(03-02-2022 12:05 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 11:59 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 11:54 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 11:52 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world when they were conned into giving them up. Where are those countries now that did the con job?

We're one of them unfortunately.

Indeed we are one of them, and one of the others is now invading them on multiple fronts.

Exactly. Haven't read the agreement, but there has to be some part that says these members will engage if Ukraine were ever invaded. Why else would Ukraine sign it?

Unfortunately they screwed up---they were naive. The agreement doesnt require us to actually protect their nation. It says something along the lines that we (we being the US, UK, and Russia) would work within the UN framework to protect their security. We actually did what we said we would do in the agreement----we did try to get a UN proposal to stop the war, but it was vetoed by Russia. The UN is pretty much worthless at this point. The vote on denouncing the attack was 141-5 in favor of the measure with like 30 some odd nations abstaining---but it just take one security council vote to veto a measure (that would be Russia).

(03-02-2022 11:24 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Three quick counterpoints to represent the other side of the coin.

1). Did anyone bother to actually listen to Putins hour long historical rant? His logic was Ukraine, and many of the old Warsaw Pact nation’s were part of Russia. He believes that empire should be reassembled. This expansionist war would have happened regardless of NATO expansion.

2). Ukraine isn’t in NATO and had little chance of being part of NATO. NATO expansion was irrelevant in the expansionist wars in Georgia and Ukraine. Oddly, if Ukraine somehow survives, this attack actually INCREASED inclination and sympathy among NATO members for adding Ukraine to the alliance.

3). In the end, my sense is the nation’s where you will see expansionist Russian wars are the nations of the old Soviet empire that ARE NOT part of NATO. In other words, NATO membership would have deterred all of these current and coming expansionist vanity wars. The truth is, if NATO expansion is to blame for this Ukrainian war, it’s not due to NATO expanding too much—-it’s due to NATO failing to expand to all the old Soviet client states that desired membership. It’s not coincidental that Georgia and Ukraine are not NATO members.

His logic in your first point was that the geopolity in his region is basically Slavic. From Ukraine, up through Belarus and the Balkans is all the same ethnicity. What happens in his backyard is his business whether we like it or not. We've made it our business all over the planet for the past 80 years and we cry when he does it literally next door. He does not believe the empire should be reassembled. He cannot because he knows that Russia would not be able to support that economically, militarily, or administratively.

On your second point, NATO membership was being offered to Georgia and that's why he went in there in 2008. The West has been grooming Ukraine for the past 20 odd years...he just struck while he knew he had the opportunity.

NATO has expanded to include many, many more of the former eastern bloc countries than it hasnt. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Croatia (former Yugoslavia), Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, North Macedonia, and Czech. The only ones that are not are Moldova, Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, and arguably Georgia and Azerbaijan.

If you put yourself in Putin's shoes, would you feel threatened? They wouldn't let you into NATO despite the
fact that you'd opened yourself to the West and dismantled the Warsaw Pact countries. Hell USAID lawyers helped them write the first draft of their constitution. NATO then marches right up to your border and provokes you over many years and cries when you do something about it? Seems fishy.

(03-02-2022 02:44 PM)king king Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 11:24 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Three quick counterpoints to represent the other side of the coin.

1). Did anyone bother to actually listen to Putins hour long historical rant? His logic was Ukraine, and many of the old Warsaw Pact nation’s were part of Russia. He believes that empire should be reassembled. This expansionist war would have happened regardless of NATO expansion.

2). Ukraine isn’t in NATO and had little chance of being part of NATO. NATO expansion was irrelevant in the expansionist wars in Georgia and Ukraine. Oddly, if Ukraine somehow survives, this attack actually INCREASED inclination and sympathy among NATO members for adding Ukraine to the alliance.

3). In the end, my sense is the nation’s where you will see expansionist Russian wars are the nations of the old Soviet empire that ARE NOT part of NATO. In other words, NATO membership would have deterred all of these current and coming expansionist vanity wars. The truth is, if NATO expansion is to blame for this Ukrainian war, it’s not due to NATO expanding too much—-it’s due to NATO failing to expand to all the old Soviet client states that desired membership. It’s not coincidental that Georgia and Ukraine are not NATO members.

His logic in your first point was that the geopolity in his region is basically Slavic. From Ukraine, up through Belarus and the Balkans is all the same ethnicity. What happens in his backyard is his business whether we like it or not. We've made it our business all over the planet for the past 80 years and we cry when he does it literally next door. He does not believe the empire should be reassembled. He cannot because he knows that Russia would not be able to support that economically, militarily, or administratively.

On your second point, NATO membership was being offered to Georgia and that's why he went in there in 2008. The West has been grooming Ukraine for the past 20 odd years...he just struck while he knew he had the opportunity.

NATO has expanded to include many, many more of the former eastern bloc countries than it hasnt. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Croatia (former Yugoslavia), Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, North Macedonia, and Czech. The only ones that are not are Moldova, Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, and arguably Georgia and Azerbaijan.

If you put yourself in Putin's shoes, would you feel threatened? They wouldn't let you into NATO despite the
fact that you'd opened yourself to the West and dismantled the Warsaw Pact countries. Hell USAID lawyers helped them write the first draft of their constitution. NATO then marches right up to your border and provokes you over many years and cries when you do something about it? Seems fishy.

NATO didnt "march" anywhere. The Slavic peoples that Putin purports to support ASKED to be part of NATO. They joined by free will. They weren't conquered. Heck, some that asked were turned down. Thats quite different from what happened in Georgia and is now occurring in Ukraine. I would also add that NATO is a defensive alliance. There is no requirement for any NATO country to support a member involved is invading another nation.

Again, if NATO is such an aggressive threat---then why aren't NATO troops and air assets pouring into Ukraine on their way to Moscow? They have the "excuse" they need. Heck they ignored the "excuse" they needed in Crimea. They ignored another opportunity to attack when Georgia was invaded. If NATO is such a Russian threat---why is there no NATO military effort beyond selling small defensive arms to Ukraine? If aggression was truly their goal----this is NATO's big show biz chance to take out Russia---hell---half the Russian army is sitting stopped on a highway where they are easy pickings.....yet---nothing from NATO.....unless....could it be? Is it possible that NATO simply has absolutely no desire for a military conflict with Russia? I'd suggest thats exactly the case.

(03-02-2022 11:21 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 09:00 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 08:54 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 08:48 AM)b2b Wrote:  It's all so stupid to me how we got to this point. So many avoidable errors or were they even mistakes? Sometimes I think that it was all intentional with the understanding of what it would likely lead up to.

destabilization is a tried and true money maker for some…

been that way since the deuce…

No doubt. I've got really good friends that can't see this beyond Russia Bad, Ukraine Good. Frustrating as hell. Most things in life are ever that simple.

What he lacked in eloquence he more than made up for with content. While he was prescient in many ways he displayed a certain naivete I think. But perhaps it's because I'm viewing it through a lens 60 plus years removed from those days. What I wouldn't give for someone like him now.

(03-02-2022 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 02:44 PM)king king Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 11:24 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Three quick counterpoints to represent the other side of the coin.

1). Did anyone bother to actually listen to Putins hour long historical rant? His logic was Ukraine, and many of the old Warsaw Pact nation’s were part of Russia. He believes that empire should be reassembled. This expansionist war would have happened regardless of NATO expansion.

2). Ukraine isn’t in NATO and had little chance of being part of NATO. NATO expansion was irrelevant in the expansionist wars in Georgia and Ukraine. Oddly, if Ukraine somehow survives, this attack actually INCREASED inclination and sympathy among NATO members for adding Ukraine to the alliance.

3). In the end, my sense is the nation’s where you will see expansionist Russian wars are the nations of the old Soviet empire that ARE NOT part of NATO. In other words, NATO membership would have deterred all of these current and coming expansionist vanity wars. The truth is, if NATO expansion is to blame for this Ukrainian war, it’s not due to NATO expanding too much—-it’s due to NATO failing to expand to all the old Soviet client states that desired membership. It’s not coincidental that Georgia and Ukraine are not NATO members.

His logic in your first point was that the geopolity in his region is basically Slavic. From Ukraine, up through Belarus and the Balkans is all the same ethnicity. What happens in his backyard is his business whether we like it or not. We've made it our business all over the planet for the past 80 years and we cry when he does it literally next door. He does not believe the empire should be reassembled. He cannot because he knows that Russia would not be able to support that economically, militarily, or administratively.

On your second point, NATO membership was being offered to Georgia and that's why he went in there in 2008. The West has been grooming Ukraine for the past 20 odd years...he just struck while he knew he had the opportunity.

NATO has expanded to include many, many more of the former eastern bloc countries than it hasnt. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Croatia (former Yugoslavia), Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, North Macedonia, and Czech. The only ones that are not are Moldova, Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, and arguably Georgia and Azerbaijan.

If you put yourself in Putin's shoes, would you feel threatened? They wouldn't let you into NATO despite the
fact that you'd opened yourself to the West and dismantled the Warsaw Pact countries. Hell USAID lawyers helped them write the first draft of their constitution. NATO then marches right up to your border and provokes you over many years and cries when you do something about it? Seems fishy.

NATO didnt "march" anywhere. The Slavic peoples that Putin purports to support ASKED to be part of NATO. They joined by free will. They weren't conquered. Heck, some that asked were turned down. Thats quite different from what happened in Georgia and is now occurring in Ukraine. I would also add that NATO is a defensive alliance. There is no requirement for any NATO country to support a member involved is invading another nation.

Again, if NATO is such an aggressive threat---then why aren't NATO troops and air assets pouring into Ukraine on their way to Moscow? They have the "excuse" they need. Heck they ignored the "excuse" they needed in Crimea. They ignored another opportunity to attack when Georgia was invaded. If NATO is such a Russian threat---why is there no NATO military effort beyond selling small defensive arms to Ukraine? If aggression was truly their goal----this is NATO's big show biz chance to take out Russia---hell---half the Russian army is sitting stopped on a highway where they are easy pickings.....yet---nothing from NATO.....unless....could it be? Is it possible that NATO simply has absolutely no desire for a military conflict with Russia? I'd suggest thats exactly the case.

March was figurative. There's this cool thing with languages....

(03-02-2022 02:44 PM)king king Wrote:  His logic in your first point was that the geopolity in his region is basically Slavic. From Ukraine, up through Belarus and the Balkans is all the same ethnicity. What happens in his backyard is his business whether we like it or not. We've made it our business all over the planet for the past 80 years and we cry when he does it literally next door.

Bingo. It's the height of hypocrisy ... actually worse than that. Good intentions or not we've meddled around the world more than Russia ever has. Many times with terrible outcomes.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(03-03-2022 10:05 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 02:44 PM)king king Wrote:  His logic in your first point was that the geopolity in his region is basically Slavic. From Ukraine, up through Belarus and the Balkans is all the same ethnicity. What happens in his backyard is his business whether we like it or not. We've made it our business all over the planet for the past 80 years and we cry when he does it literally next door.

Bingo. It's the height of hypocrisy ... actually worse than that. Good intentions or not we've meddled around the world more than Russia ever has. Many times with terrible outcomes.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Virtually every time. Funding and encouraging Saddam to attack Iran with the chemical weapons we gave him only to turn on him later. Hating Iran because they kicked our Shah out, but to encourage the war with Iraq to continue, also covertly selling them weapons. Always trying to play both sides only encourages more conflict that the US benefits from. But more countries have wised up and aren’t so giddy to do our bidding anymore. Ukraine, well, the government we installed does what it’s told still. And now they are paying.

(03-03-2022 11:19 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 10:05 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 02:44 PM)king king Wrote:  His logic in your first point was that the geopolity in his region is basically Slavic. From Ukraine, up through Belarus and the Balkans is all the same ethnicity. What happens in his backyard is his business whether we like it or not. We've made it our business all over the planet for the past 80 years and we cry when he does it literally next door.

Bingo. It's the height of hypocrisy ... actually worse than that. Good intentions or not we've meddled around the world more than Russia ever has. Many times with terrible outcomes.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Virtually every time. Funding and encouraging Saddam to attack Iran with the chemical weapons we gave him only to turn on him later. Hating Iran because they kicked our Shah out, but to encourage the war with Iraq to continue, also covertly selling them weapons. Always trying to play both sides only encourages more conflict that the US benefits from. But more countries have wised up and aren’t so giddy to do our bidding anymore. Ukraine, well, the government we installed does what it’s told still. And now they are paying.

This.

And now Germany is going to ratchet up it's spending in defense to 2% of GDP.

What could possibly go wrong?

(03-03-2022 09:11 PM)king king Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 02:44 PM)king king Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 11:24 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Three quick counterpoints to represent the other side of the coin.

1). Did anyone bother to actually listen to Putins hour long historical rant? His logic was Ukraine, and many of the old Warsaw Pact nation’s were part of Russia. He believes that empire should be reassembled. This expansionist war would have happened regardless of NATO expansion.

2). Ukraine isn’t in NATO and had little chance of being part of NATO. NATO expansion was irrelevant in the expansionist wars in Georgia and Ukraine. Oddly, if Ukraine somehow survives, this attack actually INCREASED inclination and sympathy among NATO members for adding Ukraine to the alliance.

3). In the end, my sense is the nation’s where you will see expansionist Russian wars are the nations of the old Soviet empire that ARE NOT part of NATO. In other words, NATO membership would have deterred all of these current and coming expansionist vanity wars. The truth is, if NATO expansion is to blame for this Ukrainian war, it’s not due to NATO expanding too much—-it’s due to NATO failing to expand to all the old Soviet client states that desired membership. It’s not coincidental that Georgia and Ukraine are not NATO members.

His logic in your first point was that the geopolity in his region is basically Slavic. From Ukraine, up through Belarus and the Balkans is all the same ethnicity. What happens in his backyard is his business whether we like it or not. We've made it our business all over the planet for the past 80 years and we cry when he does it literally next door. He does not believe the empire should be reassembled. He cannot because he knows that Russia would not be able to support that economically, militarily, or administratively.

On your second point, NATO membership was being offered to Georgia and that's why he went in there in 2008. The West has been grooming Ukraine for the past 20 odd years...he just struck while he knew he had the opportunity.

NATO has expanded to include many, many more of the former eastern bloc countries than it hasnt. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Croatia (former Yugoslavia), Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, North Macedonia, and Czech. The only ones that are not are Moldova, Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, and arguably Georgia and Azerbaijan.

If you put yourself in Putin's shoes, would you feel threatened? They wouldn't let you into NATO despite the
fact that you'd opened yourself to the West and dismantled the Warsaw Pact countries. Hell USAID lawyers helped them write the first draft of their constitution. NATO then marches right up to your border and provokes you over many years and cries when you do something about it? Seems fishy.

NATO didnt "march" anywhere. The Slavic peoples that Putin purports to support ASKED to be part of NATO. They joined by free will. They weren't conquered. Heck, some that asked were turned down. Thats quite different from what happened in Georgia and is now occurring in Ukraine. I would also add that NATO is a defensive alliance. There is no requirement for any NATO country to support a member involved is invading another nation.

Again, if NATO is such an aggressive threat---then why aren't NATO troops and air assets pouring into Ukraine on their way to Moscow? They have the "excuse" they need. Heck they ignored the "excuse" they needed in Crimea. They ignored another opportunity to attack when Georgia was invaded. If NATO is such a Russian threat---why is there no NATO military effort beyond selling small defensive arms to Ukraine? If aggression was truly their goal----this is NATO's big show biz chance to take out Russia---hell---half the Russian army is sitting stopped on a highway where they are easy pickings.....yet---nothing from NATO.....unless....could it be? Is it possible that NATO simply has absolutely no desire for a military conflict with Russia? I'd suggest thats exactly the case.

March was figurative. There's this cool thing with languages....

I understand that. My point was NATO didnt march east. If anything, the east marched west. I just think its a massive stretch to say NATO is somehow at fault when free people ask to become members of their alliance. Basically, your saying "its reasonable if we now invade Russia because we view their alliance with China as a security threat" (which it clearly is). Frankly----using that logic---isnt Russia moving west---especially when done by force----just as much a threat to NATO? Did NATO invade Belaruse when the people of Belaruse overthrew their government and decided to lean hard eastward? This whole construct of "its NATO's fault" is basically a empty vessel which could be used as a basis to attack anyone virtually any alliance your nation doesnt like. Its not NATO's fault that when given a choice---most people choose democracy over an autocracy.

(03-03-2022 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 09:11 PM)king king Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 02:44 PM)king king Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 11:24 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Three quick counterpoints to represent the other side of the coin.

1). Did anyone bother to actually listen to Putins hour long historical rant? His logic was Ukraine, and many of the old Warsaw Pact nation’s were part of Russia. He believes that empire should be reassembled. This expansionist war would have happened regardless of NATO expansion.

2). Ukraine isn’t in NATO and had little chance of being part of NATO. NATO expansion was irrelevant in the expansionist wars in Georgia and Ukraine. Oddly, if Ukraine somehow survives, this attack actually INCREASED inclination and sympathy among NATO members for adding Ukraine to the alliance.

3). In the end, my sense is the nation’s where you will see expansionist Russian wars are the nations of the old Soviet empire that ARE NOT part of NATO. In other words, NATO membership would have deterred all of these current and coming expansionist vanity wars. The truth is, if NATO expansion is to blame for this Ukrainian war, it’s not due to NATO expanding too much—-it’s due to NATO failing to expand to all the old Soviet client states that desired membership. It’s not coincidental that Georgia and Ukraine are not NATO members.

His logic in your first point was that the geopolity in his region is basically Slavic. From Ukraine, up through Belarus and the Balkans is all the same ethnicity. What happens in his backyard is his business whether we like it or not. We've made it our business all over the planet for the past 80 years and we cry when he does it literally next door. He does not believe the empire should be reassembled. He cannot because he knows that Russia would not be able to support that economically, militarily, or administratively.

On your second point, NATO membership was being offered to Georgia and that's why he went in there in 2008. The West has been grooming Ukraine for the past 20 odd years...he just struck while he knew he had the opportunity.

NATO has expanded to include many, many more of the former eastern bloc countries than it hasnt. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Croatia (former Yugoslavia), Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, North Macedonia, and Czech. The only ones that are not are Moldova, Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, and arguably Georgia and Azerbaijan.

If you put yourself in Putin's shoes, would you feel threatened? They wouldn't let you into NATO despite the
fact that you'd opened yourself to the West and dismantled the Warsaw Pact countries. Hell USAID lawyers helped them write the first draft of their constitution. NATO then marches right up to your border and provokes you over many years and cries when you do something about it? Seems fishy.

NATO didnt "march" anywhere. The Slavic peoples that Putin purports to support ASKED to be part of NATO. They joined by free will. They weren't conquered. Heck, some that asked were turned down. Thats quite different from what happened in Georgia and is now occurring in Ukraine. I would also add that NATO is a defensive alliance. There is no requirement for any NATO country to support a member involved is invading another nation.

Again, if NATO is such an aggressive threat---then why aren't NATO troops and air assets pouring into Ukraine on their way to Moscow? They have the "excuse" they need. Heck they ignored the "excuse" they needed in Crimea. They ignored another opportunity to attack when Georgia was invaded. If NATO is such a Russian threat---why is there no NATO military effort beyond selling small defensive arms to Ukraine? If aggression was truly their goal----this is NATO's big show biz chance to take out Russia---hell---half the Russian army is sitting stopped on a highway where they are easy pickings.....yet---nothing from NATO.....unless....could it be? Is it possible that NATO simply has absolutely no desire for a military conflict with Russia? I'd suggest thats exactly the case.

March was figurative. There's this cool thing with languages....

I understand that. My point was NATO didnt march east. If anything, the east marched west. I just think its a massive stretch to say NATO is somehow at fault when free people ask to become members of their alliance. Basically, your saying "its reasonable if we now invade Russia because we view their alliance with China as a security threat" (which it clearly is). Frankly----using that logic---isnt Russia moving west---especially when done by force----just as much a threat to NATO? Did NATO invade Belaruse when the people of Belaruse overthrew their government and decided to lean hard eastward? This whole construct of "its NATO's fault" is basically a empty vessel which could be used as a basis to attack anyone virtually any alliance your nation doesnt like. Its not NATO's fault that when given a choice---most people choose democracy over an autocracy.

And nobody who is in NATO was part of the USSR on the eve of WWII. The Baltics were free. So was Poland, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslavakia. In fact, parts of Poland are now part of Belorus and Ukraine and part of Romania was carved off into Moldova.

(03-04-2022 12:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 09:11 PM)king king Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 02:44 PM)king king Wrote:  His logic in your first point was that the geopolity in his region is basically Slavic. From Ukraine, up through Belarus and the Balkans is all the same ethnicity. What happens in his backyard is his business whether we like it or not. We've made it our business all over the planet for the past 80 years and we cry when he does it literally next door. He does not believe the empire should be reassembled. He cannot because he knows that Russia would not be able to support that economically, militarily, or administratively.

On your second point, NATO membership was being offered to Georgia and that's why he went in there in 2008. The West has been grooming Ukraine for the past 20 odd years...he just struck while he knew he had the opportunity.

NATO has expanded to include many, many more of the former eastern bloc countries than it hasnt. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Croatia (former Yugoslavia), Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, North Macedonia, and Czech. The only ones that are not are Moldova, Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, and arguably Georgia and Azerbaijan.

If you put yourself in Putin's shoes, would you feel threatened? They wouldn't let you into NATO despite the
fact that you'd opened yourself to the West and dismantled the Warsaw Pact countries. Hell USAID lawyers helped them write the first draft of their constitution. NATO then marches right up to your border and provokes you over many years and cries when you do something about it? Seems fishy.

NATO didnt "march" anywhere. The Slavic peoples that Putin purports to support ASKED to be part of NATO. They joined by free will. They weren't conquered. Heck, some that asked were turned down. Thats quite different from what happened in Georgia and is now occurring in Ukraine. I would also add that NATO is a defensive alliance. There is no requirement for any NATO country to support a member involved is invading another nation.

Again, if NATO is such an aggressive threat---then why aren't NATO troops and air assets pouring into Ukraine on their way to Moscow? They have the "excuse" they need. Heck they ignored the "excuse" they needed in Crimea. They ignored another opportunity to attack when Georgia was invaded. If NATO is such a Russian threat---why is there no NATO military effort beyond selling small defensive arms to Ukraine? If aggression was truly their goal----this is NATO's big show biz chance to take out Russia---hell---half the Russian army is sitting stopped on a highway where they are easy pickings.....yet---nothing from NATO.....unless....could it be? Is it possible that NATO simply has absolutely no desire for a military conflict with Russia? I'd suggest thats exactly the case.

March was figurative. There's this cool thing with languages....

I understand that. My point was NATO didnt march east. If anything, the east marched west. I just think its a massive stretch to say NATO is somehow at fault when free people ask to become members of their alliance. Basically, your saying "its reasonable if we now invade Russia because we view their alliance with China as a security threat" (which it clearly is). Frankly----using that logic---isnt Russia moving west---especially when done by force----just as much a threat to NATO? Did NATO invade Belaruse when the people of Belaruse overthrew their government and decided to lean hard eastward? This whole construct of "its NATO's fault" is basically a empty vessel which could be used as a basis to attack anyone virtually any alliance your nation doesnt like. Its not NATO's fault that when given a choice---most people choose democracy over an autocracy.

And nobody who is in NATO was part of the USSR on the eve of WWII. The Baltics were free. So was Poland, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslavakia. In fact, parts of Poland are now part of Belorus and Ukraine and part of Romania was carved off into Moldova.

Europe was always a pain to hold onto in Risk.

(03-04-2022 12:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 09:11 PM)king king Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 02:44 PM)king king Wrote:  His logic in your first point was that the geopolity in his region is basically Slavic. From Ukraine, up through Belarus and the Balkans is all the same ethnicity. What happens in his backyard is his business whether we like it or not. We've made it our business all over the planet for the past 80 years and we cry when he does it literally next door. He does not believe the empire should be reassembled. He cannot because he knows that Russia would not be able to support that economically, militarily, or administratively.

On your second point, NATO membership was being offered to Georgia and that's why he went in there in 2008. The West has been grooming Ukraine for the past 20 odd years...he just struck while he knew he had the opportunity.

NATO has expanded to include many, many more of the former eastern bloc countries than it hasnt. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Croatia (former Yugoslavia), Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, North Macedonia, and Czech. The only ones that are not are Moldova, Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, and arguably Georgia and Azerbaijan.

If you put yourself in Putin's shoes, would you feel threatened? They wouldn't let you into NATO despite the
fact that you'd opened yourself to the West and dismantled the Warsaw Pact countries. Hell USAID lawyers helped them write the first draft of their constitution. NATO then marches right up to your border and provokes you over many years and cries when you do something about it? Seems fishy.

NATO didnt "march" anywhere. The Slavic peoples that Putin purports to support ASKED to be part of NATO. They joined by free will. They weren't conquered. Heck, some that asked were turned down. Thats quite different from what happened in Georgia and is now occurring in Ukraine. I would also add that NATO is a defensive alliance. There is no requirement for any NATO country to support a member involved is invading another nation.

Again, if NATO is such an aggressive threat---then why aren't NATO troops and air assets pouring into Ukraine on their way to Moscow? They have the "excuse" they need. Heck they ignored the "excuse" they needed in Crimea. They ignored another opportunity to attack when Georgia was invaded. If NATO is such a Russian threat---why is there no NATO military effort beyond selling small defensive arms to Ukraine? If aggression was truly their goal----this is NATO's big show biz chance to take out Russia---hell---half the Russian army is sitting stopped on a highway where they are easy pickings.....yet---nothing from NATO.....unless....could it be? Is it possible that NATO simply has absolutely no desire for a military conflict with Russia? I'd suggest thats exactly the case.

March was figurative. There's this cool thing with languages....

I understand that. My point was NATO didnt march east. If anything, the east marched west. I just think its a massive stretch to say NATO is somehow at fault when free people ask to become members of their alliance. Basically, your saying "its reasonable if we now invade Russia because we view their alliance with China as a security threat" (which it clearly is). Frankly----using that logic---isnt Russia moving west---especially when done by force----just as much a threat to NATO? Did NATO invade Belaruse when the people of Belaruse overthrew their government and decided to lean hard eastward? This whole construct of "its NATO's fault" is basically a empty vessel which could be used as a basis to attack anyone virtually any alliance your nation doesnt like. Its not NATO's fault that when given a choice---most people choose democracy over an autocracy.

And nobody who is in NATO was part of the USSR on the eve of WWII. The Baltics were free. So was Poland, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslavakia. In fact, parts of Poland are now part of Belorus and Ukraine and part of Romania was carved off into Moldova.

Exactly. The whole argument is an empty vessel. NATO did not add Ukraine. Ukraine asked to be a member and NATO actually said "no". No change there. Besides---even if NATO did add Ukraine----so what? There is still no real change as NATO has shared a direct border with Russia for nearly 20 peaceful uneventful years. Estonia and Latvia each joined back in 2004. The whole argument requires ignoring nearly two decades of reality in order to pretend some new security dynamic has developed when the facts indicate absolutely nothing at all has changed....well---nothing other than Putin has decided to reassemble the old Soviet Union.

(03-04-2022 12:46 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2022 12:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 09:11 PM)king king Wrote:  

(03-02-2022 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  NATO didnt "march" anywhere. The Slavic peoples that Putin purports to support ASKED to be part of NATO. They joined by free will. They weren't conquered. Heck, some that asked were turned down. Thats quite different from what happened in Georgia and is now occurring in Ukraine. I would also add that NATO is a defensive alliance. There is no requirement for any NATO country to support a member involved is invading another nation.

Again, if NATO is such an aggressive threat---then why aren't NATO troops and air assets pouring into Ukraine on their way to Moscow? They have the "excuse" they need. Heck they ignored the "excuse" they needed in Crimea. They ignored another opportunity to attack when Georgia was invaded. If NATO is such a Russian threat---why is there no NATO military effort beyond selling small defensive arms to Ukraine? If aggression was truly their goal----this is NATO's big show biz chance to take out Russia---hell---half the Russian army is sitting stopped on a highway where they are easy pickings.....yet---nothing from NATO.....unless....could it be? Is it possible that NATO simply has absolutely no desire for a military conflict with Russia? I'd suggest thats exactly the case.

March was figurative. There's this cool thing with languages....

I understand that. My point was NATO didnt march east. If anything, the east marched west. I just think its a massive stretch to say NATO is somehow at fault when free people ask to become members of their alliance. Basically, your saying "its reasonable if we now invade Russia because we view their alliance with China as a security threat" (which it clearly is). Frankly----using that logic---isnt Russia moving west---especially when done by force----just as much a threat to NATO? Did NATO invade Belaruse when the people of Belaruse overthrew their government and decided to lean hard eastward? This whole construct of "its NATO's fault" is basically a empty vessel which could be used as a basis to attack anyone virtually any alliance your nation doesnt like. Its not NATO's fault that when given a choice---most people choose democracy over an autocracy.

And nobody who is in NATO was part of the USSR on the eve of WWII. The Baltics were free. So was Poland, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslavakia. In fact, parts of Poland are now part of Belorus and Ukraine and part of Romania was carved off into Moldova.

Europe was always a pain to hold onto in Risk.

lol---What was it---like 5 different ways in? Or was it 7? Too long ago to remember. I just remember it sucked to try to hold.

(03-02-2022 08:28 AM)king king Wrote:  Link here

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored

Ted Galen Carpenter

It has long been clear that Nato expansion would lead to tragedy. We are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance

Russia’s military offensive against Ukraine is an act of aggression that will make already worrisome tensions between Nato and Moscow even more dangerous. The west’s new cold war with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone‐​deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter‐​century deserves a large share as well. Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter‐​century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not.

Thinking through the Ukraine crisis – the causes
“It would be extraordinarily difficult to expand Nato eastward without that action’s being viewed by Russia as unfriendly. Even the most modest schemes would bring the alliance to the borders of the old Soviet Union. Some of the more ambitious versions would have the alliance virtually surround the Russian Federation itself.” I wrote those words in 1994, in my book Beyond Nato: Staying Out of Europe’s Wars, at a time when expansion proposals merely constituted occasional speculation in foreign policy seminars in New York and Washington. I added that expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia”.

What was not publicly known at the time was that Bill Clinton’s administration had already made the fateful decision the previous year to push for including some former Warsaw Pact countries in Nato. The administration would soon propose inviting Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to become members, and the US Senate approved adding those countries to the North Atlantic Treaty in 1998. It would be the first of several waves of membership expansion.

Even that first stage provoked Russian opposition and anger. In her memoir, Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, concedes that “[Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe’s dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated.”

Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state, similarly described the Russian attitude. “Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance, and ask why the west should not do the same.” It was an excellent question, and neither the Clinton administration nor its successors provided even a remotely convincing answer.


George Kennan, the intellectual father of America’s containment policy during the cold war, perceptively warned in a May 1998 New York Times interview about what the Senate’s ratification of Nato’s first round of expansion would set in motion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” Kennan stated. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”

He was right, but US and Nato leaders proceeded with new rounds of expansion, including the provocative step of adding the three Baltic republics. Those countries not only had been part of the Soviet Union, but they had also been part of Russia’s empire during the Czarist era. That wave of expansion now had Nato perched on the border of the Russian Federation.

Moscow’s patience with Nato’s ever more intrusive behavior was wearing thin. The last reasonably friendly warning from Russia that the alliance needed to back off came in March 2007, when Putin addressed the annual Munich security conference. “Nato has put its frontline forces on our borders,” Putin complained. Nato expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”

In his memoir, Duty, Robert M Gates, who served as secretary of defense in the administrations of both George W Bush and Barack Obama, stated his belief that “the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George HW] Bush left office in 1993”. Among other missteps, “US agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation.” In an implicit rebuke to the younger Bush, Gates asserted that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into Nato was truly overreaching”. That move, he contended, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests”.

The following year, the Kremlin demonstrated that its discontent with Nato’s continuing incursions into Russia’s security zone had moved beyond verbal objections. Moscow exploited a foolish provocation by Georgia’s pro‐​western government to launch a military offensive that brought Russian troops to the outskirts of the capital. Thereafter, Russia permanently detached two secessionist‐​minded Georgian regions and put them under effective Russian control.

Western (especially US) leaders continued to blow through red warning light after a red warning light, however. The Obama administration’s shockingly arrogant meddling in Ukraine’s internal political affairs in 2013 and 2014 to help demonstrators overthrow Ukraine’s elected, pro‐​Russia president was the single most brazen provocation, and it caused tensions to spike. Moscow immediately responded by seizing and annexing Crimea, and a new cold war was underway with a vengeance.

Could the Ukraine crisis have been avoided?
Events during the past few months constituted the last chance to avoid a hot war in eastern Europe. Putin demanded that Nato provide guarantees on several security issues. Specifically, the Kremlin wanted binding assurances that the alliance would reduce the scope of its growing military presence in eastern Europe and would never offer membership to Ukraine. He backed up those demands with a massive military buildup on Ukraine’s borders.

The Biden administration’s response to Russia’s quest for meaningful western concessions and security guarantees was tepid and evasive. Putin then clearly decided to escalate matters. Washington’s attempt to make Ukraine a Nato political and military pawn (even absent the country’s formal membership in the alliance) may end up costing the Ukrainian people dearly.

The Ukraine tragedy
History will show that Washington’s treatment of Russia in the decades following the demise of the Soviet Union was a policy blunder of epic proportions. It was entirely predictable that Nato expansion would ultimately lead to a tragic, perhaps violent, breach of relations with Moscow. Perceptive analysts warned of the likely consequences, but those warnings went unheeded. We are now paying the price for the US foreign policy establishment’s myopia and arrogance.

This is a fairly in-depth lecture from 2015 regarding events leading up to the unrest in Ukraine at that time and what he saw as possible outcomes. He gives the sequence of events leading up to that year and suggested brokering a deal with Russia for a neutral Ukraine instead of fostering Ukrainian hopes for ties to Western Europe. He also commented on what might happen if that didn't occur. Nail meet hammer. The lecture was 45 mins but I thought it was worth it.