#TwitterFiles Ukraine will be a good eye opener.
Russia - Ukraine WAR Warning: Political Discussions
- Thread starter Canned Heat
- Start date
- Status
#TwitterFiles Ukraine will be a good eye opener.
Except nothing you said is accurate. There was no problem in the Donbas until the US backed a coup to remove a democratically elected president. When people in the area protested the coup... militia groups showed up and beat and killed protesters.... just like in Odessa where a bunch of nazi members put 180 people protesting the coup into a building and setting it on fire. That is when people started to arm themselves and start to fight back against the militias and Russia started backing them. There was also no problems in Kosovo until the State Dept started offering money to opposition groups to stir up trouble... sound familiar?
Angela Merkel just gave an interview where she admitted that the EU never intended to follow the Minsk agreement. They were just buying time to build up the Ukraine military to attack Russia. You act like Russia attacked for no reason but the EU, nato and the US made it clear that we were backing Ukraine to attack Russia.
Here is Lindsey Graham in 2016 talking to Ukr soldiers about getting ready for the upcoming offensive.... What offensive?
The problem they have developing their natural resources is that they are so corrupt they steal the money without actually doing anything for their people.
Lol, ok.
Once again, I don’t care about your insults. You’re just some random nobody on the internet. Just like me.
You love you. Lol. That’s narcissism.
Well they aren't developing anything now because 70% of electric and water is off and most of their trains are destroyed... but I'm sure they'll get it fixed over the next week.
What happens in Ukraine has no bearing on American interests, no matter who wins. There is far more to lose than to gain.
In an ideal world, that may be true. But in a realistic and increasingly violent world, it emboldens China to make a move on its neighbor and threatens our allies and our geopolitical interests in Asia if Russia were to prevail and make the West look weak.
Our troops belong on the border. But you can do that AND help via weapons assistance (with limits) a victimized nation after an irrational bully decided to violate their sovereignty. This should not be up for debate.
Just wondering when you're going to point the finger at all the neo-nazis fighting for Russia. They seem to be rogue on top of it. I know how much you hate nazis.
Hi
I am a newcomer and have to say that message made me wonder.
JumperJack, aren't you afraid of the Russian ExtensioN?! I'm practically sure if they win, they won't stop…
Just pointing out that people were bringing this stuff up right after it happened. It's not like it's some conspiracy theory that just popped up. The dnc and Soros were both on the ground whipping up support for the opposition.
Russia has been in a defensive posture since the fall of the USSR. They have repeatedly said they see nato expansion as a threat to their borders. We backed Georgia and then Georgia fought Russia. We backed Chechnya then they fought against Russia. Even our own CIA has said that Ukraine is a line that Russia would not allow us to cross. They would not be able to defend their border with a fully nato armed Ukraine. That is why watching what was said about this for the last 30 years is important.
Russia doesn't want to invade all of Europe because they can't. They want to have a buffer against nato and they have said that repeatedly for 30 years. They aren't going to allow us to cut them out of the Black Sea and put weapons in an area that has a huge flat plain that goes all the way to Moscow. Half the invasions of Russia by Europe have occurred through the area that is now Ukraine. Russia told everyone not to do this stuff in Ukraine and our State Dept thought they were bluffing and now they even want to see if they are bluffing about nukes if Russia propper is attacked...
We didn't back a coup, that's your alt-right nonsense again. We may have encouraged it but that's about it. The people hated the Russians. That is clear and verifiable. As for the Minsk Agreements, they were never taken seriously by anyone. Ukraine was not giving up its land, Russia and the separatists it backed wanted it. It's as simple as that. Did Minsk buy time? Not really. Hostilities never really stopped. This is all just posturing to look good by both sides.
Of course they won't stop. Jack is a capitulator. So long as he has a comfy home, cold beer and a nice car along with TV and internet, he really couldn't care less what happens to eastern Europe or anywhere else for that matter.
Defensive posture? More like the opposite! People seem to have forgotten that USSR/Russia has been offered many security guarantees in the past: Helsinki Final Act, Paris Charter, Budapest Memorandum, NATO-Russia Founding Act etc. US/Europe have never broken any of these security commitments to Russia.
Russia will probably in the end keep Crimea. But any person following these events know this was never just about Crimea, or the Donbas, or the doomsday fake invasion threat from NATO.
Most experts have said defensive because of the size and amount spent on their military. They haven't built a war machine capable of fighting a 2 or 3 front war in Europe. Their navy is very old and outdated and they have less than 20 of their new fighter jets.. most of their air force is also old. What they do have is tons of tanks and artillery and rockets.
How do you say we never broke any agreement when we broke START and Minsk most recently. We can argue over what is seen as threatening but I'll bet if someone came and stood 6" from your face you would see that as aggressive. I'd bet that you would like to create space in order to be able to defend yourself. I'd bet if that guy started to get other people around you to posture up as well that you'd get even more nervous.
It's just a matter of perspective. If we are incapable or unwilling to see the world through other peoples eyes then we are doomed to go the way of other empires. I have posted that map of Russia sanctions a dozen times because it points out that most of the world doesn't believe we are acting noble in this conflict. Not even all of nato was onboard with the sanctions. Most of the world is kinda taking Russia's side on this and just want the fighting to stop because of global food and has supplies...
Who has expanded their territory more? The CSTO or nato? An 8 year old could answer the question.
Who has encroached on Russia? Ever? An 8 year old could answer that one too.
You mean other than Napolean and the French and Hitler and Germany? Hell, technically the US invaded Russia during their revolt around 1915 or 1917 or something. Freaking Woodrow Wilson was the a-hole that got all this global warmongering going.... he was an intellectual don't you know.
Good Lord, I knew one of you would post that little bit of stupidity. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, you know, Russia over the past 30+ years, who has encroached on them....since NATO existed. Remember the subject here genius? Woodrow Wilson didn't start WWI. What are you babbling about? The world changed. We were no longer separated by oceans and great distances. Easy travel existed, as did evil. You'd hide under your desk over WWI and WWII I'm guessing.
WW1 yes. WW2 I think we had to get involved. Since then....
1950 Formosa (Taiwan)
1950-1953 Korea
1953-1954 Formosa (Taiwan)
1955-1975 Vietnam
1956 Egypt
1958 Lebanon
1962 Cuba
1962 Thailand
1962-1975 Laos
1964 Congo (Zaire)
1965 Dominican Republic
1965-1973 Cambodia
1967 Congo (Zaire)
1976 Korea
1978 Congo (Zaire)
1980 Iran
1981 El Salvador
1981 Libya
1981-1989 Nicaragua
1982-1983 Egypt
1982-1983 Lebanon
1983 Chad
1983 Grenada
1986 Bolivia
1986 Libya
1987-1988 Iran
1988 Panama
1989 Bolivia
1989 Colombia
1989 Libya
1989 Peru
1989 Philippines
1989-1990 Panama
1990 Saudi Arabia
1991 Congo (Zaire)
1991-1992 Kuwait
1991-1993 Iraq
1992-1994 Somalia
1993-1994 Macedonia
1993-1996 Haiti
1993-2005 Bosnia
1995 Serbia
1996 Liberia
1996 Rwanda
1997-2003 Iraq
1998 Afghanistan
1998 Sudan
1999-2000 Kosovo
1999-2000 Montenegro
1999-2000 Serbia
2000 Yemen
2000-2002 East Timor
2000-2016 Colombia
2001 – Afghanistan
2001- Pakistan
2001- Somalia
2002-2015 Philippines
2002- Yemen
2003-2011 Iraq
2004 Haiti
c2004- Kenya
2011 Democratic Republic of the Congo
2011-2017 Uganda
2011- Libya
c2012- Central African Republic
c2012- Mali
c2013-2016 South Sudan
c2013- Burkina Faso
c2013- Chad
c2013- Mauritania
c2013- Niger
c2013- Nigeria
2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo
2014- Iraq
2014- Syria
2015 Democratic Republic of the Congo
c2015- Cameroon
2016 Democratic Republic of the Congo
2017- Saudi Arabia
c2017 Tunisia
2019- Philippines
I think we could of done without getting involved in most of these conflicts... and I don't even think this list is particularly inclusive for paramilitary interventions.
Idiotic post. NATO wasn’t forced on anyone, nations joined because of former Soviet aggression and as a security assurance. The nations Russia and the former Soviet Union want and wanted to occupy didn’t have a choice.
The song remains the same.
May 2, 1998
His voice is a bit frail now, but the mind, even at age 94, is as sharp as ever. So when I reached George Kennan by phone to get his reaction to the Senate's ratification of NATO expansion it was no surprise to find that the man who was the architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union and one of the great American statesmen of the 20th century was ready with an answer.
''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''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. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''
''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.''
One only wonders what future historians will say. If we are lucky they will say that NATO expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic simply didn't matter, because the vacuum it was supposed to fill had already been filled, only the Clinton team couldn't see it. They will say that the forces of globalization integrating Europe, coupled with the new arms control agreements, proved to be so powerful that Russia, despite NATO expansion, moved ahead with democratization and Westernization, and was gradually drawn into a loosely unified Europe. If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe.
But there is one thing future historians will surely remark upon, and that is the utter poverty of imagination that characterized U.S. foreign policy in the late 1990's. They will note that one of the seminal events of this century took place between 1989 and 1992 -- the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which had the capability, imperial intentions and ideology to truly threaten the entire free world. Thanks to Western resolve and the courage of Russian democrats, that Soviet Empire collapsed without a shot, spawning a democratic Russia, setting free the former Soviet republics and leading to unprecedented arms control agreements with the U.S.
And what was America's response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia's borders.
Yes, tell your children, and your children's children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.
We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age -- one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage.
As he said goodbye to me on the phone, Mr. Kennan added just one more thing: ''This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.''
www.nytimes.com
May 2, 1998
His voice is a bit frail now, but the mind, even at age 94, is as sharp as ever. So when I reached George Kennan by phone to get his reaction to the Senate's ratification of NATO expansion it was no surprise to find that the man who was the architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union and one of the great American statesmen of the 20th century was ready with an answer.
''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''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. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''
''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.''
One only wonders what future historians will say. If we are lucky they will say that NATO expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic simply didn't matter, because the vacuum it was supposed to fill had already been filled, only the Clinton team couldn't see it. They will say that the forces of globalization integrating Europe, coupled with the new arms control agreements, proved to be so powerful that Russia, despite NATO expansion, moved ahead with democratization and Westernization, and was gradually drawn into a loosely unified Europe. If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe.
But there is one thing future historians will surely remark upon, and that is the utter poverty of imagination that characterized U.S. foreign policy in the late 1990's. They will note that one of the seminal events of this century took place between 1989 and 1992 -- the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which had the capability, imperial intentions and ideology to truly threaten the entire free world. Thanks to Western resolve and the courage of Russian democrats, that Soviet Empire collapsed without a shot, spawning a democratic Russia, setting free the former Soviet republics and leading to unprecedented arms control agreements with the U.S.
And what was America's response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia's borders.
Yes, tell your children, and your children's children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.
We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age -- one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage.
As he said goodbye to me on the phone, Mr. Kennan added just one more thing: ''This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.''
Opinion | Foreign Affairs; Now a Word From X (Published 1998)
Thomas Friedman Op-Ed column on interview with George Kennan, architect of America's successful containment of Soviet Union; quotes 94-year-old Kennan's warning that NATO expansion is bound to draw adverse Russian reaction, and Kennan's criticism of Senate's superficial, ill-informed debate on...
An 8 year old would also be able to come up with a better argument to try and make the (flawed) point he/she was making. As bcw pointed out, nations *wanted* to join NATO because it's a defensive alliance with mutual security guarantees. God forbid countries want to actually join a successful organization.
@BigBlueFanGA did you do this?
www.aol.com
Villagers throw eggs at penis-headed statue of Putin erected in Bell End
Organisers of the effigy are planning to create miniatures which will be sold to raise money for Ukrainian refugees.
www.aol.com
That’s too simplistic a view. From day 1 of the soviet fall nato has aggressively sought out expansion to former soviet country’s. The west rushed into Eastern Europe to impose its values and make sure those countries bought in. Ukraine was one of the last holdouts until the yakanovych government was tossed. Then the momentum headed towards nato. This shit didn’t just happen of its own volition. The USA the Western Europeans pounced. Hell there’s still disconnects in many nato countries. Turkey, Bulgaria, Hungary. These are countries still with friendly ties to Russia but are pulled by nato. Joining nato was a great way for all these Eastern European countries to mooch off the USA. And US money was the influence to bring them in.
And the notion nato is a defensive force is a total fallacy.
- Status
