Mikie

Ukraine Crisis
You are supposed to argue that Russia would NOT attack Ukraine if not for NATO expansion. — Jabberwock

So I’m supposed to argue for something that didn’t happen. No thank you.

No, I don’t think there would be a war today if it weren’t for NATO involvement in Ukraine — if that’s what you’re asking. But you keep switching topics. Above I was referring to the current war in Ukraine, the invasion of 2022— not 2014, which is related but not the same.

No, it was not, because the conflict started when Ukraine's prospect of joining NATO were dim. — Jabberwock

It started at the Bucharest summit and escalated from there. But if you’re referring to Crimea, then yes— that occurred for a different reason which you deliberately ignored: the ouster of Yanukovych, which the United States supported. All the while, in the background, NATO membership was of course still on the table.

The connection here is obvious, and you want to gloss over with word games: “Well NATO wasn’t directly involved with overthrowing Yanukovych, so clearly it wasn’t a factor in annexing Crimea.” But you know very well what Yanukovych’s stand was regarding NATO.

So no, NATO prospects were far from dim after the “coup” (according to Russia) that the US and its allies supported.

So much for Crimea. What I’ve been discussing, however, is the current war. The prospects of NATO were there all along, and played a significant (but varied) role in various events prior. The most direct result of the current war was NATO provocation, in the years after 2014 but especially 2021.

The most direct cause of Crimea was Yanukovych‘s overthrow. But again, that’s not the same thing— and in any case, NATO was still a significant factor. The world is complex, and these things are connected. I don’t make a huge distinction between NATO and general “US influence,” as I’ve said. If that’s confusing, fine — I’ll be more precise. But anyone who can’t see how these things are at least interrelated isn’t paying attention.

In any case, the events after 2014 are also interesting. Was this also a time when NATO expansion was off the table? You would think so, after Crimea. But no -- the push continued, even stronger.
— Mikie

No, Putin did not invade Ukraine out of the blue, as I wrote, it was the reaction to Euromaidan. Did you skip that part? — Jabberwock

I assume you saw “after Crimea.” So by “Ukraine invasion” you’re referring to 2022, which is a reaction to Euromaidan? That’s your explanation? Very odd. Quite a delayed reaction.

I was just pointing out that it was part of a bigger process in which the stance of NATO was only a minor point. — Jabberwock

The reaction to the Bucharest Summit was over NATO. This occurred in 2008. So I really don’t know what you’re talking about here.

So, again: make the argument that Russia would NOT invade Ukraine if it e.g. tried to join the EU or broke its ties with Russia. — Jabberwock

I don’t have to, since it didn’t happen. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 — which was different from 2022. Both involved US influence, but the latter’s cause (of the much larger war) was mostly NATO.

So we can see the differences based on reaction. When the EUUAA was signed — a pretty big deal to Russia— there wasn’t the level of reaction of 2022.

Maybe there would be one if Ukraine tried to join the EU— who knows? If so, then that would be the direct cause of the reaction. But since it hasn’t happened, there’s no point discussing it.
Ukraine Crisis
So are you denying that “non sequitur” means “it doesn’t follow” or that it is used as a label for a “logic fallacy”, prof? — neomac

I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is poor. But that's not my fault. I assume you're not a native English speaker, and in that case I'm not making fun -- I certainly wouldn't be good at understanding the nuances of Russian or Spanish.

So it’s false your claim that NATO didn’t expand because of the “Russian threat” . — neomac

What was the threat in 2008, and why was it never mentioned? If kept quiet about, where is the evidence that Russian invasion or aggression was imminent at that time?

I won't hold my breath -- because there was none. Just vague appeals to old tensions, most of them within Ukraine itself (which was deeply split, as is seen from election results/language distribution comparisons).

So if there was no imminent threat from Russia, why did NATO expand? Well, they told us why at the Bucharest Summit. No mystery.

Brzeziński — neomac

Shouldn't that be "your guru Brzenzinski"?

why NATO’s Article 5 [1] (which is clearly defensive) is a security threat aimed against Russia? — neomac

Ask the Russians. They’ll tell you. And it’s they who get to determine what’s threatening to them and what isn’t— not you and me.
— Mikie

No no I’m asking you, because you take Putin’s alleged rationale to actually have not only explanatory but also justificatory power for the origin of this war, not as a convenient lie just to persuade “useful Idiots” in the West, right? — neomac

So you ask me, not the Russians, because you assume I'm going to repeat what the Russian's have said about this?

Your logic is baffling.

The Russian position on NATO was clear that they considered it a threat. You ask why they felt it was a threat, as if this hasn't been explained a thousand times.

What would the threat be if China offered a military pact to Canada, trained Canadian troops, supplied weapons, and conducted military drills along the US border? Why would the US consider this pact a threat? Can you guess? Or would you dismiss that claim as well? If so, I applaud your consistency. If not, what's the difference?

In this case, how could you even complain about Western dirty propaganda, if you fall so candidly to foreign dirty propaganda? — neomac

Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington.

As I argued I’m TOTALLY convinced that Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be “threatening” to Russian security — neomac

Okay…so what’s the issue?
In that case, 2008 was a mistake. The US should not have continued pushing NATO membership for years. Period.
— Mikie

Another non sequitur. — neomac

And again you don't know what that means, or you fail to see the connection. I'll assume the latter, so I'll make it clearer:

(1) If it is true that Russia considered NATO expansion to be a threat (and a "red line"), then
(2) The United States pushing NATO expansion anyway, despite these warnings, was clearly a mistake.

Apparently you're arguing it wasn't a mistake, that somehow pushing for NATO expansion, despite Russian warnings, was a good move. So I assume you think this war is a good thing too. I don’t share that sentiment.

I suppose you believe it was wise for the USSR to put nuclear weapons in Cuba, right? That wasn't a mistake either, by your logic.

As I said one can take “Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be ‘threatening’ to Russian security” as a premise to support NATO expansion as well. — neomac

So when a war finally breaks out because of this expansion, we still think it's just fine?

You'd fit right in with the Washington crowd.
Ukraine Crisis
No one said that. But there wouldn’t have been invasion. Of course NATO is only the most direct cause — but there are others.
— Mikie

How exactly can you know that? — Jabberwock

Because it was stated explicitly, for years, that there would be consequences and that Russia would react to further provocation. When they actually did, it should have come as no surprise -- especially after Biden administration actions in 2021. (Which we could go over if you like -- but I'm not getting into the weeds on any issue when the general argument isn't even understood. If this gives the appearance that I am "unaware" of history, I don't care.)

That's the most direct cause. But there are others, as I've repeatedly said. Incorporating Ukraine wasn't restricted to NATO. That was simply the most threatening. Attempts to liberalize and join the EU were others.

Russian stance on NATO was known clearly in 2008, when this began. It was known by the United States, in fact. Again:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

The above is not Russian propaganda. It was Bush's own ambassador. So Burns was wrong, but you, who act as if you're the only one who's read up on this subject -- apparently consisting of a few Wikipedia articles -- are privy to the "true" motives of Putin's. And the evidence given is that he has supposedly changed his position since 2002. Too bad you weren't around to inform Germany and France that Russian warnings should be ignored, and given them lectures about how the "real" motives were fear of democracy.

Your claim was that the expansion of NATO was provocation to war. If you want to change your mind and say that it was actually general US influence and not the expansion as such, just say so. — Jabberwock

NATO membership is one part of overall US influence, yes. How you think I'm changing my mind on this is baffling. NATO isn't part of United States influence? I see them as one and the same thing -- but even if we're to separate the two somehow, NATO expansion on it's own was the main driver of the Ukraine war.

But irrelevant. Why? Because we don’t continue plans to welcome Ukraine to NATO when Russia, and our own ambassador, warns explicitly (rather than reading minds) that it would be considered a provocation. That is very clear. Which is why all you have in response that’s concrete — and not a nice story — are reports from 2002, six years prior.
— Mikie

And that is exactly what happened - after 2008 the plans of Ukraine joining NATO were shelved and in 2010 Ukraine adopted legislation that would prevent it from joining military alliances. Yet in 2014 Russia has still invaded it, taking Crimea. Given that NATO expansion could no longer serve as a pretext, they have made up different ones. So it seems giving up on NATO does not prevent Russian invasions. — Jabberwock

For someone who feels entitled to give lectures on history, you sure do leave out of a lot when it's convenient. So nothing else happened in 2014 that may be relevant to this story, huh? Putin just decided, out of the blue, to invade Crimea. Is this supposed to be serious? What were the reasons given, and should we at least know them, if not take them seriously? Do you know what they were? Or do you not care, given that you have a direct line to Putin's soul?

In any case, the events after 2014 are also interesting. Was this also a time when NATO expansion was off the table? You would think so, after Crimea. But no -- the push continued, even stronger.

You just pretend that the change of the policy did not happen, because the explanation for that change undermines your whole narrative. — Jabberwock

What change in policy?

To quote the one source in which you have so far based your entire argument:

But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged. — President of Russia

But again, it's really not worth arguing over that. I've already granted you that point. So I hardly am "pretending" otherwise. What I've repeatedly said is that it has nothing to do with 2008. The position then was quite clear. You want to pretend that position, in 2008, can be ignored because of the 'sudden change of heart' from 2002. I think that is and was a grave mistake.

If China, today, announces that they support Taiwan independence, how should we react? Should we say, "Well just last year their stance was completely different"? Should we ignore what they say because it's a change from statements in the past? I don't think so. I think we should listen and take it seriously.
Ukraine Crisis
Anything else you feel like wanting to embarrass yourself with? — neomac

It wasn’t close to a non sequitur. Try learning what words mean before trying to sound smart.

The only one embarrassing themselves is you.

Because to me it’s a textbook example of dismissive comment about the relevance of historical evidences behind NATO expansion against the Russian threat. — neomac

NATO didn’t expand because of the “Russian threat,” which is the point. I’ll go with what was actually said over what long-winded stories you want to share.

why NATO’s Article 5 [1] (which is clearly defensive) is a security threat aimed against Russia? — neomac

Ask the Russians. They’ll tell you. And it’s they who get to determine what’s threatening to them and what isn’t— not you and me.

Maybe Canada joining a “defensive” military alliance with China would be fine in the US— who knows? But I’m guessing the US would consider it a threat— and if I were China, or Canada, I would take that seriously.

declared intentions — neomac

No one is talking about “declared intentions,” only what was considered a provocation and threat — which was clear enough for our own ambassador to understand.

As I argued I’m TOTALLY convinced that Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be “threatening” to Russian security — neomac

Okay…so what’s the issue?

In that case, 2008 was a mistake. The US should not have continued pushing NATO membership for years. Period.

your guru Mearsheimer)
— neomac

your guru Mearsheimer
— neomac

your guru Mearsheimer
— neomac

So, are you just ignorant or what? Hard to take you seriously when you repeatedly sound so silly. — Mikie

your guru Mearsheimer’s — neomac

So you’re just an ignoramus I guess. Oh well.
Ukraine Crisis
Russian imperialists are not so much threatened by the former republics joining a military alliance, but by the very idea of their independence. — Jabberwock

Russian imperialists? I guess that’s just assumed. Given that, we can make up a nice story that removes any US responsibility. How convenient.

Thus the idea that if there were no NATO expansion plans, Russia would happily live peacefully along its neighbors, has little to do with reality. — Jabberwock

No one said that. But there wouldn’t have been invasion. Of course NATO is only the most direct cause — but there are others.

this had nothing to do with NATO — Jabberwock

US influence isn’t restricted to NATO. The US’s plans for Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, had several aspects. The “democratization” pretext is always there. Making the world safe for freedom, etc.— like Iraq and every other country we interfere with.

So no, NATO did not provoke the conflict, the conflict at its core is caused by Ukraine's (and other republics) drive to sovereignty. Whether it chose to join NATO, EU or just tightened informal cooperation with the West while ditching Russian influence, the result would be the same. — Jabberwock

That’s nice. Whether it’s true, who knows? Maybe, maybe not.

But irrelevant. Why? Because we don’t continue plans to welcome Ukraine to NATO when Russia, and our own ambassador, warns explicitly (rather than reading minds) that it would be considered a provocation. That is very clear. Which is why all you have in response that’s concrete — and not a nice story — are reports from 2002, six years prior.

So your entire point was to fill in the “gaps” with the typical United States propaganda. I figured.

“Hey Russia is telling us Ukraine is a red line. Our ambassador agrees. Let’s go ahead and push for it anyway, because they were fine with it years ago and they’re real motive is that they hate freedom.”

No, sorry.
Ukraine Crisis
Yes, Putin said one thing in 2002 and quite another in 2008, even though nothing much happened that had to do with NATO. That is the exact issue I am drawing your attention to. — Jabberwock

Not completely accurate, but irrelevant in any case.

On the contrary, quite a lot happened to justify his change of heart, but it has very llitle to do with NATO. — Jabberwock

Whatever the causes of Russia’s stance, it was indeed their stance in 2008, which is where this current crisis began in earnest.

Whatever point you’re trying to make with 2002, or the lead up to 2008, just state it outright. Maybe Putin found God. Maybe he decided to take over Eastern Europe. Whatever speculation you have, it’s still irrelevant. Russia’s position was clear in 2008. (In fact clear since the 90s, but that’s not relevant so there’s no need discussing it.)

The very fact that you believed that Putin in 2002 was unaware of the planned 2004 expansion — Jabberwock

He was very well aware, yes. Never said otherwise.

on your theory it is completely inexplicable — Jabberwock

No, there are explanations. But all of them are completely irrelevant.
Ukraine Crisis
The Kremlin realizes it doesn't have the power to force the West to reverse its recognition of Kosovo's independence or persuade Washington to drop its plan to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia.

"Georgia's accession into NATO will be seen here as an attempt to trigger a war in the Caucasus, and NATO membership for Ukraine will be interpreted as an effort to foment a conflict with Russia," said Sergei Markov, a Russian parliament member with close links to the Kremlin.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080410213408/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_eu/russia_vs_nato_1

What is unclear about the bolded part?

What’s the response? “Well 6 years ago Putin said something different and nothing has happened to justify a change in heart.” Again, is this serious?
Ukraine Crisis
Yes, because militarily NATO in Ukraine is not much different than NATO in the Baltics. — Jabberwock

It is very different in fact.

So it is not about NATO as such and it never was. — Jabberwock

It has been all along. But things do change at different points in time— which you’re apparently unwilling to understand.

2004, when the three countries you mentioned joined NATO, was after your 2002 quote. That changed things too, but Russia couldn’t do much about it.

but you still have failed to explain what NATO actually DID in that period that would change them — Jabberwock

From the Russian point of view — not mine. I can run through the history if you’d like, but there’s plenty of resources available.

Orange Revolution, but it is not something that NATO did, and Kosovo, which does not really explain the turnabout. — Jabberwock

The 2004 enlargement was one. Orange revolution wasn’t caused by NATO, but neither was Nosovo independence — but NATO supported it, and even led troops there. This did not go unrecognized.

But I don’t really see the sense in this. What are you arguing? Not that the Russians didn’t say it was a threat, but that they were lying — or had no actual reason to fear NATO? If the latter, that’s not up to us to say. Maybe the US has nothing to fear if China decides to make a military pact with Mexico — but listening to the US’s concerns would be wise regardless.

Again, listen to our own ambassador. Was he lying too? If not, then 2008 was the beginning of a great mistake, with foreseeable consequences.

I am glad you feel that way, but Putin has clearly stated that it would not 'cloud the relations' and it is really Ukraine's choice. — Jabberwock

He didn’t say it in 2008, did he? If he did, I’d agree that the reaction to Bucharest would be baffling indeed.

But he didn’t. So apparently you’re much more interested in listening to Putin when it fits your purposes—in 2002– but unwilling to do so from 2008, which is far more relevant, when he says that NATO including Ukraine is a “direct threat.”

Also from 2008:

So, about Kosovo. Mr. Сhairman has said that everybody respects Resolution 1244, but if everybody respected Resolution 1244, there would not be any one-sided declaration of independence. But I do not want to discuss this issue, we have discussed it at the G8, as well as at other forums, and we made a decision that we consider it illegal and able to cause serious consequences. But, if you noticed, we do not force anything. We formulated our position, and our position is open, but we do not go off into hysterics on this issue, and you should have paid attention to how reserved we were in the Caucasus on this issue. Of course, this policy puts us into a very complicated position at the post-Soviet space, because we have there enough situations similar to that with Kosovo – it is Transdniestria, Southern Ossetia, Abkhazia, Karabakh – there are many such situations. And you put us into a very complicated position, but we are trying to wriggle and behave very carefully, without destroying the situation there and without provoking military conflicts. That is why, however sad it may seem, but we here are also ready to look for any consensus, or a way out of the situation. Now I do not specify which exactly situation, I do not want to anticipate anything, in any case, we are ready to hear you, ready to think, ready to work somehow together.

As for the policy of expanding the alliance, we have been attentively watching your discussion yesterday. On the whole, of course, we are satisfied with your decisions, which took place. But If I speak about Georgia and Ukraine, it is clear that the matter concerns not only security issues. For our Georgian friends, of course, it is one of means to restore their territorial integrity, as they believe. Besides, by means of force, under the aegis of NATO. It is an old, many-years, lasting for more than a hundred years, ethnic conflict between Georgians, between Abkhazians (it is a small ethnic group, it numbers a mere 200 thousand people), between Ossetians, for a hundred years, and more, these conflicts are ethnic. To solve these problems they need not to enter NATO, they should have patience, establish dialog with small ethnic groups. And we have been trying to help them, besides, to help Georgia restore its territorial integrity. And even despite the decisions on Kosovo, we will not recognize the independence of these quasipublic formations, though they have been calling on us since long ago, for decades already. We have been very responsible, very weighted, and call on you to be careful as well.

But in Ukraine, one third are ethnic Russians. Out of forty five million people, in line with the official census, seventeen millions are Russians. There are regions, where only the Russian population lives, for instance, in the Crimea. 90% are Russians. Generally speaking, Ukraine is a very complicated state. Ukraine, in the form it currently exists, was created in the Soviet times, it received its territories from Poland – after the Second World war, from Czechoslovakia, from Romania – and at present not all the problems have been solved as yet in the border region with Romania in the Black Sea. Then, it received huge territories from Russia in the east and south of the country. It is a complicated state formation. If we introduce into it NATO problems, other problems, it may put the state on the verge of its existence. Complicated internal political problems are taking place there. We should act also very-very carefully. We do not have any right to veto, and, probably, we do not pretend to have. But I want that all of us, when deciding such issues, realize that we have there our interests as well. Well, seventeen million Russians currently live in Ukraine. Who may state that we do not have any interests there? South, the south of Ukraine, completely, there are only Russians.

https://www.unian.info/world/amp-111033-text-of-putin-s-speech-at-nato-summit-bucharest-april-2-2008.html

The President stressed that Russia has taken numerous steps to build confidence and hoped for a similar response from NATO, but has so far yet to see it. Russia will defend its positions, he said, but is always open to cooperation based on equality and mutual trust.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/44078
Ukraine Crisis
No, it is not the most direct cause, as it was not a cause of war with Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia. — Jabberwock

Is this serious?

NATO did not actively do anything in that period that would make it a bigger threat to Russia. — Jabberwock

Oh good — glad you feel that way. The Russians felt differently. Our own ambassador acknowledges the sentiment in the memo I cited above. I guess none of that matters, since according to some internet dude Russia had no reason to view NATO as a threat. :up:

Thus the difference between 'Ukraine in NATO is not a big concern to us' in 2002 and 'it is a grave threat' in 2008 has nothing to do with its location. — Jabberwock

But it does have to do with the events that occurred after 2002.

And the idea that Russia was OK with Ukraine membership in NATO in 2002 is flawed anyway— and contradicted by the same article. But even accepting it wholesale, there’s a concept called “time”, and so things change between one year and the next. Worth paying attention to.
Ukraine Crisis
The proponents of the theory 'it is all because of NATO expansion' are just content with stating that he suddenly in 2008 started to see Ukraine in NATO as a vital threat, while he was and is perfectly calm about the Baltics or the Scandinavian countries. They feel no need to explain that difference, even though such view is absurdly irrational. — Jabberwock

It’s not all because of NATO expansion. But that’s the most direct cause.

Also, it wasn’t “sudden.” As explained earlier. You seem to ignore changes from 2002 to 2008.

Lastly, the differences are obvious. Russia doesn’t like any of it, as they were promised NATO wouldnt expand in the 90s, but Ukraine is unique. Look at a map and you’ll see why.
Ukraine Crisis
if it was not a vital threat in 2002, why would it be in 2008? — Jabberwock

He didn’t say it wasn’t a threat in 2002. But recall this was after 9/11, and the issue was terrorism. Yes, things changed between 2002 and 2008. Is that not obvious?

What happened? The Orange Revolution, for one. But there were other tensions, including issues with Nosovo at the beginning of 2008. Any cooperation with NATO was out the window long before the Bucharest summit.
Ukraine Crisis
This is a non sequitur. — neomac

Learn what these words mean before using them.

your dismissive attitude toward overwhelming historical evidences — neomac

Nope. That was your projection.

Pls fill in a few of the most unequivocal quotes from Putin 2000-2008 presidency explaining why Ukraine is a “red line” and what that implies, what is going to happen if it is crossed — neomac

I just did above. Plenty more.

The appearance on our borders of a powerful military bloc ... will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country's security,

Again what do you mean by “Russia was such a threat”, — neomac

That Russia has imperial ambitions, that they seek to conquer not just Ukraine but other countries, etc. Claims that have been made by the US and others since 2014, and retroactively made as justification for 2008 — which isn’t true.

NATO is a hegemonic security supplier and Ukraine is a non-hegemonic security seeker (from Russian threats), that is how they met each other. Anyone with a working brain would get that knowing the history of Russia and the history of Ukraine. — neomac

I’ve already acknowledged this.

Indeed American as any hegemon can commit mistakes and very big ones, but even in this case that doesn’t necessarily mean that NATO involvement was not justified AT ALL. It can simply mean that NATO involvement was poorly planned and/or executed. — neomac

It wasn’t poorly planned, and of course there are reasons and justifications given. The actual reason is that the US wanted to make Eastern Europe like Western Europe, and figured Russia was to weak to do anything about it. So in 2008, despite warnings, they started the process anyway.

You can buy the US rationale if you want to. I don’t. But either way, the outcome was clear: it would provoke Russia. This was known since the early 90s, in fact.

but the latter PRESUPPOSES that Russia was interested in preventing NATO expansion in Ukraine — neomac

Are you really not convinced that at least by 2008, Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be threatening to Russian security? They said so explicitly. It’s not about what you or I feel, it’s about how they felt about it. The US knew, and has known for years, and made the decision to go forward with expansion anyway. So Crimea and now the Ukraine War shouldn’t be a mystery.

As I quoted above, the US’s own ambassador knew this and warned the secretary of state (Rice):

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

your guru Mearsheimer) — neomac

your guru Mearsheimer — neomac

your guru Mearsheimer — neomac

You seem obsessed with this guy. I haven’t cited him once— except in response to your referencing him. He’s hardly a “guru” of mine, although he’s a valuable resource.

So, are you just ignorant or what? Hard to take you seriously when you repeatedly sound so silly. Makes it easier to ignore most of your cumbersome writing though.
Ukraine Crisis
↪Jabberwock

"The appearance on our borders of a powerful military bloc ... will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country's security,"

That’s fairly straightforward. This is 2008.

It wasn’t just Putin, of course.

The US ambassador, William Burns, said as much in his memo to the secretary of state:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/28/did-the-us-really-take-russias-nato-concerns-very-seriously/
Ukraine Crisis
↪Jabberwock

But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged. — President of Russia

And what was that position exactly?
Climate Change (General Discussion)
↪Agree-to-Disagree

Good one?

↪Agree-to-Disagree

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1201781387/climate-change-emissions-report-offers-hope
Climate Change (General Discussion)
↪Agree-to-Disagree

Does daftness get tiresome?
Ukraine Crisis
Why stupid provocation? — neomac

Because Russia had stated, for years, that NATO membership in Ukraine was considered a red line. There was no reason to do so.

You’re confusing the very real tensions between Ukraine and Russia, which Mearsheimer discusses, and the justification for NATO involvement, which today is claimed to be the threat of Russian imperialism — which is incorrect, and which is why the very same person (Mearsheimer) was rightly against it all along, including 1993.

If Russia was such a threat, surely that would have been mentioned in 2008. But even if kept secret for whatever reason, anyone with a working brain would see that NATO involvement would only exacerbate the issue, thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy.

But then what was the point of having Ukraine joining NATO? — neomac

US hegemony. To make Ukraine a “Western bulwark on Russian borders.” Russia was believed to be too WEAK to prevent NATO expansion at that point, in 2008.

It certainly wasn’t because of a Russian imperialist threat. Which is why none of that was mentioned, and which is why Putin was himself at the summit. Any talk of Russian threats as justification for NATO wasn’t even mentioned until 2014.

I’ll skip the rest of your jumbled ramblings. You’ve not shown you even understand what’s being argued. I’m talking about Putin’s Russia, 2000-2008, and about NATO. I’m not talking about historical relations or ancient history or 90s reactions to the dissolution of the USSR. That’s your own diversion.
Ukraine Crisis
NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.

Where is the mention of Russian imperialism? Where is the Russian threat that warranted NATO membership, after it was made clear this would be considered by Russia to be a provocation?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

I guess it’ll just never be admitted that the US provoked this war long ago, out of fear that this somehow makes Putin inculpable. Which it doesn’t.
Ukraine Crisis
mine was just a typo — neomac

It wasn’t a typo. 1993 and 2013 are vastly different. You simply misread the fact that the article was accessed in the 2010s. You just carelessly used it in the hopes it would support your case, failing to notice it supports exactly what I mentioned — and which you can’t seem to follow (or won’t allow yourself to). But your poor reading comprehension isn’t my fault.

But good to know you can’t even own up to mistakes, and that I’m basically dealing with a child. Your poor writing skills and silly attempts at insults were proof enough. I appreciate the extra confirmation though. :up:
Ukraine Crisis
Yes it is, indeed this is what was argued to support NATO — neomac

70 years ago.

That’s not what was argued in 2008.

After the collapse of Soviet Union, the US didn’t fear imminent hegemonic competition from Russia OBVIOUSLY. — neomac

Right— which makes the Bucharest Summit an unnecessary and stupid provocation.

So Russia was considered “such a threat” by many prominent/influential Western analysts and East European countries — neomac

No, it wasn’t.

Nor was Russian imperialism cited as a reason in 2008.

Indeed I cited it precisely because it talks about Russian threats prior 2008 — neomac

No, it doesn’t. You’re inability to comprehend what you read isn’t my problem. I’ll help:

No one was claiming Putin had imperialist ambitions back then. — Mikie

Which is true. Which your falsely-dated reference outlines very well:

Political will aside, extending NATO’s security umbrella into the heart of the old Soviet Union is not wise. It is sure to enrage the Russians and cause them to act belligerently. — The Article You Quoted But Didn’t Understand

Which is exactly what happened 15 years after this article, at the Bucharest Summit. It’s laughable you still think this somehow supports all the smoke you blow

your guru Mearsheimer

He’s not my guru. You’re the one citing him, not me.

I’m more partial to the late Stephen Cohen. I’d recommended his analysis too.
Climate Change (General Discussion)
with the $2.2 TRILLION that the US is spending to slow global warming? — Agree-to-Disagree

You’ve been corrected on this several times now. The US government is NOT spending 2.2 trillion on climate change. Not even close. And that figure is from a bill that didn’t pass anyway.

Stop deliberately spreading misinformation.
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
↪Michael

What a shocker.

This lawsuit should have happened decades ago. He’s been a degenerate fraud since at least the 80s, after all.
Ukraine Crisis
relevant evidences to fix security dilemmas in geopolitics (have you ever heard of Mearsheimer's offensive realism?). — neomac

The same Mearsheimer who agrees there was no evidence whatsoever of Putin’s imperialism for the NATO provocation in 2008? Sure.

Russian history? That’s like arguing that we should surround the nation of Germany because, you know…stuff that happened 80+ years ago. If that’s what you mean, no I don’t consider that evidence for why NATO needed expansion at the Bucharest summit in April of 2008. A meeting in which Putin was invited. (Odd move if he was considered such a threat.)

The narrative of Russian imperialism prior to 2008 necessitating the expansion of NATO is revisionism. That’s not what happened. Which is why you and people like you can give no evidence of it, and have to report to vague statements like “Russian history.”

So much so that you guru Mearsheimer wrote an article about it in Summer 2013 — neomac

No he didn’t. He wrote that in 1993. And he never once advocates for Ukraine becoming a member of NATO— in fact accurately predicts that any tensions between the countries would only escalate if that happened. Which is exactly what happened. He states this clearly in the paper you cite but apparently didn’t read.

Try to get the basic facts right at least.
Ukraine Crisis
Still, after 510 pages, no one has given a shred of evidence for the “Russian threat” prior to 2008, when the NATO provocation began.

No one was claiming Putin had imperialist ambitions back then. Now the story has changed retroactively, ignoring historical fact to justify the continuation of war and take a sizable responsibility off the US.
Ukraine Crisis
↪neomac

Weren’t you the one claiming that Putin was an imperialist trying to take over the world a while back? Right…
Ukraine Crisis
A year and a half into the US-provoked war*, and they’re fighting hard with Ukrainian lives to keep the war going. It’s been a windfall for defense contractors, so it’s all good politically.

Interesting to watch Republicans claiming they’re against funding…see how long that lasts.

Reveal
* Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all while Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative).
Climate Change (General Discussion)
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:

Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:

That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:

And over 800 thousand years:

Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

Reveal
Borrowed from a prior post of mine a few months back.
Climate Change (General Discussion)
Just worth throwing these out here again:
Climate Change (General Discussion)
The Earth is much bigger and more complex than a house. — Agree-to-Disagree

:ok:

Nevermind. Bye.
Climate Change (General Discussion)
What you did forget about Mikie is that MANY locations on Earth will be better because of a little global-warming. — Agree-to-Disagree

:snicker: Yeah we’ve gone over this already. I think @unenlightened did a good job unpacking that statement.

My house burning down has positive aspects too— like creating lots of briquettes.

Anything else to say or are we now at the repeating BS state?

Would be great: — jorndoe

Indeed.
Climate Change (General Discussion)
That means things are getting better, because nearer to God. — unenlightened

Nearly forgot about him. God and free markets. Two foundational beliefs.
Climate Change (General Discussion)
"In history" you say, that is quite an absurd exaggeration. — Merkwurdichliebe

No, it isn’t.

the world coming to an end — Merkwurdichliebe

Strawman.

ccp — Merkwurdichliebe

China deflection.

Actually the CCP are doing far more than the Republicans. And they also don’t pretend climate change isn’t happening. Whatever their failings, they don’t hold a candle to the most dangerous organization in history.

But way to go exhuming that old diversion. :clap:
Climate Change (General Discussion)

Another ~~conspiracy~~ narrative graph.

But how do we REALLY know there’s that much CO2 or that the temperatures have risen? Have YOU seen the thermometers or ice core samples? Have YOU been to Mauna Loa?

Science has been wrong before! We should question the ~~overwhelming evidence~~ narratives! And I say this because I’m super smart and free thinking. Unlike the dupes that listen to these “climate scientist” types.

But Heritage Foundation is cool. And trustworthy. Because they have no reason whatsoever to undermine trust in science or deliberately manufacture doubt.
Ukraine Crisis
Just because Ukraine has Nazi paramilitaries and just because it's impossible to take photos of Ukrainian soldiers without capturing Nazi insignia and just because Ukrainian Nazis get applauded in parliament doesn't mean we're on the side of the Nazis, you crazy Russian shill. — Johnstone
Climate Change (General Discussion)
↪Agree-to-Disagree

No, I just have little tolerance for climate deniers spreading propaganda from the Heritage Foundation. There’s no “black and white” fallacy. And the attempts to portray those who listen to the counter scientists and overwhelming evidence is, as usual, quite pathetic.

Anyway — do you have anything left to add to this thread? Any more Koch propaganda you’d like to share? If not, consider running along.
Climate Change (General Discussion)
That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money. — flannel jesus

No no! Remember he said not to question the person or the institution. So that’s ruled out. Except when dealing with scientists and scientific institutions around the world — that’s where the real conspiracy lies.

NASA and the Royal Society? Questionable sources — never mind the evidence.

The Heritage Foundation? Hey stick with what’s said.
Climate Change (General Discussion)
If nearly a trillion dollars has been spent, and almost no progress has been made, who has been getting lots of money for producing next to nothing. We definitely need to follow the climate change money. — Agree-to-Disagree

Except plenty of progress has been made, and Moore’s claims that anyone is saying otherwise is, as usual, complete nonsense that you lap up unquestioningly.

For someone so skeptical of climate science, you sure do put a lot of trust in the Heritage Foundation and non-climate scientists.

It’s almost as if this were selective skepticism.

Moore rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2009, he described climate change as "the biggest scam of the last two decades."[25] In columns and op-eds, Moore called those with concerns about climate change "Stalinistic" and has accused climate scientists of being part of a global conspiracy to obtain money via research grants.[26][27] In an April 2019 interview, Moore said that the Federal Reserve should not consider the economic impacts of climate change in decision-making.[28]

Just a non-biased source bravely questioning the establishment, the groupthink of scientists around the world who are just faking the data for research grants, and who don’t dare present the “evidence” disproving climate change.

People believe this stuff. Do people this ignorant really exist or am I being punk’d?
Climate Change (General Discussion)
How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

What “research” dares to question it? All I’m seeing is the usual claims of “maybe data is being suppressed because of Big Climate” conspiracies. No research whatsoever. Just stupid claim after stupid claim by an economic commentator for a conservative think tank.

While it’s funny that he accurately describes himself, plenty of con man do the same thing. “I’m not gonna steal your money — what do you think I am, a con man?”

Naomi Oreskes has documented this very well.
— Mikie

:rofl: — Agree-to-Disagree

What’s funny about that?

Oh wait, you’re just imitating me, like a child. My bad— I forgot who I was dealing with.

Fits right in with everything else you’ve written. “Big oil” — no, “big climate!” :rofl:
Climate Change (General Discussion)

Is this graph too hard to understand? Is it a narrative? Is it the result of scientific groupthink? Is it all based on made-up data? Is it really nothing to worry about?

It’s no coincidence that right wing/ conservative/libertarian/Christian evangelical ideology is usually at the heart of climate denial. Naomi Oreskes has documented this very well.

Thus the well-qualified “skeptics” here making fools of themselves are the very same people who defend Donald Trump, who constantly harp against communism and socialism, are always whining about big government, and/or are devout Christians.

Have they simply been groomed by Koch propaganda? Sure. But it goes beyond climate denial.
Climate Change (General Discussion)
Good data and reliable information — javi2541997

Oh? Like what?

Because so far you’ve shown excellent judgment.

↪Merkwurdichliebe

↪javi2541997

↪Agree-to-Disagree

Why don’t you three geniuses start a thread about how climate change is a Chinese hoax or whatever. :up:

Home » Mikie

More Comments

Start FollowingSend a Message