You ask me how NATO antagonised Russia and then you don't want to know how Russia perceives itself to be antagonized by NATO. What? — Baden

I guess I'm more interested in the ways NATO actually threatened Russia. If NATO threatened some Russian's dreams of empire, that doesn't constitute a threat to Russia.

At this time, China is threatening the vision of some Americans as having a divine mission to rule the world. Only a fucking moron would say: "Look! That's evidence that China is antagonizing America! (Not that you're a fucking moron, I don't think that).

Everybody has some responsibility to look at the world objectively, including Putin.

So, funny accusing me of spin while spinning the Iran angle. — Baden

Is it spin? The problem I have is that it makes sense that the US would ready itself to bomb Iran. Iran has been hostile toward the whole region. It's a sectarian issue.

Why would the US prepare to attack Russia? What missing facts would allow that to make sense?

"Moscow still looked at Eastern Europe, which was now relabeled as Central Europe, as a security buffer between Russia and the West. — Baden

Historians say that perception actually ended with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. This was the real basis of the cold war: Stalin felt vulnerable.

Russia’s efforts to maintain the status quo failed — Baden

Their economy was in shambles. The US gave aid to Russia, for fuck's sake.

In 2002, the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and started to deploy ballistic-missile defense systems, despite Russian protests. In — Baden

Wasn't this because of Iran?

Eh, this was a mistake. You're just pissing me off. I need the information without any spin. I'll find it.

And the following calculus doesn't really make sense: Putin's an evil madman + Putin has half the world's nuclear weapons = No need to care about Russia. — Baden

I don't think the US govt sees Putin as an evil madman. I think they see him as the dictator of a regional power.

I was asking specifically about NATO's antagonism of Russia, the basis of it and the form it has taken.

I can investigate myself, I just thought you would know about it.

I'm not saying they make that explicit in their documents. It's my wording. As I see it, NATO represents an expanded pre-cold-war block and Russia a diminished pre-cold-war block of countries that were on friendly terms for about five minutes before reverting to pursuing separate and often conflicting interests. Putin has been more open about talking about this than the Western side who are a little more coy. I could probably dig up some quotes from him. — Baden

I don't think Putin's concern is NATO. It's the US. He wants the US to go down a notch in global importance, and for Russia to go up a notch.

But instead of approaching it like a 21st century neoliberal, he's going at it like he thinks he's Peter the Great.

That's my half-assed assessment. The US, on the other hand only cares about Russia because they interfered in American elections, and they're sketchy to deal with on Middle Eastern security issues.

The US government cares about China because they're prepping to take over half the world.

See why I'm confused about the Idea that NATO is pestering Russia? I don't see how.

Can you explain it?

I hope so — Baden

:grimace:

Not if you're the meat in that sandwich. I mean just to be concrete about it re the current situation: if the war continues, NATO can feel it's winning by bleeding and weakening Russia, which it sees as a strategic adversary — Baden

Ok, hold on. I didn't know this. Why does NATO see Russia as a strategic adversary? I'm asking for real.

Maybe I could come back to the rest of your post later.

Maybe Benkei isn't getting any, so he keeps fantasizing about you and I. I guess he swings in multiple directions.

But if you have a problem with a certain power, what's the alternative to applying a counter power? Isn't that pretty basic?

IOW, just being anti-power is pretty much the same as being suicidal, except it takes an application of power to follow through.

Always fun to watch liberals get hard-ons for authoritarianism when the going gets rough. — StreetlightX

I think all contemporary democracies allow temporary dictatorship during war. Don't you know why?

but in a democracy you have to be really careful of authoritarianism. — ssu

During a war it's better to ditch democracy because it's sloppy and inefficient. Come back to it after the war is over.

The pundits are saying this is going to be a very long war, tho.

Right. The error might have been to put the aspiration to membership in the constitution, perhaps hastingly. It's not technically what a constitution is for, more of a foreign policy option which ought to be open to debate and reviseable through policy change I think. Note how in your article, it is manifest that Zelensky cannot really say what he thinks about NATO, because the Ukrainian aspiration to membership is not up to him: it's in the constitution. That'd be why all the interviewed Ukrainians in the article keep saying: "it's in the constitution" like a mantra. Because they can't say anything else, otherwise they would be anti-constitutional.... — Olivier5

I don't know why it's in their constitution, maybe @ssu knows?

The Russian president can override the constitution. I don't know if Ukraine's is similar.

Trump seemed to think the US constitution is like that. It's not.

So what Zelensky says as a soundbite is entirely meaningless. — boethius

Not entirely. But kudos for noticing the constitutional situation. Very reasonable of you.

Point well taken, I was not aware of that. Note that it happened after the first Russian invasion though. That a country being invaded would seek alliances is somewhat natural. — Olivier5

Ah. So I did know Zelensky had tried to emergently join, and I thought it was obvious why.

He's since let that go.

Zelensky's soundbite there is all over the news. I specifically picked an article that mentions it in the context of the Ukrainian constitution. Pundits say interpreting that statement (which is directed to Ukrainians) requires that context.

And he didn't state no hope of joining but he would consider letting the plan go if it would avoid war. — Benkei

Ok.

In any case, Zelensky's statement can't set aside the constitution or change established NATO policy. — Benkei

Correct.

Sorry guys, but if you wanted to discuss this sanely, you should have demonstrated that earlier. I can't deal with either of you.

before getting into the substance of that, why don't you share a source? — Benkei

Here.

Zelensky also clearly stated before the invasion that he had no hopes for joining NATO.

I think you might be on the verge of being semi-reasonable about this if you accept the above statement. :eyes:

Scholz said there were no plans to accept Ukraine into NATO, and

"That is why it is [peculiar] that the Russian government is making something that is practically not on the agenda the subject of major political problems"

Ketanji Brown Jackson. #116. — 180 Proof

:cool:

We'd probably need to get that directly from QAnon. :razz:

And what's really interesting is that the MOSSAD is not saying a thing... What are they hidding? — Olivier5

They're in on it. No doubt about it. George Soros, man. It all links up.

And as we all know, Josef Mengele was an American of Ukrainian origins, who never read Tolstoï. That should tell you something. — Olivier5

Oh yea. He'd never even heard of Dostoevsky.

What a lot of these "Putin bad" people don't get is that it's not Russians invading Ukraine. It's Americans! They're all blond, blue eyed, neo nazi Americans.

That's what's so dastardly about the whole thing. :grimace:

I think you meant to say that America is financing neo-nazi chemical warfare plants in Ukraine. Or biological warfare. But then, anthrax is actually made of chemicals, so it's probably the same thing.

the French tried to meddle in the US sphere of influence. — Olivier5

Well, the US is just a giant killing machine. If you piss it off, you get what you deserve. Obviously.

lacked the moral ingenuity to shoot first and think later... The French were absolutely disgusting in their defence of the right of the Iraqi people — Olivier5

So true. The French seemed to be friends of the Iraqi children, but they were really more like drug dealers, getting those children killed. Or more killed. More severely blown up than otherwise we would expect from a full scale invasion.

What bothers me is that while the US is actively bombing Iraq, killing children, orphaning children, and giving children a charred wreck to grow up in, this is the time to clearly condemn the US and Bush in particular if it turns out he made this decision against the will of his own government and people.

There will be plenty of time later to analyze how the US was provoked, which UN inspectors warned that Iraq was hiding something, why geopolitically, the war seemed to make sense before it all fell to pieces in an ISIS nightmare.

You know?

That's two in a row! What? Is Twitter down? jk

Hey! A post with no misinformation! :up:

Especially the Americans.
— Olivier5

Ok great, so what's you plan of action? — boethius

You got your condemnation of America. I'll pile mine on top of that.

It doesn't satisfy, does it? Why is that?

Targeting hospitals, shelling of cities randomnly is a warcrime. — ssu

Gut wrenching.

But you know Isaac has shown his true colors. Sad.

I think this is why right wingers gravitate to obvious liars: it is a sign of strength and status, to be able to tell such lies. The stronger one is, the bolder the lies one is able to tell. — hypericin

Like being bound to facts is a sign of weakness. Yep.

Note how frequently some posters misunderstand what we say here. It's done on purpose, evidently. They don't seriously try to reach understanding. That's not their goal. — Olivier5

It's abuse.

Fill the air with lies so nobody knows what to think. That's what the exploiters do to control the public.
— frank

It's just damage control, I suspect. The idea is to combat the rapid depreciation of Mr Putin's allure in the West and elsewhere, as swift as the ruble's on the currency market. — Olivier5

There's a theory that Putin and Trump express obvious lies as a means of domination. The relentless bullshit creates a fog of abuse.

I'd say refusing to admit a difference between financing and support of other kinds is along the same lines: "I deny any semblance of common ground with you. You aren't even human to me."

That kind of thing.

Fill the air with lies so nobody knows what to think. That's what the exploiters do to control the public.

They do it for profit. Some cumquats do it for free. :lol:

:up:

This isn't some democracy vs. autocracy battle. — Benkei

It likely is. Putin came to power by waging war. He needs a pretext for cementing his rule while his economy is stagnating. How about another useless war?

Putin is fighting the infectious disease of Democracy, making this war inevitable as long as self rule is what the Ukrainians want. The only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war was to abandon democracy and submit to Putin. What backed Putin into a corner is that his country sucks and no one wants to be a part of it. — Hanover

This is true. A democratically elected leader would try him for corruption. He can't go in that direction. Ever.

Where have I advised anyone to surrender? — Isaac

I'm going to have to ask you to stop war mongering and simmer down.