be used for grazing or farming - but satellite imagery reveals that, in at least four cases, illegal outposts were built on it.

One of these contracts was signed by Zvi Bar Yosef in 2018. He - like Moshe Sharvit - was sanctioned by the UK and US earlier this year for violence and intimidation against Palestinians.

We contacted the WZO to ask if it was aware that multiple tracts of land it had allocated for grazing and farming were being used for the construction of illegal outposts. It did not respond. We also put questions to Zvi Bar Yosef, but received no reply.

The BBC has also uncovered two documents revealing that another key settler organisation - Amana - loaned hundreds of thousands of shekels to help establish outposts.

In one case, the organisation loaned NIS 1,000,000 ($270,000/£205,000) to a settler to build greenhouses on an outpost considered illegal under Israeli law................

There is also a trend of the Israeli government retroactively legalising outposts - effectively transforming them into settlements. Last year, for example, the government began the process of legalising at least 10 outposts, and granted at least six others full legal status.

[cognitivebias2]

...
some of you will be kindly asked to not ever discuss war or politics in this part of the forum, others will not be asked kindly, and a handful will be banned from this forum forever.
...

When that day comes you will have in the politics section only the rabid believers in your worldview.  As it stands now the section consists of 75% regurgitated garbage.  Most dissenters have already left the section if not the forum. 

You see only the evil of the great West boogeyman, but ignore the other players on the world stage.  There is, now and always, a power struggle playing out... if the US were to suddenly become pacifist, there would still be a power struggle,  just with different alpha players.

[Richard Rathbone]

beautiful story

This all sounds wonderful, on paper, at face value, in theory. But in practice, it's a lot more complicated, and you have to leave out a lot of important stuff to make the story work. And it's the same story every time, again and again, based on the superiority of western values and perspectives, ignoring the rest of the barbaric world. When enough people believe these simplified stories, there's all the backing and support that is needed to do evil things (at the behest of wealth concentration, mostly).

It happened before and during the conflicts in Palestine, Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and now Ukraine.  Every time it's the same story.

You talk about international laws and rules, and the USSR, and what Putin thinks and wants. A beautiful story, full of historic revisionism and assumptions, leaving out the fraught history of what is called 'Ukraine', how dysfunctional and corrupt it has become since 1990, how there is an ethnic divide instead of a cultural-linguistic monolith, how US soft power invaded Ukraine through its NGOs and the descendants of Ukrainian Nazis who were imported to the US at the end of WW2. Most importantly of all, your story doesn't address the fact that the Ukrainian people are being sacrificed to sell weapons and destabilize Russia.

And so it goes, each time. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the list is endless. Then, over the course of 10-20 years, the beautiful story slowly changes into the real story and it becomes common knowledge. But nobody learns from the stories. A new story comes along and Richard Rathbone will faithfully reproduce it, as if he's being evaluated by some parent or school teacher of whom he seeks the approval or hopes to get a good grade, a pat on the head.

All these people here who continue to persevere into believing and spreading the beautiful story of international law and evil Russians, they are simply obeying, analogous to what Etienne talked about with regards to Eichmann In Jerusalem. But it's even worse in a way, this evil is even more banal. They are not actively involved, their lives do not depend on it, they're not even a party in the conflict, but still, they obey. Even if they perhaps can't do anything about it, they can afford to be less slavishly supportive and seek to be more neutral, to strive for peace. But they don't. They obey.

When, at the end of this particular conflict, the full scale of the result of your obedience and 'support' for 'Ukraine' has become undeniable, and the comparison of that result to what could have easily been achieved if enough people had resisted the beautiful story is as clear as a blue sky, some of you will be kindly asked to not ever discuss war or politics in this part of the forum, others will not be asked kindly, and a handful will be banned from this forum forever.

And then you can go believe in and spread about the next beautiful story, somewhere else. And never learn anything about how wars work, playing your banal little role in making them happen.

There is a global agreement that Ukraine has a right to self determination. For you as for Putin,  this may be something that it is right to violently suppress if you are powerful enough to suppress it, but I regard it as an oppressive and evil act to be condemned, not condoned.

Wars happen because rulers misjudge the strength and/or determination of those that they target.  They risk this misjudgement because success in war is an integral component of the legitimacy of the ruler. Rulers need to have subjects and an important component of the willingness of people to  be subjects is that their ruler has demonstrated success in war. It is better for a Prince to be loved than be feared, but if a Prince cannot be loved, he must be feared. Machiavelli knew it, Roman Emperors knew it, Putin knows it, Netanhayu knows it. There's nothing like a successful war for boosting the legitimacy of a ruler. Princes, Kings, Emperors, Caesars, Tsars, Dictators, Fuhrers, all are liable to risk their domains on the battlefield in order to reduce the chance of coups and assassinations against them. Sometimes they win and go down in history as XXX the Great. Sometimes they lose and get used as human mounting blocks (this is how one Roman Emperor ended his days  in Persia) or sacrificial victims to the gods of those that defeated them (the Roman Triumph included the ritual execution of the defeated enemy commander).

There are repeating patterns in history, and those that desire a peaceful outcome need to understand them if they want to break them. The EU has its origin in the desire of French and German leaders not to have yet another war between their countries. No more Ottos, no more Napoleons, no more Bismarcks, no more Hitlers. WW1 turned out not to be the war to end wars, WW2 is not something they wanted to repeat. However its something that requires continuing commitment from their successors to maintain. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The framers of the US constitution wanted to prevent Presidents turning themselves into Kings, but they were also well aware that it would be down to their descendants to maintain the republic.

South Africa didn't require a bloody civil war to end apartheid. The leaders involved had an understanding of what was necessary for power to transfer from whites to blacks without the
 extermination of the white armed forces. That doesn't mean that South Africa is a corruption free utopia, but it does illustrate that wars can be avoided if the leaders involved have the desire to do so.

Putin invaded Ukraine for the same reasons as Hitler. Their legitimacy was based on a story of historic injustice to their nations and Ukraine is a natural target in the national myths of both the Russian nation and the German nation. The US helped Stalin chase Hitler out of Ukraine, and Ukraine is hoping that they will now help chase Putin out. Hitler repeated the German mistake of WW1 and turned the US into an active belligerent rather than an unfriendly neutral. Putin has so far avoided it, and may well succeed in his war. I've never said that Ukraine is destined to win, I think they are in a difficult situation. Ukraine is called Ukraine for a reason. Its a place where its usually vulnerable to a predatory neighbour, and has spent much of its history being oppressed by one.

A litany of grudges does not excuse a violent assault, whether its rioters trying to murder asylum seekers in the UK, or Putin invading Ukraine. Putin may well have genuine grudges, many of the rioters also have genuine grudges, but while a grudge may be a motive for a violent assault it is not an excuse for one. Treating a grudge as a justification for a violent assault is a defining feature of fascism. Its pretty clear to me which side are the fascists in the Ukraine war, and its not the Ukrainians.

[Florifulgurator]

(...) They are not actively involved, their lives do not depend on it, they're not even a party in the conflict, but still, (...)

My future life depends on it. Some even care that their children's future life depends on it. We are standing at the climate abyss and can no longer afford bloody nonsense like in Ukraine or Palestine.

So, according to my logic and moral compass we all should at least be actively involved in laughing off the stupid at the disinformation front. Which requires some hard work, digging out knowns and unknowns and their logic. Still I prefer that to using guns and to mindless parroting of propaganda. What else do we have our brains for?

[etienne]

I don't know if Putin is just Faschist like Mussolini or if he is also totalitarian like Hitler, Staline and some Chinese colleges. If I understood Hannah Arendt well, the difference is that  a Faschist is a tyrant at the head of a normal state, and a totalitarian has an organization parallel to the state to control everything possible, that a totalitarian wants more than obedience,  he wants you to take initiatives that will please him.
A totalitarian system would have victims that are innocent in order to scare everyone, the Jews or people with a non Aryan genetic didn't represent any dangers to Hitler.

[nadir]

Not sure why you put Hitler in your “totalitarian” group. Fascism usually revolts around the Unification of Nationalism, Language, and Religion. Poland has for instance been very close to fascism, only recently they started allowing Muslim refugees/immigrants, and you still speak with many Polish, they are very worried to preserve Language, Nation and Catholicism above all. It’s probably a defense mechanism due to their history of being always in danger against their powerful neighbors.

The Nazi party represented that for Germans. A unity in their nation or even Empire to be vindicated after the calamity of 1st World War, their language and Aryan identity and a religion (more like an amalgamation of ideas) initiated by Mein Kampf , part of that “religion” was that Jews and anything perceived as Communists were nothing more than rats.

Totalitarian systems were not idolized en masse. Stalin and the Communists were feared by their people.

I bet most of Germans ended very much behind their Furher and were thrilled by the vision of a super strong and rich Aryan Germany. Yes the Nazi Party was oppressive but I have the impression most Germans ended up happily in line.

Russia, I guess, is more of the Fascist type, but I am not sure what religious or ideological component sustains it. Putin is very nationalistic and likes the idea of a strong nation linked with the Russian language, but not sure about the ideological component. I don’t know about that really.

[etienne]

If I understood well, I haven't finished my book, Hannah Arendt defines totalitarian as a system having more than a party in charge, also a movement that controls everything that works in parallel to the state (I guess the SS and SA for the Nazis), also with the fact that the leader doesn't give clear orders, but that the movement tries to please him by doing the best they can, not by obedience.  Another specificity of totalitarian system would be that the victims are selected randomly (skin color, religion, sickness....), so everyone could be one, even members of the party. These criteria would clearly apply to Hitler and Staline.
The concept of doing the best without orders makes a totalitarian control of society possible, I guess that it requires a half divine leader.

[zenith]

Russia, I guess, is more of the Fascist type, but I am not sure what religious or ideological component sustains it. Putin is very nationalistic and likes the idea of a strong nation linked with the Russian language, but not sure about the ideological component. I don’t know about that really.

the word fascism was coined by musolini, it refers to the roman fasces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces#:~:text=The%20fasces%20is%20an%20Italian,own%20separate%20and%20older%20origin.

it can take many forms but it's typically characterized by an oligarchy, capitalism (private profits) and imperialism. typically it has a strongman at the helm that wields power and a national mythology that harkens back to a simpler time. https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism

russia has over 190 ethnic groups, if anything putin quells ethnic animosities. he's not an ethno-nationalist or supremacist. he's quite liberal and tolerant in that regard. the official religion is orthodox christian (banned in ukraine) but there are all sorts of religions across russia, as far as i'm aware there's no persecution.

is putin perfect, hardly. is he authoritarian, he certainly can be. is he nationalistic, absolutely. is he imperialistic, hardly - russia is so vast he has a full plate. when one considers where russia was, a completely corrupt and violent basket case, when putin took power to where russia is now it's no wonder russians are in favour of him (on the whole). the place was a disaster in 2000 and the americans liked it like that.

sachs was there during the collapse of the soviet union trying to act as an economic advisor, he wasn't prepared for what happened. he couldn't believe what the united states was doing as a matter of policy.

Jeffrey Sachs, Taibbi: How The West DESTROYED Russia

[zenith]

all of this reminds me of junior high school (grades 8, 9, 10). we, the students, could be awful. if we had a teacher, or even worse substitute teacher, that was weak and incompetent we'd sniff that out immediately and it would be chaos. we caused more than one teacher to quit. the junior high school had a secret weapon they'd bring in to take over those classes, his name was mr. songhurst. he was highly competent in any subject from french, history to maths to gym. he wasn't a big man but he commanded respect, he had zero tolerance for bullshit but he could crack a joke. whenever he took over a class everyone's grades went up, even those that hated him.

 

[Rodius]

all of this reminds me of junior high school (grades 8, 9, 10). we, the students, could be awful. if we had a teacher, or even worse substitute teacher, that was weak and incompetent we'd sniff that out immediately and it would be chaos. we caused more than one teacher to quit. the junior high school had a secret weapon they'd bring in to take over those classes, his name was mr. songhurst. he was highly competent in any subject from french, history to maths to gym. he wasn't a big man but he commanded respect, he had zero tolerance for bullshit but he could crack a joke. whenever he took over a class everyone's grades went up, even those that hated him.

 

So you were a dick in school as well... that makes sense.
Good to know you towed the line as soon as an authoritative figure turns up though lol.

[zenith]

all of this reminds me of junior high school (grades 8, 9, 10). we, the students, could be awful. if we had a teacher, or even worse substitute teacher, that was weak and incompetent we'd sniff that out immediately and it would be chaos. we caused more than one teacher to quit. the junior high school had a secret weapon they'd bring in to take over those classes, his name was mr. songhurst. he was highly competent in any subject from french, history to maths to gym. he wasn't a big man but he commanded respect, he had zero tolerance for bullshit but he could crack a joke. whenever he took over a class everyone's grades went up, even those that hated him.

 

So you were a dick in school as well... that makes sense.
Good to know you towed the line as soon as an authoritative figure turns up though lol.

did i say it was me? i was taking 1st year university courses in grade 12, wtf were you doing? sucking your thumb like you are now?

[Rodius]

all of this reminds me of junior high school (grades 8, 9, 10). we, the students, could be awful. if we had a teacher, or even worse substitute teacher, that was weak and incompetent we'd sniff that out immediately and it would be chaos. we caused more than one teacher to quit. the junior high school had a secret weapon they'd bring in to take over those classes, his name was mr. songhurst. he was highly competent in any subject from french, history to maths to gym. he wasn't a big man but he commanded respect, he had zero tolerance for bullshit but he could crack a joke. whenever he took over a class everyone's grades went up, even those that hated him.

 

So you were a dick in school as well... that makes sense.
Good to know you towed the line as soon as an authoritative figure turns up though lol.

did i say it was me? i was taking 1st year university courses in grade 12, wtf were you doing? sucking your thumb like you are now?

You said the collective "we". That means you are included.

And even if you want to pretend you weren't a dick to those teachers, did you do anything to stop it?

I am pointing out that the idiotic behavior you described is the same one you display here.

These threads used to be interesting now hardly anyone is here because you jump in on EVERYTHING, insult EVERYONE, and assume people are idiots compared to you. That is all behavior that you were reminded of back in the day.

And what is sad is you think you are an except.
You arent. You follow your crowd, insult others, undermine everyone, and you think you see what others cant see.... you are the PERFECT candidate to follow dictators and authoritative leaders.

DO the thread a favor, stop insulting people, stop assuming we are idiots, and try really REALLY hard to attack the topic or discussion and not the person. If you can manage that, this thread (and the others you infect) can return to a state of being interesting.

My bet is you will keep on keeping on with your usual approach and kill interesting discussions and other points of view.

[zenith]

I am pointing out that the idiotic behavior you described is the same one you display here.

These threads used to be interesting now hardly anyone is here because you jump in on EVERYTHING, insult EVERYONE, and assume people are idiots compared to you. That is all behavior that you were reminded of back in the day.

And what is sad is you think you are an except.
You arent. You follow your crowd, insult others, undermine everyone, and you think you see what others cant see.... you are the PERFECT candidate to follow dictators and authoritative leaders.

DO the thread a favor, stop insulting people, stop assuming we are idiots, and try really REALLY hard to attack the topic or discussion and not the person. If you can manage that, this thread (and the others you infect) can return to a state of being interesting.

My bet is you will keep on keeping on with your usual approach and kill interesting discussions and other points of view.

oh yes, discussions about russiagate, vatniks, orcs and every other sort of supremacist, imperial "othering" are so fascinating to herd animals like you. gfys. keep repeating every mainstream media talking point mainlined straight from the intelligence agencies and call yourself a dissident from factual, evidence based reporting and analysis. when investigative reporting is conspiracy theory...

when you're so dumb you have no idea how dumb you are...

bbaaahhhh

there's always been a percentage of any population that wants to be enslaved. how's your dream of a universal basic income going? it will come with an electronic ankle bracelet and a cbdc card (maybe a chip) so the corporations and oligarchs can meet your every need.

you can't even coherently attack ideas, the only thing you attack is me personally. you're a loser.

[Rodius]

I am pointing out that the idiotic behavior you described is the same one you display here.

These threads used to be interesting now hardly anyone is here because you jump in on EVERYTHING, insult EVERYONE, and assume people are idiots compared to you. That is all behavior that you were reminded of back in the day.

And what is sad is you think you are an except.
You arent. You follow your crowd, insult others, undermine everyone, and you think you see what others cant see.... you are the PERFECT candidate to follow dictators and authoritative leaders.

DO the thread a favor, stop insulting people, stop assuming we are idiots, and try really REALLY hard to attack the topic or discussion and not the person. If you can manage that, this thread (and the others you infect) can return to a state of being interesting.

My bet is you will keep on keeping on with your usual approach and kill interesting discussions and other points of view.

oh yes, discussions about russiagate, vatniks, orcs and every other sort of supremacist, imperial "othering" are so fascinating to herd animals like you. gfys. keep repeating every mainstream media talking point mainlined straight from the intelligence agencies and call yourself a dissident from factual, evidence based reporting and analysis. when investigative reporting is conspiracy theory...

when you're so dumb you have no idea how dumb you are...

bbaaahhhh

there's always been a percentage of any population that wants to be enslaved. how's your dream of a universal basic income going? it will come with an electronic ankle bracelet and a cbdc card (maybe a chip) so the corporations and oligarchs can meet your every need.

you can't even coherently attack ideas, the only thing you attack is me personally. you're a loser.

The part where you say I listen to propaganda is laughable. Do you even read what I say?

Also, despite what anyone thinks about anything, people can support their line of thinking regardless of how right or wrong the other side thinks of it. Personally, I prefer to listen to mass media just to keep up with what they are saying as a comparison to the actions that can be seen... throw in some historical perspective and an understanding of what has happened throughout history and chances are a person will see through the bullshit.

Let people share their perspective, be respectful, if you feel you have an alternative perspective bring it up. You do that sometimes which is why it is a shame you insist on calling people names and belittling people and are, basically, a complete asshole in that regard.

As for your conspiracies.... for example the UBI and ankle bracelets or chips.... have you got any examples of that happening in the West? Or anywhere for that matter? You have words but, in that example, no real life examples of it happening?
In fact, most states are preemptively banning such practices.

You talk about me not attacking the topic yet you spend so much time and effort on insults and bullshit and undermining disrespectively that anything you say here, regardless of how good it can sometimes be, gets ignored and has zero chance of having the alternative points of view taking you seriously. You are wasting your time here other than for your own venting pleasure at the expense of good discussions that were had here.

Try presenting the information without bullshit comments like "If you have two brain cells you will listen to this...."

Just share the video, give a short breakdown of what it is about, and wait for a reaction that can be debated.

Or do us a favor and take your shitty approach to another forum. I want good discussions and debates here, not your insults and belittling. You really don't belong here.

[Rodius]

This video takes a look at how Far Right politics in Europe and the US is growing in influence and how this is not the first time it has happened (think pre WW2).

If we seek to understand why wars happen, then we need to learn the warning signs of who is the problem.

[zenith]

If we seek to understand why wars happen, then we need to learn the warning signs of who is the problem.

i'm not going through all your narcissistic blah, blah, blah. it took two world wars for the british empire to end, then it was transferred to the united states. i've been posting about all the warning signs since i started posting here, i've been following it for decades. it's not a new day just because you say it's a new day and we suddenly have to figure it out and wonder why what's happening is happening. there are something called libraries, in those libraries are things called books. i've been posting all about it in written and video formats and now you, because you're a moron and a narcissist, are going to tell me all about it? gfys. you're a herd animal, a moron and a narcissist. people have been trying to warn you for decades but you just brush it off as conspiracy theory because you know better than anyone, you really are the worst of the worst.

George Carlin - Conspiracies


The 2004 CBC Massey Lectures, "A Short History of Progress"
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-2004-cbc-massey-lectures-a-short-history-of-progress-1.2946872

Noam Chomsky on The Collapse of American Empire with Matt Kennard


but you know best, and why bother with received knowledge when you can just make up whatever story you want?

[Rodius]

If we seek to understand why wars happen, then we need to learn the warning signs of who is the problem.

i'm not going through all your narcissistic blah, blah, blah. it took two world wars for the british empire to end, then it was transferred to the united states. i've been posting about all the warning signs since i started posting here, i've been following it for decades. it's not a new day just because you say it's a new day and we suddenly have to figure it out and wonder why what's happening is happening. there are something called libraries, in those libraries are things called books. i've been posting all about it in written and video formats and now you, because you're a moron and a narcissist, are going to tell me all about it? gfys. you're a herd animal, a moron and a narcissist. people have been trying to warn you for decades but you just brush it off as conspiracy theory because you know better than anyone, you really are the worst of the worst.

George Carlin - Conspiracies


The 2004 CBC Massey Lectures, "A Short History of Progress"
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-2004-cbc-massey-lectures-a-short-history-of-progress-1.2946872

Noam Chomsky on The Collapse of American Empire with Matt Kennard


but you know best, and why bother with received knowledge when you can just make up whatever story you want?

And here you go again... just cant help yourself.

That post wasn't about you or how much you understand the world so much better than everyone else and how many posts you put up on this topic.... it isn't about you.

And again... because you are such a twat most people will rightly ignore you posts regardless of how "right" you are.

I didn't post this video as a way to say "Hey, look at this, I just learned this and now need to share that truth with others"... because it isn't about me. It is about sharing perspectives with others.... but you jump in, as usual, and pump yourself up while destroying any hope of a discussion about the topic at hand.... no.. you jump in, insult me, prop yourself up, post more stuff to pile on and then insult again.

Can you please just fuck off?

[zenith]

Can you please just fuck off?

it's never been about me, i've been posting information from experts in their fields over and over and over again. you, and all the other brainwashed herd animals here, make it about me as that's all you can attack. you can't deal with facts or evidence that goes against your moo moo programming so you attack the messenger over and over because you want to to externalize all that angst inside yourself, someone else has to be blamed. it can't be me and my bullshit assumptions - blame them! let's go to war to eradicate that evil so i don't have to deal with it inside myself.

i'll grant you your wish though, oh grand moronic narcissist as you lot have bored me to tears.  you're literally hopeless.

Dr. B.F. Skinner and Operant Conditioning

[Rodius]

Can you please just fuck off?

it's never been about me, i've been posting information from experts in their fields over and over and over again. you, and all the other brainwashed herd animals here, make it about me as that's all you can attack. you can't deal with facts or evidence that goes against your moo moo programming so you attack the messenger over and over because you want to to externalize all that angst inside yourself, someone else has to be blamed. it can't be me and my bullshit assumptions - blame them! let's go to war to eradicate that evil so i don't have to deal with it inside myself.

i'll grant you your wish though, oh grand moronic narcissist as you lot have bored me to tears.  you're literally hopeless.

Dr. B.F. Skinner and Operant Conditioning

You don't even understand that I tend to agree with you... you are so focused on the fight that you cant even see those who agree with you.

So, yes, this is about YOU being a dick and being insulting and BECAUSE OF THOSE BEHAVIORS your message gets lost when it might help people to understand the situation in a different way.

You are as much a part of the problem as the people who work the propaganda machine... and you are worse in many ways because it helps those who want the propaganda to work because you put people off looking at other perspectives.

Get your shit together or leave because you make it harder to share other perspectives even when I personally agree with many of the things you share and it pisses me off because it is you sharing it that turns people off even looking at it.

You wont stop though... you will keep being a dick... and nobody will listen to you even when they agree with you. It is pathetic that you cant understand this.

[zenith]

You wont stop though... you will keep being a dick... and nobody will listen to you even when they agree with you. It is pathetic that you cant understand this.

yes, i know. i'm the problem, i always am. you've been heard.

ps, climate change isn't real and no matter how much evidence you post it's irrelevant. it's all a conspiracy theory.

nobody will ever listen to you, you're a pathetic dick.

[Rodius]

You wont stop though... you will keep being a dick... and nobody will listen to you even when they agree with you. It is pathetic that you cant understand this.

yes, i know. i'm the problem, i always am. you've been heard.

ps, climate change isn't real and no matter how much evidence you post it's irrelevant. it's all a conspiracy theory.

nobody will ever listen to you, you're a pathetic dick.

So... don't respond to this comment and walk away.

Stop insulting everyone.

Or, preferably, given who you are and your inability to not stop with the comments, just leave the forum.

And yes, you are the problem and you still cant see it.

[zenith]

And yes, you are the problem and you still cant see it.

it's all yours, bro. inform the people with your imagination.

[etienne]

You wont stop though... you will keep being a dick... and nobody will listen to you even when they agree with you. It is pathetic that you cant understand this.

yes, i know. i'm the problem, i always am. you've been heard.

ps, climate change isn't real and no matter how much evidence you post it's irrelevant. it's all a conspiracy theory.

nobody will ever listen to you, you're a pathetic dick.

Hello Zenith,

I really think you don't get the point. You don't bring trustworthy information because of the way you publish it, because of the way you just can't sit, breathe and let go. When I see that you are the last one that posted something, I don't open the thread.

I feel some irony in this post you made. Posting more, yelling harder doesn't make you righter.

When empathy is lost, humanity is lost. Empathy is toward everyone. I know we are in danger, but the way you warn us, the way you support one danger against another (enemies of your enemies don't have to be your friends - when you chose the lesser evil, you still choose the evil) doesn't it make any better.

Grow up and get it right.

Thanks,

Etienne

[zenith]

Grow up and get it right.

Thanks,

Etienne

hello Etienne!

you're a complete fucking idiot who drags this thread into your own mastubatory circle jerk at every opportunity.

thanks.

gfys.

[Altai]

I agree with Zenith. Born in 1975 I had an opportunity to compare the late 80-s, 90-s, 2000-s and present state of Russia. The present state is the best. And about nasionalism as a state policy. In case of multinational country like Russia and a number of national autonomies (some of them in the middle of the country like Tatarstan Republic etc.) this is a fast way to the disintegration of the country. This is why Putin is not a nasionalist at all.

Russia, I guess, is more of the Fascist type, but I am not sure what religious or ideological component sustains it. Putin is very nationalistic and likes the idea of a strong nation linked with the Russian language, but not sure about the ideological component. I don’t know about that really.

the word fascism was coined by musolini, it refers to the roman fasces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces#:~:text=The%20fasces%20is%20an%20Italian,own%20separate%20and%20older%20origin.

it can take many forms but it's typically characterized by an oligarchy, capitalism (private profits) and imperialism. typically it has a strongman at the helm that wields power and a national mythology that harkens back to a simpler time. https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism

russia has over 190 ethnic groups, if anything putin quells ethnic animosities. he's not an ethno-nationalist or supremacist. he's quite liberal and tolerant in that regard. the official religion is orthodox christian (banned in ukraine) but there are all sorts of religions across russia, as far as i'm aware there's no persecution.

is putin perfect, hardly. is he authoritarian, he certainly can be. is he nationalistic, absolutely. is he imperialistic, hardly - russia is so vast he has a full plate. when one considers where russia was, a completely corrupt and violent basket case, when putin took power to where russia is now it's no wonder russians are in favour of him (on the whole). the place was a disaster in 2000 and the americans liked it like that.

sachs was there during the collapse of the soviet union trying to act as an economic advisor, he wasn't prepared for what happened. he couldn't believe what the united states was doing as a matter of policy.

Jeffrey Sachs, Taibbi: How The West DESTROYED Russia

[etienne]

Grow up and get it right.

Thanks,

Etienne

hello Etienne!

you're a complete fucking idiot who drags this thread into your own mastubatory circle jerk at every opportunity.

thanks.

gfys.

Hello Zenith,
Schould I post your comment in the milestones  thread ? It is worth it, but not the milestones thread.
Best regards,
Etienne

[zenith]

Hello Zenith,
Schould I post your comment in the milestones  thread ? It is worth it, but not the milestones thread.
Best regards,
Etienne

yes, you should post it there. you can add that you're dumber than dogshit.

best regards,
gfys.

[etienne]

I agree with Zenith. Born in 1975 I had an opportunity to compare the late 80-s, 90-s, 2000-s and present state of Russia. The present state is the best. And about nasionalism as a state policy. In case of multinational country like Russia and a number of national autonomies (some of them in the middle of the country like Tatarstan Republic etc.) this is a fast way to the disintegration of the country. This is why Putin is not a nasionalist at all.

Hello Altai,
Hitler also improved the situation of Germany a lot before the war. The problem is the lack of empathy. It is something like a Ponzi Scheme, and at one point you need to start a war in order to keep it going. If you don't have the empathy, you can just grab the money were it is "easily" available and keep your supports by sharing it, just like Pablo Escobar was a very generous person for the poor in Medellin.
Regards,
Etienne

Added : I am not saying that the other side is better, I don't wish to discuss who is the lesser evil, because evil remains evil.

Added2 :I am not saying that Hitler and Putin are the same, just saying that good achievements don't mean the person is right, you have to check how it was achieved, and with Putin AGW seems to be an Issue, it also looks like the political opposition is not well treated. Gandhi said that means and goals are just one and same thing, which I believe because means is the only thing you really control, goals are never achieved because history comes and goes. Fortunately Germany wasn't very long Judenrein, but the milestone was achieved.

[KiwiGriff]

Would we still be having this discussion if Russia did not invade Ukraine?
Any one offering a more valid view point?
Before you start "but why" does not cut it unless your sovereignty  was also under direct attack.

yes, you should post it there. you can add that you're dumber than dogshit.

Zenith January 24 Ukraine's resistance is collapsing......
Zenith   July 24 Ukraine's resistance is collapsing........

Reality!
 September 24 Ukraine now controls  more territory than it did in January.

Claims to be sooo much smarter.

DK syndrome lacks the ability needed to understand how stupid it is.

[nadir]

Russia, I guess, is more of the Fascist type, but I am not sure what religious or ideological component sustains it. Putin is very nationalistic and likes the idea of a strong nation linked with the Russian language, but not sure about the ideological component. I don’t know about that really.

the word fascism was coined by musolini, it refers to the roman fasces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces#:~:text=The%20fasces%20is%20an%20Italian,own%20separate%20and%20older%20origin.

it can take many forms but it's typically characterized by an oligarchy, capitalism (private profits) and imperialism. typically it has a strongman at the helm that wields power and a national mythology that harkens back to a simpler time. https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism

russia has over 190 ethnic groups, if anything putin quells ethnic animosities. he's not an ethno-nationalist or supremacist. he's quite liberal and tolerant in that regard. the official religion is orthodox christian (banned in ukraine) but there are all sorts of religions across russia, as far as i'm aware there's no persecution.

is putin perfect, hardly. is he authoritarian, he certainly can be. is he nationalistic, absolutely. is he imperialistic, hardly - russia is so vast he has a full plate. when one considers where russia was, a completely corrupt and violent basket case, when putin took power to where russia is now it's no wonder russians are in favour of him (on the whole). the place was a disaster in 2000 and the americans liked it like that.

sachs was there during the collapse of the soviet union trying to act as an economic advisor, he wasn't prepared for what happened. he couldn't believe what the united states was doing as a matter of policy.

Jeffrey Sachs, Taibbi: How The West DESTROYED Russia

Thanks for your response.

[Neven]

Would we still be having this discussion if Russia did not invade Ukraine?

No, we'd be talking about another US war racket. Ukraine replaced Afghanistan. We don't know yet what will replace Ukraine. Taiwan, Philippines?

Reality!
 September 24 Ukraine now controls  more territory than it did in January.

I still think it's unwise to focus on territorial gains exclusively, but is this true? Russia has re-taken almost all the territory the West Ukrainians captured during last year's summer offensive, pushed well beyond Avdeyevka and Bakhmut, and a bit north of Kharkov as well. Do the gains in the Kursk PR stunt - which the West Ukrainians will not be able to hold, just like Khrynki - compensate for all that?

Either way, keep us up-to-date on the territory scoreboard, just like morganism. And also inform us on the cost, while you're at it. What is Kursk costing in terms of man power and materiel?

[Neven]

There is a global agreement that Ukraine has a right to self determination. For you as for Putin,  this may be something that it is right to violently suppress if you are powerful enough to suppress it, but I regard it as an oppressive and evil act to be condemned, not condoned.

You posted another story so beautiful that it brough tears to the eyes. You reproduce it so faithfully!

Unfortunately, it goes straight off the rails from the get-go, which is why I only quote the first paragraph. Again, saying that 'Ukraine has a right to self determination' sounds wonderful on paper, in theory. But again, in practice, there are a couple of problems with it:

1) How self-determining can you be when you are infiltrated by US NGOs and the neocons from the US Department of State? When you let yourself become a tool in their regime change policies? When you sell off the whole country to multinational corporations? This is the real invasion, and it preceded the provoked physical invasion.
2) For that matter, how self-determining can a country as corrupt and dysfunctional as Ukraine actually be? When it has only existed a little over 30 years? It's clear now that the experiment has failed, and it's still to be determined whether West Ukraine will be able to continue to exist.
3) But most importantly of all: If you want to self-determine, you'd be wise to take the wishes and security interests of your neighbours into account. Especially if 20-25% of your population is ethnically the same as that of your neighbour, and over 50% of your population speaks your neighbour's language (because in the past a lot of territories were artificially added to your country, which was a federal republic back then).

Self-determination doesn't mean that you can do as you please, and the rest can fuck off. And you definitely can't do as you please, when you are really doing someone else's bidding. Self-determination isn't violently overthrowing a democratically elected government, followed by 8 years of bombing your own population, and the adoption of discriminating, Russophobe legislation. That's the opposite of self-determination. It's self-destruction.

As the author of the Events in Ukraine substack recently wrote:

My opinion on this has always been the same, before 2022 as well as before. This is a war fought because a small group of Ukrainians - a core of about 20-30% - are dead-set on joining the EU and NATO. United by broadly middle class values and hatred for the poor majority of their own country, they view the EU, NATO, US, or Israel as symbols of bourgeois ‘normality’, as opposed to degenerate proletarian heathen - the Russians, the Arabs, or their own citizens. Plenty of them survive on western funding, or have tied their life to either war or the atlanticist political project.

As the same author has explained many times, there's an unholy alliance in Ukraine between urban westernized liberals and radical nationalists (a lot of them neo-Nazis) that is driving this thing from within (West) Ukraine, but they are nothing without Anglo-Saxon support.

This war was wanted all along for various reasons and everything was done to make it come about, and everything is being done to make it last as long as possible (and then it's onto the next racket). You can't just sweep that under the carpet, however beautiful your story is. But you will try nevertheless, because that's the banality of evil.

When you present a beautiful story which is built on omissions and lies, people will see through it, and you actually destroy your own community and help the enemy. So, not only is it immoral and the wrong thing to do, it's highly stupid as well.

Do you people realize that if you want Ukraine to 'win', you would have to support the far right? Trump, the AfD, those disgusting nitwits in GB,etc, they have what it takes to win it for you. So, how much do you want to win? I know you don't care about the Ukrainian people who are just cannon fodder to you, but will you be willing to put your own societies on the line? What price are you willing to pay for Richard's incomplete and one-sided story?

Everyone knows it's a sanctimonious lie, even Richard himself.

[John_the_Younger]

I expect most examples of successful "national self-determination" were executed by, at the most, "a core of about 20-30%" - the American revolution of the 1770's on down to the present.  You probably know the Margaret Mead quotation that goes,

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has.

Of course, some "committed groups" want, more or less, what I'd like and some want something very different.  And, surprise, surprise, I might argue against those whose goals I do not share by saying it was a minority that did that!

[Altai]

So if a politic makes life in some country better he should be compared to Hitler?

I agree with Zenith. Born in 1975 I had an opportunity to compare the late 80-s, 90-s, 2000-s and present state of Russia. The present state is the best. And about nasionalism as a state policy. In case of multinational country like Russia and a number of national autonomies (some of them in the middle of the country like Tatarstan Republic etc.) this is a fast way to the disintegration of the country. This is why Putin is not a nasionalist at all.

Hello Altai,
Hitler also improved the situation of Germany a lot before the war. The problem is the lack of empathy. It is something like a Ponzi Scheme, and at one point you need to start a war in order to keep it going. If you don't have the empathy, you can just grab the money were it is "easily" available and keep your supports by sharing it, just like Pablo Escobar was a very generous person for the poor in Medellin.
Regards,
Etienne

Added : I am not saying that the other side is better, I don't wish to discuss who is the lesser evil, because evil remains evil.

Added2 :I am not saying that Hitler and Putin are the same, just saying that good achievements don't mean the person is right, you have to check how it was achieved, and with Putin AGW seems to be an Issue, it also looks like the political opposition is not well treated. Gandhi said that means and goals are just one and same thing, which I believe because means is the only thing you really control, goals are never achieved because history comes and goes. Fortunately Germany wasn't very long Judenrein, but the milestone was achieved.

[Neven]

I expect most examples of successful "national self-determination" were executed by, at the most, "a core of about 20-30%" - the American revolution of the 1770's on down to the present.  You probably know the Margaret Mead quotation that goes,

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has.

Of course, some "committed groups" want, more or less, what I'd like and some want something very different.  And, surprise, surprise, I might argue against those whose goals I do not share by saying it was a minority that did that!

And how does your example compare to what has happened in Ukraine? When a "core of about 20-30%" achieves some end, is this always the best thing for a country or a nation?

I keep asking the same question every few months: How to get to peace? Nobody has had a clear answer so far, except for more escalation to reach goals that are unattainable. And nobody makes the calculation of whether this unattainable end result will have been worth the sacrifice.

No diplomacy, no negotiation, just more warmongering.

[etienne]

So if a politic makes life in some country better he should be compared to Hitler?

No, only if he puts the opposition in prison and starts a war.

The comparison doesn't go further, there hasn't been any massacre in Russia, so I guess that Mussolini would be a better comparison point (Zenith also said that Putin is authoritarian, just like Mussolini would be described). I just wanted to explain that a clown can also improve the situation in a country, it doesn't require a great leader.
I still believe that authoritarian governments need to start a war at some point in order to stay in place, once the easy hanging fruits are all harvested.

Added : the main problem of authoritarian leaders is that they tend to keep away people who could bring new ideas, new points of view or just say the truth. Since the people who are left around them don't dare contradicting them, they have to realize themselves when they are on the wrong path or don't behave ethically. Even for normal people when trusted friends dare to say something, is it sometimes difficult accept the truth and improve themselves, so what about an authoritarian that often has narcissistic tendencies?

[Rodius]

Would we still be having this discussion if Russia did not invade Ukraine?
Any one offering a more valid view point?
Before you start "but why" does not cut it unless your sovereignty  was also under direct attack.

yes, you should post it there. you can add that you're dumber than dogshit.

Zenith January 24 Ukraine's resistance is collapsing......
Zenith   July 24 Ukraine's resistance is collapsing........

Reality!
 September 24 Ukraine now controls  more territory than it did in January.

Claims to be sooo much smarter.

DK syndrome lacks the ability needed to understand how stupid it is.

Russia is winning the war and will keep winning it.

It is hardly a collapse of Ukraine though because of the weapons and support from the West but in the end, Ukraine is in huge trouble because men die and take a lot longer to replace than weapons... and nobody is willing to send in troops because nobody could withstand the political damage of thousands of soldiers dying for Ukraine.

And if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine, nobody would be talking about how the US and its allies would be placing missile silos and military assets along the border of Russia in much the same way the US is doing it to China... BUT there would be a lot of talk about how Russia is being the aggressor when they increase the military spending to counter the US buildup along the Russian border.... exactly like the narrative is for China's increase its military spending.

We would still not talk about how much the US spends on military and how it outspends everyone in the top ten (at least) military spending countries in the world.

But, Russia prevented that from happening by attacking Ukraine.

And we need to never mention how NATO/US said NATO wouldn't expand one more inch because that makes NATO/US sound like liars.

[cognitivebias2]

And we need to never mention how NATO/US said NATO wouldn't expand one more inch because that makes NATO/US sound like liars.

This from NATO: (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm)

"
Myth:
NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War
FACT
Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949. This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia included provisions on NATO membership. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. Russia does not have a veto.

The idea of NATO enlargement beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed until 1991. Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up either."

Individual Allies cannot make agreements on NATO’s behalf. President Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer to commit that no former Soviet Republics would join NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so… NATO operates by consensus," he said.

The wording “NATO expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not hunt for new members or want to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision for NATO Allies and those countries who wish to join alone."

I post this hoping for a clear response of how NATO did in fact make such a promise.  Thanks!

[Rodius]

And we need to never mention how NATO/US said NATO wouldn't expand one more inch because that makes NATO/US sound like liars.

This from NATO: (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm)

"
Myth:
NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War
FACT
Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949. This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia included provisions on NATO membership. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. Russia does not have a veto.

The idea of NATO enlargement beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed until 1991. Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up either."

Individual Allies cannot make agreements on NATO’s behalf. President Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer to commit that no former Soviet Republics would join NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so… NATO operates by consensus," he said.

The wording “NATO expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not hunt for new members or want to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision for NATO Allies and those countries who wish to join alone."

I post this hoping for a clear response of how NATO did in fact make such a promise.  Thanks!

And here is another post in the hope that people understand it isn't exactly as black and white as the above says.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

[SteveMDFP]

And we need to never mention how NATO/US said NATO wouldn't expand one more inch because that makes NATO/US sound like liars.

This from NATO: (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm)

"
Myth:
NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War
FACT
Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949. This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia included provisions on NATO membership. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. Russia does not have a veto.

The idea of NATO enlargement beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed until 1991. Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up either."

Individual Allies cannot make agreements on NATO’s behalf. President Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer to commit that no former Soviet Republics would join NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so… NATO operates by consensus," he said.

The wording “NATO expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not hunt for new members or want to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision for NATO Allies and those countries who wish to join alone."

I post this hoping for a clear response of how NATO did in fact make such a promise.  Thanks!

And here is another post in the hope that people understand it isn't exactly as black and white as the above says.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

A historian, Mary Sarotte, relying on recently declassified documents, has more to add:

[Neven]

EVen if they didn't make such a promise, a US-dominated NATO as an extension of the US MIC shouldn't expand up to the borders of large countries like Russia and China, because it's a provocative threat to their security. In fact, NATO should have been disbanded as soon as the Warsaw Pact did.

Given current levels of wealth and technological progress, and given the absolute need for international cooperation to tackle things like AGW, there is no need for war (rackets) and tensions between big players whatsoever.

But everything is Russia's fault and Russia's fault only!

[Rodius]

And we need to never mention how NATO/US said NATO wouldn't expand one more inch because that makes NATO/US sound like liars.

This from NATO: (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm)

And here is another post in the hope that people understand it isn't exactly as black and white as the above says.

A historian, Mary Sarotte, relying on recently declassified documents, has more to add:

Lets assume NATO didn't make the agreement and the West is 100% correct and I drop the "1 more inch" aspect.

Back in 1948, the USSR and USA both disdained each other's way of life.

Stalin wanted a buffer between the USSR and the West (and reparations from Germany, which was not a good idea anyway)  because neither side trusted each other. Remember, Russia has been invaded multiple times over the centuries, being wary of invasion matters and is justified. We, in the West, need to remember that aspect much more because it matters when attempting to understand the Russian mindset.

There is a lot going on between the West and USSR back in the 40s and it all relates to massive distrust on both sides (it is difficult to argue against either side distrusting each other as unjustified as it was)

We need to remember that the USSR expanded to create a buffer between Russia and the West.
And the West viewed the USSR expansion as empire building.

Both sides have a defendable point.

Since then, the USSR collapsed, Russia remains justifiably suspicious of the West and the US because the US opening wants to bring down Russia, and Russia has made repeated calls for the West to stay away from the Russian borders (this means NATO).

The recurring theme here is Russia wants a buffer from the West because the West are opening hostile toward Russia.

And since those calls have been ignored, since the US keeps adding military bases and assets into Europe and remain a long way from the potential front line and Russia is on the front line, and since the US keeps being hostile to Russia in other ways, Russia feels threatened.

I am not sure how anyone can argue against the idea that Russia is being threatened by the US.

If you look at China and the bullshit the US is doing to China with military assets and Taiwan (which is just an excuse for the US to be in the region), is it so difficult to think that Russia has a point when it says Russia feels threatened by the West?

Russia was clear... don't mess with Ukraine. They were ignored.

What did the West expect Russia to do... nothing?

A hostile force sets up bases on borders and Russia is meant to just be okay with that?

And the US was prepared to start WW3 over Cuba even though the US knew that having missiles in Cuba changed nothing in real terms.... but the US went in hard anyway and everything thinks that was a great standoff but when Russia does it... it is evil, unwarranted, unjustified and just expansion.

Most of the people here would be terrible diplomats.

[Freegrass]

Stunning indifference. Or scared to talk about politics in Putin's Russia?

[Freegrass]

EVen if they didn't make such a promise, a US-dominated NATO as an extension of the US MIC shouldn't expand up to the borders of large countries like Russia and China, because it's a provocative threat to their security. In fact, NATO should have been disbanded as soon as the Warsaw Pact did.

Given current levels of wealth and technological progress, and given the absolute need for international cooperation to tackle things like AGW, there is no need for war (rackets) and tensions between big players whatsoever.

But everything is Russia's fault and Russia's fault only!

To dismantle NATO would be incredibly stupid in this changing world we live in today. The first thing that needs to happen is for Europe to make its own unified military, and then NATO would have a balance between America and Europe. And together we are stronger against China. Although I don't think the Chinese pose much danger.

But the world will have a few “superpowers” in the coming decades, and the world needs to figure out how that's going to work. Are we going to live in a constant Cold War? Or will we share and learn to live in peace and harmony?

I guess we all know the answer to that. And so, let's leave NATO be NATO for now. The Ukrainian people wanted to be closer to Europe. Putin didn't like that, and so he invaded Ukraine. Why anyone would want to defend that war criminal is beyond me. Stay within your borders, and don't invade your neighbors. That Lithium and other minerals belong to the Ukrainian people. Make peace with the west, and share the wealth.

[Rodius]

EVen if they didn't make such a promise, a US-dominated NATO as an extension of the US MIC shouldn't expand up to the borders of large countries like Russia and China, because it's a provocative threat to their security. In fact, NATO should have been disbanded as soon as the Warsaw Pact did.

Given current levels of wealth and technological progress, and given the absolute need for international cooperation to tackle things like AGW, there is no need for war (rackets) and tensions between big players whatsoever.

But everything is Russia's fault and Russia's fault only!

To dismantle NATO would be incredibly stupid in this changing world we live in today. The first thing that needs to happen is for Europe to make its own unified military, and then NATO would have a balance between America and Europe. And together we are stronger against China. Although I don't think the Chinese pose much danger.

But the world will have a few “superpowers” in the coming decades, and the world needs to figure out how that's going to work. Are we going to live in a constant Cold War? Or will we share and learn to live in peace and harmony?

I guess we all know the answer to that. And so, let's leave NATO be NATO for now. The Ukrainian people wanted to be closer to Europe. Putin didn't like that, and so he invaded Ukraine. Why anyone would want to defend that war criminal is beyond me. Stay within your borders, and don't invade your neighbors. That Lithium and other minerals belong to the Ukrainian people. Make peace with the west, and share the wealth.

Except Ukraine voted in a leader who wanted to work closer with Russia and the US organized a coup to remove that with a person who said yes to the US.....

NATO does need to be dismantled, and you are right that before that can happen the Euro states need to have their own functioning militaries and separate from the US more. If NATO was dismantled today, it would be a problem.

[Freegrass]

Except Ukraine voted in a leader who wanted to work closer with Russia and the US organized a coup to remove that with a person who said yes to the US.....

It's the other way around. Just like in Belarus, it's Russia who wants to keep his preferred leaders in place. The people in Belarus voted for change, but they got stuck with the same dictator, thanks to Russia.

[Neven]

Stunning indifference. Or scared to talk about politics in Putin's Russia?

Or perhaps Russians have different attitudes and cultural values than you do? Don't project yourself onto people, expect them to think and act like you do, and then get angry or indignant when they don't.

The Ukrainian people wanted to be closer to Europe. Putin didn't like that, and so he invaded Ukraine.

This is a great summary of Richard Rathbone's beautiful story, but it makes it look even more stupid. Stop believing simplistic fairytales, but if you can't, at least don't spread them.

There is not one unified, monolithic Ukrainian people. There is an ethnic divide that was unfortunately exploited by outsiders, both the US and Russia, the difference between the two being that Russia is Ukraine's neighbour, they share a long history, and 20-25% of Ukraine's original population was ethnic Russian and over half the country was Russophone. This whole war is about making that ethnic divide concrete, things will never go back to the way they were. It could have been prevented, it could have been stopped in March/April 2022, but the collective West chose differently (because of financial and geopolitical reasons).

The Ukrainian people are being crushed, and the more you and others keep believing and spreading simplistic and one-sided propaganda fairytales, the more this will continue. The shooting has to be replaced by negotiations asap.

And together we are stronger against China. Although I don't think the Chinese pose much danger.

Look at how you are contradicting yourself! Building up militaries always means more war! Why aren't you doing everything you can to get out of the vicious cycle? Grow up!

[KiwiGriff]

You are an arse Neven.
To biased to allow debate against Russian imperialism .

I have always known I can easily fuck with your censuring efforts with a few clicks .
https://www.security.org/vpn/anonymity/

I would much rather have you be an honest moderator rather than a biased pro Russia vatnik.

If the opposite of your often stated outcome happens,  The Russian federation collapses before Ukraine does.  will you fuck off and allow the adults to control this blog?