You don't get to tell Russia what counts as an act of aggression towards them or not. — StreetlightX

Who cares what they feel is aggression as long as no one attacks them? If I mount a defense in Sweden in order to feel safer against a possible Russian invasion, based on previous acts and speeches by Putin that can be deciphered as possible threats (as we've seen during this conflict), then how the fuck does that make me guilty of his invasion of Sweden?

Your logic is like me attacking you and when you try to accuse me of the attack I can just say that I felt threatened by you so you're as much to blame for my actions as I. It's a delusional logic to propose.

On the contrary, you've been presented with the rational arguments of no fewer than five experts in their relevant fields which you've summarily dismissed on the grounds of a lack of concrete evidence as you would use 'in a court of law'. You don't seem interested in rational arguments at all. You want a smoking gun or nothing. — Isaac

I've been presented with suspicions and speculations about NATO's guilt but nothing to explain how that guilt is logical. You have yet to connect the act of building defense in your country, in collaboration with others, to be an act of threat against a nation that you build defenses against for if they would invade.

How is building a defense within your borders and act that creates guilt on your part if someone invades you? Explain already.

And...? I'm still not seeing the harm. Again, assuming you're absolutely right and the US/NATO/Europe are entirely blameless. You could just ignore discussion speculating on their blame. You could swamp it in turn with discussion of...what exactly I don't know.... Since we all agree that Putin's actions are reprehensible and cannot be excused I don't really know what else you want to discuss. — Isaac

Good question, I probably should ignore your suspicion-based conspiracy arguments. But you ask so nicely.

The point is you don't. You expend virtually all of your efforts here on stamping out discussion of the extent to which the US/NATO might be to blame. — Isaac

No, I'm trying to move on in the discussion. In order to move on to more valid geopolitical talk, we have to establish if NATO is to blame or not. People say they are, I ask in what way... and people cannot provide a logical and rational argument for why that is, other than suspicions and speculations and a general anti-US anti-NATO opinion rant.

So I ask again for any clear sign of guilt so that we can establish that as truth.

Perhaps you could explain the link you made above in "...makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening". How does expert speculation make it harder to dissect what is happening? — Isaac

Because if we can establish that NATO is guilty, have equal blame for the actions Russia takes, be it the invasion of Ukraine, invasion of Sweden/Finland, or a nuclear strike, then that changes the discussion entirely compared to if Putin acts alone and "feels threatened" by the west. Those are two extremely different baselines for this conflict.

Have you concrete evidence that NATO weren't to blame in any way? — Isaac

Can you prove that God doesn't exist, is the same kind of argument and that kind of fallacy-driven argument belongs in the theist section.

You make the claim of NATO's guilt, I ask for evidence to that. Burden of proof applies. You can't counter that by asking for proof of its non-existence. You can't prove there isn't a teapot floating between mercury and the sun, therefore there is a teapot floating there, that is your logic.

This is kindergarten philosophy.

Have you concrete evidence that, of all the things Putin has said about his motives, the ones you've picked out are his 'true' motives? Not just informed speculation, concrete evidence. — Isaac

Has nothing to do with establishing the guilt of NATO. The evidence for his aggressions can be seen in the actions right now, bombing and invading Ukraine, killing civilians. What his motives are in regard to NATO's guilt, is relevant. It's another discussion.

If you want that discussion, I'm more than happy trying to speculate on that, as long as speculation is the goal. I've already shared the most likely source for establishing his motives. Beyond expert comments, this is the closest we've gotten so far to see his motives: Brave new world of Putin

Well hang on. For this analogy to hold Poland would have to have been threatened with invasion by Russia to motivate it to join NATO back in 1997. A real concrete threat by your standards. — Isaac

Ugh... seriously how is this confusing? If someone feels threatened by Russia and they go into an alliance with others who also feel threatened by Russia, in order to have better security against any potential Russian attack. THIS IS NOT AN ACT OF AGGRESSION AGAINST RUSSIA. This is an act of protection, affecting only the ones in that alliance. They have done NOTHING against Russia.

In your analogy - who's the criminal and what concrete evidence did the countries joining NATO have that he wanted to 'break into their houses' — Isaac

Are you serious? This is kind of the least complex analogy possible. Ok I'll try and make it clearer:

1. You own a house. It's your house, you own it, no one else.
2. You realize that your house is very close to criminal activity, maybe even organized crime. Maybe even hearing about attacks and home invasions that have been done close to you.
3. You realize that many other homes in your surroundings and close neighbors have started a security firm that together helps each other if there was an invasion in one of the homes.
4. The criminals don't like this, because it makes it harder for them to invade and claim people's homes for their activities. So they say to everyone that this security thing needs to "fuck off" or else.
5. You realize that "fucking off" will just make you open to invasion once more, but there are still people with homes that really want to join this collectively owned security firm. So you and the other try to balance what the right thing is to do. Should we just abandon them to their fate, as requested by the criminals? Or should we include them as well, which would also make the security stronger?
6. At no time have you taken the security firm into the territory of the criminals. You have respected their place, to do whatever they want over there.
7. But the criminals then attack one home that wasn't part of the security firm, they murder half the family and say that if anyone tries to help them, they're gonna do the same to them, or they'll just attack everyone, regardless of the consequences to the entire place.
8. You and the others know that you can't help them without drawing everyone into a conflict so you hold your ground, saying that you can't do anything, but you will collectively defend the ones present in the security firm.

9. You debate online with someone saying that this security firm thing is guilty of the criminals' actions against you. You ask how that is logical and he answers that you should have just listened to them and not protected yourself with defense.

Explain the logic in point 9.

It literally doesn't matter. Not one bit. Not one iota. Russia told NATO to fuck right off, and NATO did the exact opposite of that — StreetlightX

What right have Russia to tell them to fuck off if they expand in collaboration with independent nations in Europe. Russia doesn't own Europe's independent nations or have the right to make their decisions affecting the security of their own nations.

How the hell is Russia's feelings, in any shape or form, NATO's fault? What the hell kind of logic is this?

in full cognizance of multiple people in the West telling them that this is a terrible, awful, war-engendering move and lo and behold, and now there's a war. — StreetlightX

Increasing the risk of a reaction from Russia does not make Europe or NATO responsible for those actions. You can argue that it's dangerous because Russia could act aggressively, but it is still Russia's fault if they invade and wage war. The only situation where the actions of Russia would be warranted was if NATO actively attacked Russia, pushing over their borders. Has this happend? No.

This isn't an issue of morality or law or principle, it's a simple calculation - do you do the thing that the weaponized aggressor literally just told you to not do, on pain of war, yes or no? — StreetlightX

So we are to blame for Russia's actions because we don't allow them to control our independent choices as nations? Are you serious?

Putin's war is unjutified and unjustifiable. But acting in full cognizance of the deadly results of an unjustified demand does not let you off the hook. — StreetlightX

So, basically, victim blaming? Because someone doesn't comply to the demands of an aggressive person, who demands something they have no right to demand, therefore the victim is to blame if they get attacked by that aggressive person? Back off and look at your logic for one reason.

You have two arguments that you confused together. You have one that talks about how rapid expansion of NATO is dangerous because Russia could act aggressively. And then one that talks of NATO's guilt for Russia's war and murders. Those aren't connected, one is about the dangers of an irrational state, about balancing actions against the risk of that irrational state to attack. The other one is wether there's an actual guilt on NATO for the actions Russia takes.

But you've confused them together thinking unintentional provocation is the same as having actual guilt.

Eisenhower, early on in his administration, made a not-so-veiled threat to use the atomic bomb to bring the Communists to the table, and they came to the table and he and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, concluded from that the usefulness of what they came to call atomic brinksmanship, which was part of what fueled the massive build up of the atomic and nuclear arsenal in the fifties.

Works with people who can conduct diplomacy. Reading the manifesto of the new world order however, makes you question the ability of Putin to be a rational part of a cold war 2. This is the true danger of Putin. No one knows if he's crazy enough to take the world with him if he falls.

Åland islands is a de-militarized zone. It's a really interesting question when Finland would send forces there.

The only Finnish forces there are the local police and the border guard. And Russia has an consulate there, which is described as more of a forward intelligence gathering post. At the height of the Cold War it had 140 personnel. That's a huge consulate workforce for Islands with a population of 30 000. And Russian helicopters do have the ability fly directly from Russia to the Islands. The military history is interesting, and a great example of two countries accepting a third party international solution. The decision on the Åland Islands is one of the few things the League of Nations succeeded in solving. — ssu

If Russia invades our nations, Åland would probably be a joint effort defense with both Swedish and Finnish forces working together. The Russian consulate would be a target for us, leverage of sorts.

I do not blame NATO for Putin's actions, I blame the practice of using military force to settle conflict. Nuclear war is a last resort. Any war should be a last resort, but nothing we can do about this unless we convince our governments to enter into some sort of peace treaty with everyone. There is the United Nations also, and their Charter.. lets see...so they all signed it .. were forced to sign it.. — FreeEmotion

Putin doesn't care. Does it look like he cares for any kind of diplomacy, peace or collaboration with the world?

I need do nothing of the sort. If there is suspicion that NATO is unduly influenced by the US (as has already been presented) that is sufficient. Suspicion needs to be aired, widely disseminated, and untempered by pointless conservatism. Why? Because it's our job as citizens to hold our authorities to account. It's neither our job to excuse them, nor is it our job to judge them as a court of law might. They excuse themselves and we actually have courts of law to judge them as a court of law might, so there's no need for us to do so. Our job is to hold them to account. — Isaac

The problem becomes when suspicion is used as facts. When NATO gets "equal blame" for what is happening in Ukraine and any further action by Putin. Or are you just using this conflict as an excuse to further criticize US and NATO through suspicion?

Nor will you. NATO are not stupid. They're hardly going to issue a concrete threat to a sovereign nation are they? Yet the threats are legitimate nonetheless. As Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said...

[quoteThere are some concerns on the Russian side that are legitimate — Isaac

[/quote]

This still doesn't excuse blaming NATO for Putin's actions. It's just more speculation. I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate what is going on both in US and within NATO, but that doesn't mean there are actual threats that have been done against Russia. NATO has only warned Russia from attacking NATO members, they've condemned the actions Putin takes, but nothing of that is a threat to Russia, not if you accept Putin's ideology of the new world empire. It is pretty simple, you need to accept Putin's imaginary empire borders as truth, ignore that these neighboring nations are independent and then see NATO's troops within those nations as a threat. But all of that is just Putin's imagination and feelings, they do not exist in the real world.

So what's your point? We're not allowed to hold NATO to account without the bloodied dagger in our hand? Why are you insisting on that level of evidence, what does it gain? — Isaac

Hold NATO account... for what? You still haven't answered what to actually blame them for other than saying:

If there is suspicion that NATO is unduly influenced by the US (as has already been presented) that is sufficient. Suspicion needs to be aired, widely disseminated, and untempered by pointless conservatism. Why? Because it's our job as citizens to hold our authorities to account. — Isaac

So we should blame them... because we have a suspicion that there might be malpractice and threats under the table. This is not a foundation for any conclusions. You blame them first, before having any premises to support that conclusion.

Suspicion should lead to an investigation, to finding evidence, to build a case so that we can blame them. But I see no such thing, not even in rational philosophical practices and proper arguments on this forum. It's all just speculation, a feeling, suspicion. In essence, conspiracy theories.

If you want me to take any of your conclusions seriously, you need more than conspiracy. I'm interested in rational arguments, not opinions, suspicions and speculations.

NATO, the US and Europe are completely blameless in all this. What harm comes from discussing the perceived blame? They're all big boys, I'm sure they can handle being blamed for something they didn't do. So what exactly drives you with such passion to ensure that all discussion of their role in this is stamped on? — Isaac

Because it floods the discussion with distractions from the actual conflict, it muddies the waters with irrelevant nonsense that makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening and what could be happening. Why bother using this conflict, this war, as an excuse to ventilate emotional suspicions about the US and NATO just because that's your preference?

In my opinion, it becomes a disgusting way of turning this war into a discussion of your preferred subject, rather than truth.

No of course not. You can be guilty of attacking and you can be also guilty of not preventing an attack, for example leaving your door wide open. Or if you provoke them in some way.

My personal view is that provoking an attack only gives NATO more ammunition to continue 'containing' Russia. — FreeEmotion

Did NATO provoke Putin? When and how? The expansion itself can be provoking, but not in any sense that warrants guilt and blame on NATO. You also bring up a good point of guilt by not doing anything. If Sweden and Finland could prevent a Russian attack on our nations, would we be guilty of letting that happen if we don't join NATO?

I agree mostly with the article by John J. Mearsheimer. But he is out there in the cuckoo land of international politics when he suggests:

"The United States and its allies should abandon their
plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer"
— John H. Mearsheimer — FreeEmotion

I also think it's arrogant to speak about the US "westernizing" whenever a nation, themselves, try to replicate standards seen in western nations. It argues that nations cannot act independently, by themselves, to adopt any style of living that they choose. It's like, if they choose a more western standard, then it automatically becomes US enforcing this onto them. This criticism against the US gives them more credit than they deserve. "The west" is more than the US.

Your demand for explicit threats is inane. — Benkei

Why is it inane? Because you say so? Because it doesn't matter? Who decided that it doesn't matter if NATO threatened directly or not? If someone attacks you and the police ask you if you threatened the person and you just say... "that question for explicit threats is inane", do you think this is rational?

Why did NATO expand towards Russia, as opposed to say, Iran or China? There's your answer and the implicit threat it included. — Benkei

Is an expansion of a defensive alliance, through the will of each nation joining, an act of threat against Russia? "Perceived threat" in Russia does not mean anything, as per my house analogy.

For anyone with a modicum of knowledge about international relations this is obvious, which is why every expansion by NATO has been critised every step of the way in every Western country with independent policy institutes. — Benkei

Isn't this just a misunderstanding of all of it? Isn't it that the critique is about how fast expansion could trigger a response from Russia? Which is obvious both back with the Soviet Union and today's Russia. But that still isn't a threat to Russia. You can't blame NATO for "threatening" Russia because there have been no threats. The expansion itself is not a threat, you are just speaking of the perceived threat that Russia feels about the expansion. It's not the same thing.

During my studies I wrote an essay on how to create an economic interdependence between Russia and Europe ensuring lasting peace and true independence from US, creating a much safer European space than we have now. — Benkei

You mean like Germany tried and now failed through their Nordstream project? How does this comply with Putin's ideals? Can you ensure stability when Putin's ambitions come into conflict with Europe's?

The US and NATO decided precisely otherwise even though there were plenty of political scientists arguing for what I did. So we should ask, what benefit is there to the US having an insecure Europe? An excuse for military bases? A continued use for NATO? — Benkei

The US is part of NATO. How do you conclude that NATO, today, is being run by the US? Do you have a clear example of how NATO is being run with the US as the leader? This would mean that Jens Stoltenberg is just a puppet, that all other nations have no real say in the actions of NATO. All of this you have to provide some evidence for.

Otherwise, it just becomes your opinion. I understand the underlining geopolitical speculation, but if you can't connect that speculation to actual practices by these entities, it's just speculation.

And it's still impossible to blame NATO for Putin's actions. You can't just dismiss this as "inane" because it doesn't comply with your speculation. I take Sweden and Finland as an example again. We are both starting to gravitate towards joining NATO, not because of some vague US imperial and economic interest that we've been hypnotized by the evil villain of capitalism, but because of Putin's threats and the risk of Russia invading. Just yesterday Sweden announced a large increase in military spending and both nations are now putting the NATO option on the table.

So if we join NATO because we seek that security against Russia - Does that mean that NATO is actively threatening Russia?

The question is about blame and guilt. Is NATO to blame for Putin's actions? You say that asking for any clear threats or actions that are direct threats to Russia is inane, because that makes it easier to fit it in your narrative. I'm saying that it's not inane, because acts of increasing security against a perceived and now active threat do not equal guilt of threat to be on the part of those seeking security, regardless of speculations of intentions on the US part.

If you were in court, how would you prove NATO has guilt for Putin's actions? Why can't anyone answer this question? If Russia "feels" threatened by something that is not, in itself, an active threat, then there is no guilt or blame on NATO's part.

Russia's "feelings" do not matter in this.

Once again my house invasion analogy:

Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack? — Christoffer

I personally think he felt threatened by NATO when a country close to him wants to be part of the alliance. This exactly happens with Georgia in 2008. It is true that expressly there is not a clear threat against Russia. But they feel like that because NATO is the western and for Russia these are always the enemies so they will never let satellite countries be part of it. It is sad but for Russia, countries like Ukraine or Georgia are just puppets to play with. They do not see it as sovereign states.
As we shared previously, Soviet nostalgia — javi2541997

And this is my point exactly. His feelings of a threat do not equal NATO actually threatening. Expanding security for nations, them joining to seek security for their nation, is not an active act of threatening Russia. Just as my house invasion analogy.

I think the issue here is the model of NATO. Sometimes it seems to be only related towards USA. This is why some countries as Finland was sceptical about joining. We, the Western, do not have anything against the NATO but it is true they tend to use, hmm... propaganda about empowering the Western block.
As the European Commissioner Josep Borell said: "it is time to build an European army. But this principle is not necessary against NATO alliance," — javi2541997

"It seems", but is it? I'm specifically asking for examples of operational practices that prove that NATO can be blamed for Putin's aggressive acts and killings. Even if the US sits in the background smiling an evil smile like a villain in shadows, what has NATO actually done to warrant being blamed for Putin's actions?

Almost every discussion in this thread boils down to NATO having guilt and the US having control over NATO. But I can't recall any direct link or evidence for any of that. If that can't be established first, then NATO can't be blamed in the way they're blamed. If Putin feels threatened, that does not warrant true guilt.

So the argument so far seems to be that we need to blame NATO because we all know that the US is bad and push evil capitalism so therefore NATO is bad and has guilt for Putin's actions. Essentially, we need to criticize NATO because we can't trust capitalism, we can't trust the US, and since the US is part of NATO, then we can't trust NATO, we can't trust anything they do, governments are corrupt, bad, everything is bad in the west... it all sounds like conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. Stoned hippie circle jerk... "it's all caaaaapitalisms fault maaaaan".

How and when did NATO threaten Putin and Russia? A clear-cut question for all to answer. We need to establish that first.

Yup. It was a self fulfilling prophecy. Treat Russia as the enemy for decades and surprise surprise, we get war. I'm putting as much blame on the US and NATO as on Putin. — Benkei

What threats has NATO done to Russia? As in my answer to Isaac above, how would you argue for NATO's guilt in all of this, like if we were in court, how would you, in defense of Russia, argue for NATO's guilt? What did they do? Be specific

For you (and@Christoffer if you like) with the unique interests and distance from US//NATO you so eloquently explained, why is it so important that the US/NATO be exculpated? — Isaac

First, separate NATO and US. The US is part of NATO, but NATO is its own entity. Otherwise you need to prove that NATO is being run by the US and not as an alliance, like UN, EU etc.

Second, I'm still waiting to hear what NATO's fault in all of this is. What is the actual threat to Russia? Through pages and pages of posts, I've yet to hear any concrete example of NATO actually threatening Russia. Free independent nations joining NATO who are close to Russia is not a threat. Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack? And if not that as a "threat", then what? Have you any examples of when NATO threatened Russia and Putin? Because his feelings of being threatened can be valid for explaining his actions, but that doesn't mean there's valid guilt on NATO's part in any of Putin's actions.

Well, if it's just Gotland and not Åland, I hope we do the same for you and come to help!

The unfortunate fact is that after few months, assuming the war takes so long, war in Ukraine will be "the new normal". After all, we just experienced a world wide pandemic. How scary would that have sounded before? Now it's not so scary anymore. — ssu

I think Åland and Gotland would be attacked first with ground troops under a heavy barrage of air strikes along the coast. I would really like to see Putin try and cross the eastern part of Finland, if he has logistical problems just driving on a normal road to Kiev, imagine going through the same parts of Finland that decimated the Soviet Union's attempts.

Also, our prime minister had a speech to the nation yesterday. We've already been increasing our military since 2015, but now we're pumping even more into it. I'm hoping to build out a, especially on Åland and Gotland, a modern high-tech anti-air system with AI. Technology is there and if we handle it smart we'll have an anti-air system that automatically recognizes foreign threats including missiles. With such a defense, it's next to impossible for Putin to invade since most of his effective strikes are long-range missiles and airstrikes. If he can't do that, he needs to send in troops, which are already proven to have low morale and being treated like shit, imagine them moving over eastern Finland and trying to manage a sea assault while we have our sub-marines (who single-handedly beat both NATO and the US in joint military exercises at sea)

If we get a defense up to high-tech standards, I'd like to see the fucker try.

I'd be a bit sceptical about a hypothetical "victory article" published by one side. Things that are reported by several different sources that don't rely on the same source usually can be trusted and the real details surface only later. Things that are true usually leave a large trail behind them. — ssu

Yes, this is why I'm careful about it. But if it's state media, by order of Putin as the declaration of victory over Ukraine as it reads, then the reasoning might very well be in line with Putin's reasoning. It reads very much like parts reasonable thinking against the west and partially totally bonkers delusional empire dreaming. And this kind of weird back and forth seems exactly what to expect from a seasoned political figure who's become a narcissistic delusional authoritarian despot.

But I think that since no one has accurately been able to confirm its validity as being a kind of manifesto from Putin's perspective, we haven't seen it being used in news reports yet. And I don't know how if it's possible to conclude how accurate it is without more sources.

But if it is... it's pretty telling.

Well, For me and Christoffer, what Putin does is the most interesting thing. Our countries are in a severe diplomatic crisis. Not at war like Ukraine, but still in a crisis. We haven't been part of that West you refer to. My country is the only country on Russia's Western border that a) isn't a NATO member and b) doesn't have Russian troops in it. And @Christoffer's country has a small patch of water between Russia. Both aren't in NATO, so both know how hostile Russia can be even when we don't pose a threat, that "springboard" to it. Just being a "potential" one creates the same tension. Also I can see the consequences of this crisis in my puny life too. — ssu

Yeah, and everytime I hear anything about NATO "forcing" people to join I just cringe. But when I mention that Sweden and Finland are considering it and that there's no force involved, only considerations of our safety towards the threats from Putin and Russia, it's like... "well, not Sweden and Finland, but everyone else is forced by US imperialism". Ugh... Understanding that geopolitics is complex does not equal forcing a point of view onto every topic available. The US might have secondary agendas with NATO, but NATO doesn't operate by the US alone and it's not even close to a priority for NATO to do any of that. It is a defensive alliance, it's about security for members not able to stand up against unstable nations or leaders who have superior military power. It also doesn't matter what NATO did decades ago compared to how it operates today. It's almost like saying that Sweden might have a different agenda with joining NATO because we had a vast empire a few hundred years ago. What I'm interested in is the current operation and agendas of nations, leaders and people today. Because agendas and people can change, for the better or for the worse over the course of history. Not taking into account the historical aspect when making arguments creates a situation where people can just make whatever argument possible or dismiss arguments however they want with just picking something random from history to "support" their argument. Like dismissing everything I said because Sweden was questionably "neutral" during WWII by sending iron to nazi Germany's war machine. It becomes a maelstrom of bullshit.

The only thing that matters is where we are today and the only historical aspect that matters is how we got here, but that's not what we are today. Ukraine is for example not the same nation today as it was just five years ago, but people create arguments like this, jumping back and forth between how they are today and how they were in 2014, based on what fits their argument for the moment. It's a frustratingly stupid angle to discuss from.

Just to give one example, I just spent my children's school holidays last week next to the Russian border as our summerplace is only 10km from the border. We went up to the border to a small shopping center that was intended to serve Russian tourists. There naturally weren't any tourists, as the ruble has collapsed. Nor are there the vast amounts of Russian trucks that few years ago crossed the border coming and going and made huge lines on the border (because Russian border control is, let's say, bureaucratic). Now it was all as silent as it was when there was the Soviet Union. Even then there was the odd Soviet truck crossing the border. Now nothing. You literally can see what the term "sanctions" really mean in reality. Now the government is advising people to avoid any kind of travelling to Russia.

Now in our countries likely the discussion of joining NATO will start at earnest. Especially Finns have tried to push it away and thought that all is well with the eastern neighbor relations. But we've been just fooling ourselves. So this crisis isn't over and hopefully you understand that just what Vlad decides to do or how he react does matter here. — ssu

Yes, the relations with Russia were "good" in terms of its people and the cities etc. I've been thinking of vacation going to Russia and it has felt like things are pretty good, even if I've always thought Putin was unstable. But now things are in the toilet. There have been worries about how jets, submarines and ships have broken our sea borders many times and the political relations have been worsening for many years, but I'd never believed Putin to be this fucking stupid, with this increase in tensions. I was never in favor of NATO, but Putin has pushed me to be pretty much pro NATO. There's no United States influencing me or convincing me of forcing me to rethink joining NATO, it is all Putin's stupidity and dreams of empire informing me that his mental health is in the toilet and you cannot defend rationally against a delusional narcissistic despot who threatens with nuclear weapons. You need a good defense alliance and you need a plan to take that fucker out, just like it was with any other dictator in the 20th century who people today think about like: "why didn't people see what was coming? Why didn't anyone kill them early on?" Well, this is it and if something serious happens, if his "New World Order" doesn't come to pass and he snaps and want to take the world with him, that could very well be the moment people ask that question again. At least I thought that thought and can be proud that I didn't bend over to his propaganda or treated him as a rational person.

Of course, I hope neither of that happens. But he has stepped over a line where the contingency plan is clear. And the crimes he commits in Ukraine at the moment and the severity of his threats should be enough foundation for the removal of his existential right. If he literally could take the world with him as a fuck you for his own failures, that is enough to warrant an extreme solution to Putin.

Until then, I gladly joining NATO as well as @ssu. If war hits our borders, this time, you will not be alone, this time we will fight side by side against the fucker. But hopefully some random, unknown security guard close to Putin realize what is happening to the world and just ends him.

Which is precisely why I argued to "sacrifice" Ukraine at an earlier stage, e.g. repeal earlier promises and overtures for it to join the EU and NATO. I also wondered why trustworthiness was so low on the list of priorities for NATO and particularly the US. I can only think of two answers, incompetence or another goal. If it's another goal, then finding grounds for more extreme sanctions seems the only reliable one. In which case the US provoked a war for entirely economic reasons.

That, or we are to accept that the Ukraine has a strategic military purpose but then I question why it's not actually defended. So I ain't buy that, particularly because Turkey, a NATO member, can close access to the Mediterranean. — Benkei

Or it's just the delusional empire ideas by Putin as is present in the paper that got leaked.

It's easy to dismiss a simple solution to the reasons Putin have, because we all focus on complex questions and gravitate to complex answers, i.e complex geopolitical multi-actor answers. But even if the paper mentions all the actors we've all mentioned, it's very clear, if the paper is a truly leaked paper, that all of this is Putin's delusional dreams of a new Russian empire.

I really would like to know if that paper is real. Hard to verify things during propaganda machines on both sides during a conflict.

This would be the craziest thing ever. So a country, that has had no hostile intentions against Ukraine, no animosity, has had not long ago major popular demonstrations against the ruling regime, would then go an participate in a war that their President has until now said that they aren't part of. Wouldn't make sense. I'd wait for real confirmation on this. — ssu

Read the publication of the paper that were supposed to be released when Russia won the war in Ukraine. It's clear what Putin promised Lukashenko. If Ukraine and Belarus would be part of the new Russia in the new world order, then Lukashenko would be very powerful as part of this union, at least, in his eyes. It's pretty clear what's going on here, Lukashenko became a puppet, Putin managed to install someone he could control and who could be part of the new Russia. But he didn't manage to do the same with Ukraine, so he's forced to invade Ukraine to achieve his new world order goal.

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/

The article he refers to here:

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/ — tim wood

https://thefrontierpost.com/the-new-world-order/

Maybe someone could verify this to be the translation but, yeah... my estimates of insanity on Putin's part is pretty much verified with this one. That they even speak of "The New World Order" and how they will unite Ukraine with their true nature RUSSIA shows just how delusional the ideas are.

If people thought my ideas sounded like some Hollywood fiction, then read this crap.

Oh yes, I forgot that this thing called communication exists. Clearly, once a nation asks, NATO just has to let them right the fuck in if they fit the bureaucratic criteria. That's clearly, totally how things work, and not a fucking cartoon picture. — StreetlightX

Are you unable to write in a normal way or do I have to use your rhetoric since you don't seem to understand when I write how it actually works?

Jesus Christ. Listen. I've come into alot of money recently because my uncle is an Australian prince from the Irwin dynasty, and he left me all this money in his will, and I need someone to store it for me while I sort out some accounting stuff. If you give me USD $50,000, I promise I will give you like, USD $2 million in return. It's just for a bit. If you can DM me your account details, that'd be great.

I just figure if you actually believe this utter naive bullshit that you wrote, I may as well give this a go. — StreetlightX

Does this fit the criteria for low-quality posts? Because I see nothing of value here. You don't answer in the slightest to the question I asked, which I did in a methodical way in order to arrive at some kind of conclusion from your side since you're all over the place. But I see now that you're just trolling.

I'll tell you how it doesn't expand - it doesn't expand by countries asking "hey can you let me in?" and NATO going "mmmm, OK since you asked so nicely, yeah totally". It's not a fucking gentlemen's club. It's a strategic decision — StreetlightX

Strategic by the nation asking or NATO, there's a difference there.

and ideally, one not made by morons who, knowing full well that Russia has literally been to war over this very issue before, think, ah fuck it, lets keep arming Ukraine and making moves to expand the European sphere of influence Eastward. — StreetlightX

So, nations who are worried Russia would invade them are morons because they seek security as a member of NATO?

This notion of an innocent, doe-eyed NATO (and EU) just waving people in willy nilly because they asked nicely is just as stupid as your Harry Potter theory of Mad King Putin. — StreetlightX

I didn't say that. Anyone can seek membership in NATO. They accept so long as it's a unanimous decision to accept as well as the nation being a stable nation that is also dedicated to helping other members of NATO, primarily, have shown good diplomacy with these nations in the past. NATO is also wary of the border to Russia, that's why it hasn't been easy to get Ukraine into NATO, because first, they have not been internally as stable as a nation for very long (and still has a long way to go), as well as some members of NATO being wary about them joining, primarily because of the threats from Russia (which isn't really any of Putin's business, since he doesn't own Ukraine, whatever he believes).

This is how NATO operates with getting new members. I'd like to hear a better rundown on how you think it actually works, beyond your childish rhetoric for which, there's not much substance.

Yeah, and I bet they also hand out free rainbows and unicorns to those who write nice letters to them too. — StreetlightX

Yet, you don't really explain how it "actually is" beyond your bullshit. Can you actually do that or are you just full of shit? Because I won't engage with someone who just writes like an angry child.

I would feel threatened and humiliated with the constant media attacks ("Russia influenced the election" never mind that this is a colossal security failure on the US ), Olympic doping scandal, banning of RT (whom Hilary Clinton testified were 'Very Good') and so on. So count me delusional on this one. — FreeEmotion

But, there were acts of influence through social media to influence the election, therefore they got criticized. There have been numerous doping scandals, therefore they got criticized. There has been a lot of disinformation to help Russian (Putin) interests through channels like RT, therefore they got criticized.

I don't think anyone disagrees with him feeling threatened. The question, however, is if it's someone else's fault that he acts out with aggression based on that feeling. No one can be blamed for Putin's actions, because the reasons for him feeling threatened are not aggressions against him or Russia, but against bad acts on his and Russia's part to begin with. It's no one else's fault that RT spreads disinformation.

I think anyone in his right mind would feel it, with years and years of sanctions and highlighting the persecution of Russian opposition leaders. — FreeEmotion

Sanctions are there because of his actions, to begin with. What sanctions have been placed on Russia that wasn't a reaction to acts like the annexation of Crimea?

In reality the acceptance into NATO has to be unanimous , there are some dissenters out there. — FreeEmotion

Yes, but if the narrative that's presented by many in here, is for the US to push against Russia, and this is the primary goal for NATO. Then why don't the US just demand NATO to accept Ukraine?

This is my point. The false claim that NATO is controlled by the US and that NATO is there to push against Russia is just plain wrong. NATO is a defensive alliance that accepts anyone who wants to join who both are accepted by all members of NATO and also shows itself to be a stable nation. There's no "cold war battle between NATO and Russia", it's Putin who fears NATO's expansion because the nation's who are bordering to Russia want to join them in order to be safe from Russia, which would block Putin's plans to claim these independent nations.

None of that is NATO's or these nations' fault, it's Putin being an aggressor, forcing his neighboring nations to seek protection within an alliance that can balance against the military force of Russia whenever Russia attacks them. NATO has and will never attack any other nation if that nation didn't attack them first. It's stated over and over and over ad infinitum by Jens Stoltenberg when people ask why they don't help Ukraine.

So preventing them from joining NATO and allowing this catastrophe was the better choice? Is it really?
How could anyone argue against preventing an invasion without anyone getting killed? By the way this would have stopped my presumed hero, Putin. — FreeEmotion

By saying "allowing this catastrophe" you are blaming NATO for the invasion of Ukraine. The problem here is that no one knows if Putin would have attacked anyway, risking conflict with NATO. NATO must evaluate the situation in that if Ukraine joined and Putin still invaded, that would lead to WWIII. If you had that choice on your table as a leader of NATO. What would you do? You can't ask Putin if he will attack or not if you let them join, you don't know. So they had the door open. At the same time, Ukraine wasn't the most stable nation in around 2014-2016, it's just the past few years that Ukraine has shown improvements in the areas that made them unstable. This might be a reason why Putin invaded now, before Ukraine became a valid nation for NATO.

But again, NATO didn't "allow" for this disaster. This is Putin's actions alone.

The same way the British invaded 80% (invaded or otherwise acquired) of the world? Just want to clarify that the King or Kings of England whoever they were was, " an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders". That would be consistent. The same way the Spanish, Portuguese, Germans and others created empires? — FreeEmotion

And we don't live in these times anymore. The first world war collapsed most of the empires, it's by some called the "end of the age of empires". Then the second world war was pretty much an attempt for some (obviously most notably Nazi Germany) to create new empires, which of course failed when trying to exist in this new world that doesn't really have empires anymore. The rest of 20th century has been a long deflation of any empire thinking and international laws, UN, EU, NATO and other alliances were invented as measures to keep world wars from happening again.

Only despot dictators and delusional authoritarian leaders who still dream of the "age of empires" would conduct geographical invasions to "expand the empire". North Korea and Russia are the most notable for having this attitude and politics while China have started to move away from it, still not able to fully leave it behind. While all else, all those previous empires like UK, and "modern empires" like the US don't really act in this way anymore. They don't claim lands for their own, they instigate proxy wars and conflicts to gain influence and resources and all of these acts are really bad, but they don't act in terms of an expansion of empire taking over nations and planting a flag. They have realized that collaborating and investing in other nations is better than planting a flag. Might today is better unseen within a capitalistic machine... because if you act like the old days, it's gonna create dramatic consequences like what we see now.

Maybe Putin is living in the past. — FreeEmotion

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

This is what every single expert on Russia and Putin is saying. At least every single one I've heard and found through my own research.

The United States has not threatened Sweden or Finland, but I think they may be the rare exceptions. — FreeEmotion

Which other nations have they threatened into NATO? And if new members must be a unanimous decision, how could the US both threaten a nation into "submission" as well as have everyone on board with the decision to let that nation join? This is why the narrative that US controls NATO is wrong.

I really would like to hear anyone give examples of NATO members who were forced into joining and how it happened.

Putin is authoritarian, yes. He is also entitled to an opinion. If you say he should have found a better way to achieve his goals without invading a country and causing mayhem then that is valid. Maybe he is not smart enough to do that. Or maybe that was impossible. So what does he do? Give up on his goals? — FreeEmotion

He can say whatever he wants, unless it's an aggressive threat like the one about nuclear readiness, since that is... you know, not an opinion but a threat, just like threats in a free speech society isn't considered protected under free speech.

If he was a leader who want to expand his borders back to the roots of the Russian empire, without bloodshed, invasions or wars like back in those days. Then he would have lobbied for the neighboring nations to vote to be part of Russia. If they decline, vote no or whatever, he could still continue lobby for it, but nothing happens until the free and independent nation he wants to join, accepts that offer. This is how things are done peacefully today. And here's my take on all of this: he's old, he doesn't have time to try and convince these nations that they should join him and most of them don't want to, so he want to bypass that time and instead invade and just claim these nations. He's been trying to do this for so long, but NATO has made it into a stalemate, it hasn't been easy for him because of NATO, that's why he's desperate. And that, of course isn't NATO's fault, they kept the balance and peace otherwise Putin would have invaded every single one of these nations whenever they had a time of crisis, in order to maximize success. That he invaded Ukraine now is probably because he's seen how well prepared they've become and didn't want it to go any further and make it impossible to invade and claim (which might be the case now)

Might as well ask the Ukranians to stop fighting after 14 years and save lives. The fighting is going to stop sometime, so totaling up a high body count to make a point is one option, but I do not support it. — FreeEmotion

Yes, but I don't think he cares. Most Russian soldiers seem to be young men who don't even know why they're there. Putin is an authoritarian leader of the old style, those who throw cannon fodder into the frontline in order to starve the enemy through attrition.

Any defense of Putin and his reasons or his thinking or actions have so clearly been shown to be stupid now. He is, by every definition of the word, a bad man. And, as I've said earlier, the best way to stop the war is for him to die. How, that's another question, most likely by the hands of his own people, security personnel or whatnot who are fed up with his actions towards Ukraine, but especially his own people and Russia.

I even got confirmation that I'm not alone in this thinking. Gustav Gressel of the European Council on Foreign Relations said this in today's news:

I wouldn't rule out an internal attack. Putin is extremely protected, but it's realistic that, for example, someone in his "lifeguard" (security personnel) put a bullet in him, maybe because that person saw his son burn up in a tank in Ukraine.

Yep. That's why you are campaigning so hard for China to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, or for Turkey to return North Cyprus .... — Apollodorus

You don't know what I campaign or support outside of this discussion. What the fuck kind of argument is that other than being incompetent in making actual arguments?

And of course NATO is run by America. Everyone knows that. It isn't my fault that the news hasn't made it to the Finnish outback yet ... — Apollodorus

Provide support for that claim. I don't give a flying fuck what you think is the truth. Show me where Jens Stoltenberg acts as a puppet for US affairs.

What? I just asked you for sources to back up the claim that "this is all Putin". — Isaac

I responded to the way you fragment out points out of context of a whole argument. This is a way to effectively strawman through formatting. I don't fall for that.

but then your response doesn't make any sense because I asked you about your treatment of the portion of blame the US and Europe must shoulder. If your phrase "this is all Putin" was merely rhetorical hyperbole, then the question remains unanswered. Why shoot down all the attempts to talk about the extent to which the US and Europe are culpable? — Isaac

I answered that after your re-iteration of that question.

Yes. I'm not an historian, nor a military strategist, so I don't consider myself to have the necessary skills to interpret raw historical documents and military pronouncements in context. I defer to experts to do that. — Isaac

Opinion-writers are not experts. Especially not at the political extreme bias, which you can find by searching for evaluations of those sources.

You don't have to be working as a historian to read history and form arguments based on it. The difference between a historian and someone who puts a lot of time into reading history is that the historian gets paid for the time. The problem is not what job someone has, the problem is an inability to research properly and unbiased or lack logic in reasoning, or fail to address holes in logic pointed out.

The only reason I could make sense of is that you thought they shouldered no blame at all (hence my taking your "this is all Putin" at face value). If you don't think that, and you agree they share some of the blame, then why the constant shooting down of any discussion about it? — Isaac

You aren't making the argument that they share blame, you make the argument "it's the west's fault". You haven't shown in what way Putin's actions are the west's fault and I've shown that the west's actions may have triggered Putin, but it's still Putin's actions. He doesn't own the nations he wants to claim, if they join NATO for instance, it is THEIR choice, it's never done by NATO, and Putin gets triggered by them joining NATO and acts aggressively because of it.

Your reasoning is like saying the person who seeks security from someone threatening them with violence, is the one responsible for the aggressors' violence. That the act of "hiring security" and that triggering this violent person makes you and the security firm partly to blame for the violent person's actions. This is fundamentally stupid reasoning. The same kind of reasoning that abusers of women have, gaslighting them into thinking it's the woman's fault they hit them.

All sources are biased — Isaac

No, all sources are not biased. You can research which are and which aren't by their rating and you can use published papers as a source that has much greater unbias than anything else since they go through a process that's basically there to make them unbiased and fact-based. That you don't know this shows just why you fail in your arguments.

I'm biased in favour of finding fault with my government and its allies. I've explained why I'm biased in that direction - they're the governments I have some little influence over and even if I'm wrong, it's still useful to keep them on their toes. So yes, all my sources are biased in that direction. Bias doesn't equate to lies, it's just a filter through which facts are viewed. — Isaac

This is a fundamental error in reasoning. It makes you unable to form any logic and pushes you to opinion rather than valid, informed and rational conclusions.

That argument has been made elsewhere. You simply asked me for my sources so I supplied them. — Isaac

No, you blast sources that don't include the context of the argument. It means nothing to show a source that isn't part of any counterargument to what I wrote. I asked for sources that support your actual counterargument, you have not shown the connection or how it supports against anything I said.

We don't 'all know' that at all. Are you seriously presenting the theory that NATO does absolutely nothing but sit back and wait for counties to join. That no diplomacy, deal-making, financial incentives, political alliances or cross-border events play any part at all in the process? — Isaac

Show me an instance where Jens Stoltenberg has done this towards Sweden and Finland. And that it's not Sweden and Finland's independent choice to ask for membership. I don't care for your emotional speculation when it's about facts on how NATO operates, that should be quite clear.

Fuck's sake. I've repeated the argument a dozen times at least. Any solution involves the US so the US's prior behaviour in these kinds of events is relevant to a weighing up of how to use them and it's important that they are made as aware as possible that we're watching them, that they can't get away with the sort of shit they tried last time. — Isaac

That is not an argument. Learn what the fuck a proper argument is. Premises, logic, deduction, induction. I asked for an argument in order to make your logic clear because you are all over the place. With a clearer argument, it becomes easier to understand your ramblings.

See now you being obtuse. Are you now saying that there are no other reasons than Putin for the invasion? If so, then my request for sources is completely reasonable. You've provided no experts at all claiming that there's no other cause of this invasion than Putin himself. — Isaac

If you read the sources you provided, the ones support my run-through of the reasoning Putin has for the "re-building" of the Russian empire. You will understand the "reason" that you ask for. If a published paper and a historian comment are no unbiased expert source, what is?

You still don't haven't provided a clear "other reason" or "cause" for Putin's invasion. Your sources are about the risk of influence of neonazis in Ukraine around 2014. How does that in any shape or form relate to Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 or his reasons for aggressions over the course of his rule of authoritarian power?

How so? — Isaac

Because it's a fucking research institute on the subject of Russia and Putin.

That's an article from 2017 and all it shows is Putin's objectives, which no-one here has argued against. Your point is that "this is all Putin". again, without the 'all' claim, you're just saying that some of the cause is Putin's ideology, a claim absolutely no-one is disputing. I'm asking why you're pouring cold water on attempts to examine the role of the US and Europe. If you're not arguing that they have no part to play, then I can't see why you'd want to oppose discussion of that role. — Isaac

So far, the only "cause" that can be confirmed is that Putin is triggered by NATO expanding. To make this a clear "fault" and "cause" of the west or the US or to apply equal blame requires it to be proven that NATO's purpose is to support the US while being run by the US as well as NATO able to expand through pressuring nations into joining. NEITHER of this has been proven by you in any shape or form.

Therefore, the existence of NATO as something that blocks Putin's empire expansion dreams, is not a cause, but a trigger for Putin. Correlation Doesn’t Equal Causation
Putin's actions, regardless of whatever he feels are the reasons, are not the same as the reasons or causes you point out to be from the west. There is no proven link in the manner you describe them. If there are, show them, with absolute logic, otherwise you are wrong.

Either quote me blaming them for everything, or refrain from ascribing me views I've never espoused. — Isaac

It was a reversal of your argument to show you your own rhetoric.

You aren't interested in any balanced view or multi-reason answer.
— Christoffer

To remind you...

this is all Putin.
— Christoffer

Explain in what way that's a "balanced view or multi-reason answer". Or for that matter, when you say... — Isaac

Because it balances the facts. You are just biased in order to keep governments on their toes. You have no interest in balanced views. You said so yourself:

I'm biased in favour of finding fault with my government and its allies. I've explained why I'm biased in that direction - they're the governments I have some little influence over and even if I'm wrong, it's still useful to keep them on their toes. — Isaac

That doesn't sound like someone who seeks any answer based on facts, that sounds like someone who can't agree with "this is all Putin" when that could very well be a sound conclusion for this topic. You, not wanting that to be a conclusion because you think that is too simple, is irrelevant.

A number of complex interrelated factors, one of which is US foreign policy, one of which is EU central banking, one of which is arms industry lobbying, one of which is the influence of multinational financial instruments... — Isaac


Neither connected to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine, other than you falling for his propaganda machine.
— Christoffer

If none of those factors come into play, then what exactly are the 'multi-reasons' to which you refer? — Isaac

I ask again, how are they related to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine or threatening NATO and other European nations? You aren't connecting anything, you just say A is true therefore B is true. It's a logical fallacy. Connect the dots, connect the premises to form an argument instead of just... saying stuff and thinking there's a correlation or causality.

How can the guilt of the west be invented if they are not innocent? — Isaac

Because you connect the guilt of something else to Putin's actions. You talk about bad things the west have done... therefore Putin. Again, Correlation Doesn’t Equal Causation. You invent a guilt that is connected to Putin.

Again, please don't just assign views to me without sources. Where have I dismissed any notion of Putin's guilt? — Isaac

Where have you connected Putin's guilt to be partly the west's?

I gather it's a combination of a distaste for democracy and an unwillingness to cede strategic advantage which could be leveraged to obstruct economic expansion. — Isaac

So in your reasoning, how is that the west's fault? Are others not free to make their own decisions for their own nations, to form their own alliances and so on, as long as they don't act as aggressors against Russia? And if Russia fails to play the investment game internationally, that's still not the west's "fault". Blaming others for their own failure does not equal the other's caused the failure.

A combination of the extant global threats, diplomacy, political deals and direct advocacy. — Isaac

Can you give an example where Jens Stoltenberg has done this and forced another nation to join them? Are you saying that Sweden and Finland are being forced by NATO to join?

Yes — Isaac

So, that means they can join the EU and NATO if they get accepted by them?

No. I can't see how that could even be possible, let alone plausible. I suspect, like most tyrants he's surrounded by a cabal of associates who benefit from mutual objectives. — Isaac

Of course, like Hitler, he has friends, but did he allow the associates to rule equally with him? No? So why do you think Putin has given equal power between him and his associates? Did it look like his associates had any power in that live video that went viral?

it is run by America in America's interests. — Apollodorus

So Jens Stoltenberg is acting to further the US interests? How do you support such a claim?

Have a vote? You mean like China did before annexing Tibet? — Apollodorus

Like a proper democratic vote. That is what they should have had, not what they got, as precisely what I wrote.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Your answer seems like you didn't even read anything.

NATO works by constantly expanding and not giving a dime about anyone else. Plus, it was created by America, and it is run by America in America's interests. But maybe things look differently when seen from the Finnish outback ... — Apollodorus

Can you source ANY of these claims? And you still don't understand HOW NATO expands. Are you illiterate? Seriously, if Sweden want to join NATO, how does that equal NATO expands as a choice by NATO? Your logic's in the toilet.

Those fools only vote for their own selfishness. Trust me, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine are far away from Spain-Catalonia context. My country has always been so soft towards Catalonia — javi2541997

You don't see the context I brought that up? It doesn't matter what the details are, the context was that if borders were to be redrawn under modern international laws, it has to be a democratic process supported by the people, made in an uncorrupt democratic way. Who cares what those fools want, that was not the point.

How does NATO expand? Consider yourself facing a football team of 12 players. Upon invitation 18 more join the opposing team. Do you feel threatened? And this is after the game (cold war ) has ended. — FreeEmotion

The world isn't a football game and there is no conflict with Russia like your analogy here describes. Most nations have had trade deals and good relations with Russia, up until Putin's aggressions started in 2014. If you view the world as a "we against them", which Putin seems to do, of course you are threatened. But that doesn't mean that you actually are threatened, it means you are delusional in thinking- and acting accordingly.

It is more rational to actually say it how it is. After someone threatens you with imperial ambitions, breaking national air and water borders, pushing you with military unknown intentions through this behavior (which is something Sweden has been dealing with for a long time), while annexing other places illegally, talking about imperial borders that would include nations that are considered free and independent to be part of that empire and so on. -Do you feel threatened by that behavior? Would you then consider joining a defensive alliance that would help defend your borders if this aggressor would ever make reality of those threats, those actions, those ideas and behavior... just as Russia has now done with Ukraine?

If nations are joining them freely, then why did not Ukraine join them and put a stop to Putin's ambitions?
That was the purpose of NATO after all, to check Russian ambitions. — FreeEmotion

We can also turn this around. If as many in here are arguing, NATO is interesting in just pushing east and threatening Russia, why didn't they just welcome Ukraine with open arms? It doesn't really fit with the "aggressive NATO" narrative many write about in here.

The thing is that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, but NATO doesn't allow unstable states.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17767225/ukraine-nato-explained/

As of February 25, 2022, countries – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine – are considered “aspiring members.”

This status is afforded to non-member nations that have “made significant contributions to Nato-led operations and missions," such as Australia and Sweden.

However, continued Ukrainian instability – including its proximity to war-hungry Russia – makes it unlikely that their request to join the organisation will be accepted any time soon.

Since NATO is a defensive alliance, they need to keep things within the realm of stability. An unstable region could automatically lead to conflict with NATO if that nation joins. On top of that, Ukraine has just begun to become a stable nation, actively working with anti-corruption efforts and stabilizing the nation. In a few years it could have become a member. This is also the reason why Russia never became part of NATO, which Putin wanted early on under his rule. He just wanted to join without adhering to the rules of the engagement, typical authoritarian standard for him. This doesn't fly with NATO.

But Sweden and Finland, we are within the parameters of joining and that has nothing to do with any bullshit US imperial ambition reasons. It's because our airspace and sea borders are being harrassed all the time by Russia while they keep indirectly threatening us. Are we not free as nations to seek defense alliances against that?

Also, NATO isn't specifically focused on Russia, it's just that Russia is a military superpower with an aggressive authoritarian leader who acts accordingly, which is a security threat and of course gets alot of attention. But let's say North Korea started bombing NATO members, that would mean all NATO members collaborate in dealing with that threat.

Do you deny that America and Russia are adversaries with one attempting to get the better of the other? — FreeEmotion

I don't think the US (America includes Canada) have any interest in "trying to be better". USA has an American exceptionalist problem, they think they're a world police, they think they have the role of fixing problems in the world, but that is not the same as trying to actively fight someone to show themselves better. They also have economical interests by heavy investment and influence in other nations, while conducting proxy wars in others to claim resources. This is still not to show how much greater they are, but instead an interest of a superpower to be an economic superpower. This is done by the US, Russia and China while smaller nations with power also tries to gain power through it. Everyone does it. The difference is that Russia has an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders.

I think people are unable to see the difference of intentions, so they mix together everything as "the west against the east" with simplifications that are more in-line with the "off brand "Marvel-movie" reasoning that I've been blamed for. It's a pattern I see, people saying that me calling Putin an authoritarian leader in the same shape and form as Stalin or Hitler, being simplistic, while they themselves talk about "the West" with the same anti-capitalist simplifications in arguments as stoned homeopathic hippies.

Why do they want to join NATO after the cold war ended? Same reason people join gangs, collective power for coercion on the international scene I would think. — FreeEmotion

Really? So if you have a gang leader (Putin) who keeps harassing your house and family, saying that he owns your house and you should give it up to him. You don't want to have a security force guarding your safety? Especially when you know that you have nothing against his thugs if they started firing at you. Which is basically what this is. NATO is not acting as a gang, Putin acts as a "gang". It's why people even call Russia a mafia state. Have you ever seen the US threaten Sweden and Finland in the same way?

Of course the world should be 'one family'. The question is who should be the 'head' of that family. Not everyone wants to see America (or Wall Street) in that role. — Apollodorus

Uhm... like Eu? Like UN? You do know there are forms of unions that are based on a mutual plural rule as a parliament. In which a mandate period is being held by a leader from different nations each time.

This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. But perhaps I'm being too idealistic. — Apollodorus

You mean free like Ukraine? And what do you mean by continent? All of Africa is one giant union? That hasn't happened yet. And what about freedom to join a union of defense? Like Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Is that a free and independent choice by each of them? Or doesn't that count because of how you think NATO works, which is how exactly?

This in addition to the fact that Crimea has never been Ukrainian. — Apollodorus

By this logic, all of Norway should just call themselves Swedes. Borders in the modern world are respected in another way than pre-world war eras and post-Soviet eras. When the Soviet Union fell, the borders began to be drawn. Crimea became part of Ukraine and any idea that Crimea belongs to Russia is just in line with the delusional imperial reasoning of Putin.

Borders in the modern world are redrawn based on democratic movements. If people want to break away or join another nation, that is a process of democracy where the people initiate a vote to redraw borders. This is what the Catalonia Parliament has been voting for, to be set apart from Spain. But that didn't happen.

To invade and claim a part of modern Ukraine on the idea that "it was ours to begin with" is a crime against modern international laws. It doesn't matter what delusional idea that formed such a decision, but the process should have been a democratic one. A functioning Russia would have asked the Crimean people if they want to be part of Russia or part of Ukraine, if the opinion was strong that they wanted that, they should have had a vote in order to pass something that was supported by the people. The problem is that Russia annexed Crimea, then offered voting choices that didn't reflect this kind of process, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
It was a sham, a theatre, a spectacle as usual from the Russian side, forcing them into an outcome that was not democratic in any sense of the word.

The security threat to Russia is illustrated by Turkey, a NATO member, closing the straits to war ships. — Apollodorus

That is due to the current conflict, NATO has never threatened Russia. Defensive actions aren't threats and Turkey can act on their own accord without it being an action made by NATO. It doesn't seem like you understand how NATO works. It's similar to Russia being part of the UN and your reasoning would be that the invasion of Ukraine is an act by UN because Russia is a member state.

Currently, Turkey has lukewarm relations with Russia. A more hostile Turkey ganging up with other NATO states against Russia would be a major security threat to Russia. — Apollodorus

Turkey's actions are their own. If they act with NATO, that is a decision among all members of NATO. Turkey can't act by itself under the flag of NATO without consent from NATO and NATO is still not an offensive alliance, so NATO would never approve of any offensive acts. You never seem to understand this, and all your reasoning is based on this imaginary NATO threat.

Russia does not threaten the West in the same way the West threatens Russia. It hasn't got military bases next door to England, France, or America. — Apollodorus

Are you actually delusional? What the fuck do you think Putin has been doing during this conflict? Every day he's threatening, with nuclear options, threatening anyone who aids Ukraine, threatening Sweden and Finland for even thinking of joining NATO. On top of that you say that "the west" threatens Russia, but all you have as a foundation for that is a grave misunderstanding of how NATO works.

Just about any US foreign intervention will do. — StreetlightX

Another question I want a simple answer to from you:

Can you pinpoint which foreign interventions that US has done that complies with the definition of genocide?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such." These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.

I want to have simple answers from you:

How does NATO expand? In practice, how does it expand? Are they forcing themselves into nations or are nations joining them?

And why are they joining NATO or want to join NATO?

What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here.
— Christoffer

The citations you should have provided to back up claims like

this is all Putin
— Christoffer

...especially if you're then going to go on to repeat over and over things like...

You still don't know what is going on right now.
— Christoffer

I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens.
— Christoffer

Right. So it shouldn't be the least trouble to provide one of these sources concluding that

this is all Putin
— Christoffer

I could ask of you the same, where are your sources for the conclusions you make?
— Christoffer — Isaac

Fragmentational dilution of my writing like this becomes a childish way of discussing a topic. I won't fall for cheap tricks like this, ugh...

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/the-left-vladimir-putin-russia-war-ukraine
https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf — Isaac

Wait, are you using opinion pieces as sources? Not factual sources for your own inductional reasoning? If you're gonna use sources to argue a point, it becomes extremely skewed if the sources are merly opinion pieces or far-leaning political voices.

My sources for claims about far-right activism and US support for it back in 2014 are here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659557 and here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659771 — Isaac

Has nothing to do with the events today or the acts of Putin. The far-right neo nazis are an insignificant speck on the political spectrum in Ukraine today, but you use this event as some justification for Putin's denazification propaganda reasoning for invading Ukraine?

What is your point? What is your actual argument? Because all I see is you blasting biased sources without any connective lines through any kind of argument with any kind of conclusion that actually focuses on my core argument.

A number of complex interrelated factors, one of which is US foreign policy, one of which is EU central banking, one of which is arms industry lobbying, one of which is the influence of multinational financial instruments... — Isaac

Neither connected to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine, other than you falling for his propaganda machine.

As long as your media outlets are independent trustworthy sources, you can listen to a lot of eastern political scientists confirm exactly what I'm talking about here.
— Christoffer

No I can't because you haven't cited any. A search for "a lot of eastern political scientists" on Google remained frustratingly unspecific I'm afraid. — Isaac

Why must it be " ...not Putin"? Can you really not even conceive of more than one factor? — Isaac

Either you are just not mentally capable of doing internet research, or you don't know how Google works, or just try to rub my argument in the mud with an ill attempt at a childish response. Either way you only do research to fit your narrative, you don't bias-check.

The independent media outlets broadcasting live news with experts from the IRES Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies, have a bit more validity to them than your biased opinion pieces that you linked to. If you then seek sources for what I write about Putin's true ambitions then what you should do in order not to have a biased and irrelevant point of view is to search for research papers published. Like this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-review/article/abs/vladimir-putins-aspiration-to-restore-the-lost-russian-empire/C0099C205BCDBA970CB699AFD534CBE5

Then, if going with articles that are less opinion pieces: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481

Meanwhile, the country was led by Yeltsin, an irascible drunkard in fragile health. The situation was desperate, but Putin had a plan.
"I cannot cover all the tasks facing the government in this speech. But I do know one thing for sure: not one of those tasks can be performed without imposing basic order and discipline in this country, without strengthening the vertical chain," he told the assembled parliamentarians."

He spoke the language of a man who yearned for the lost certainties, who longed for a time when Moscow was to be reckoned with. He did not say it explicitly, but he was clearly stung by Russia's failure to stop Nato driving the forces of its ally, Serbia, out of Kosovo just months previously.

His domestic policy was to restore stability, to end what he called the "revolutions", that had brought Russia low. His foreign policy was to regain Russia's place in world affairs.

Here's a quote from it that I firmly agree with since people don't listen in here:

Those two core aims have driven everything he has done since. If only people had been listening, none of his actions would have come as a surprise to them.

"I think it became absolutely clear when Khodorkovsky was arrested, that Putin was not going after the oligarchs to reassert the power of democratic civil society over these titans. He was doing it as part of building an authoritarian regime,"

"Putin has really painted himself into a corner by destroying every independent source of power in Russia. He now has only the bureaucracy to rely on, and must keep increasing its funding to keep ensuring its loyalty," says Ben Judah, the British author of Fragile Empire, a study of Putin's Russia.

Putin has succeeded in building a version of the country of his childhood, one that can act independently in the world, and one where dissent is controlled and the Kremlin's power unchallenged. But that is a double-edged sword, because the Soviet Union collapsed for a reason, and a Russia recreated in its image risks sharing its fate.

All of that from 2014. Which means that the events since then up until now have further pushed his impatience with building his empire. All of this is perfectly in line with what I've written about Putin's ambitions and his journey from the fall of the Soviet Union, his KGB roots up until now.

That NATO has expanded towards the east is also a false narrative based in the very fact of how NATO expands. Answer me this... how does NATO expand? Are they forcing themselves onto nations, invading them and establishing NATO bases? Or are they rather existing as an allience with open doors to nations wanting to join?

Since we all know that it is the latter, then why do people say that NATO "expand east and put pressure on Russia"? Isn't the true nature of such an expansion, an extension of each nation's will? So the question of expansion as an influence of US imperial influence makes no sense based on a simple fact of A) NATO is not US alone and B) Nations joining NATO do so by their own will, not NATO's. Why do Ukraine want to join NATO? To be a puppet state under the US? No, since NATO doesn't work like that. Do they then want to be part of NATO in order to be safe from Russia? Of course that is the reason. The same reason why Finland and Sweden has this option on their table as well: since Russia, or rather Putin, keeps acting aggressively towards us.

So any narrative of NATO being an aggressor or responsible for Putin's actions are just plain wrong. Putin acts to build his empire, NATO acts as a defense alliance. When nations close to Russia feel threatened by Putin, they lean towards or join NATO to be safe from Russian aggression. In Putin's mind, this is an obstacle to building his empire, which means he views NATO as a threat and spins his propaganda to talk about NATO as an offensive force rather than defensive.

And you've still not answered my very simple question.

What is the advantage of exculpating the US and Europe? Even if they're completely innocent (which has yet to be shown), what is gained by so passionately ensuring their innocence is made clear to all? They're all big boys, they can handle a bit of misapportioned culpability, so why the fervour? — Isaac

What is the advantage of blaming them for everything like you do? You aren't interested in any balanced view or multi-reason answer. You are only interested in concluding the West and US imperial ambitions to be the reasons for every bad thing.

The major thing that you never ever seem to understand is that I've never said anything of Europe or US being "innocent". I'm just saying that your invented guilt of "the west", with lose connections, biased opinion pieces etc. does not connect actions of the west with Putin's action in this conflict or his build-up of modern Russia.

You simply inflate the guilt of the west as being more influential and dismiss any notion of Putin's guilt. When every respectable historian of modern Russia keep concluding that Putin has built up a Russia that is entirely under his rule and authority, then how is it "movie villain" to pinpoint this conflict to be by the hands of one man: Putin?

There's something called logic, reasoning, deduction, induction. If the facts point in one direction, then I am fully capable of making my own conclusions based on the facts that I am gathering as long as I'm careful and minimizing biased sources. Those facts must also be directly connected to the things I'm talking about. The problem I have with people pushing opinions as you do, is that you demand that I find a source that writes out "the truth" in big large letters so it is impossible to dismiss them. Any kind of interpretation or any kind of analysis or inductional reasoning on my part is met by direct dismissal because you don't have those large big letters by a man called "truth teller". So, you don't engage with what I actually write, you don't read it carefully, you don't think about what I write before answering, which leads to a simple dismissal on your part and a parrot circular reasoning where you just re-iterate the same thing over and over. That is failed reasoning on your part.

So once again, answer me this:

What are Putin's intentions based on the history of his rule and rise to power? Why does he actually feel threatened by NATO? In practice, how does NATO expand itself? Does Ukraine not have rights to its own independence? Is Russia ruled by many or just one man (Putin), and if not one man, who shares the power and how?

I've answered all of that, many times. But I want you to answer those questions as well, because those are the key points in my argument that you need to counter in order to counter-argue my conclusions. Everything else you do is just noise with no relation to what I have actually argued.

The fantasy that the US is responsible for everything on earth stems from overestimating US power. It's a form of fetish, an illusion of omnipotence that anglo-saxons are often subject to these days; well, those who still live in the fifties. — Olivier5

This.

I think that those criticizing American exceptionalism by blaming the US for everything are unintentionally being the ones believing in American exceptionalism the most themselves.

Then he should attack Ukraine as hard as possible now. Obliterate Kiev. The problem there is that he'd have to then occupy Ukraine (with American troops taking up residence).

Nah, he's going to have to retreat. — frank

This is another hint at his mental problems. There's no contingency plan for retreat, it almost seems to be "do or die".

I don't think so. He's been really good for Russia (up u til last week :rofl:) — frank

No no, he is still the best for Russia, he says so himself and all the media also says so. If someone says otherwise in his close proximity, they will just be corrected by him so they can arrive at the truth that he is still best for Russia, he is the best. Russia can never have another best leader than Putin. If the world says otherwise he will show them his nuke and then everyone will love him and his big nuke.

He's going to have to pull back. — frank

He won't, it's too embarrassing.

...if he doesn't cook up a really good story for his state media to spin so his people won't unity in hanging him outside Kreml.

Russia almost has a tradition of revolution as intense as the French so I wouldn't be surprised if Putin gets fucked by his people at some point.

I thought Russia's debt would keep this from happening. — frank

With the rate this is going, he won't be able to access anything soon. I just have hope that his and his Oligarchs money gets transferred into help-aid in Ukraine. I would have a celebration if Anonymous hacked that into reality leaving some embarrassing message on the servers.

The ruble is worth less than one cent. This shit is getting real. — frank

Putin can stop it. He could spin the news however he wants, make it look like he "won and withdrew all the brave saviors of Ukraine" and then push to remove the sanctions. But he won't, because he doesn't care about his own people, his economy, or anything other than the creation of his glorious empire.

Even in his talk with Macron he mentioned the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine as his reason. If that were just bullshit propaganda, it's odd that he uses the same rhetoric in a private call with Macron. It hints at him actually believing his own lies. If you lie long enough you start believing the lie.

So he will probably sacrifice his people's economy, sacrifice Russia before admitting any kind of defeat.

"What if [wild speculation]? [ I totally don't make shit up]." — StreetlightX

Just explained how I work on my speculations, but you ignore that and just blah blah blah

The 'immediate threat' has been underway for years, but because you seem intent on plugging your ears at any mention of the US or NATO, you're structurally incapable of framing any solution in any terms other than immediate blame, and, it seems, sheer escalation. — StreetlightX

Chill down please. I've explained in length exactly how US, NATO and Russia/Putin ended up where we ended up. All that threat and danger was all there, I'm just pointing out that US exceptionalism ideals and imperialistic goals or economic proxy wars has little to do with the ambitions driving Putin to the actions we see now. They've provoked him through it, but not as aggressors, but as a hindrance to his empire dreams. But you can read all of that if actually read what I write instead of talking about how "structurally incapable" I am. If you want to act childish it's up to you.