Well, I think you are confusing yourself, aside from having an unusually short or defective memory ....

By your own admission, I "have the historical facts correct" so, presumably, you accept those facts. As for how America put pressure on France, I have explained that to you on other threads already as well as here at page 6!

We need to begin with the fact that France was opposed to integrating its economy with that of Germany. The original French idea was for Germany to be dismembered and its coal and steel industries placed under French control.

France was on the Allied Control Council in Germany and used its veto power to oppose German reconstruction, let alone unification with France. That’s where the frictions with the Americans started. This went on until the Marshall Plan was proposed in 1947 when France suddenly changed its mind under US pressure, but only agreed to merge its Occupation Zone with the American and British ones in 1949.

US remarks about French objections and the need to put pressure on the French are well-documented as can be seen from the records in US and EU archives.

Oct 22 1949, Meeting of United States Ambassadors at Paris (attended by McCloy):

As for US policy, it must be directed towards pressing for the acceptance of Germany into the European Councils. We must put pressure on the French to let the Germans come in on a dignified basis…

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers, Oct. 22

Oct 30 1949, Acheson letter to Schuman (in which he tells Schuman to take action “to promptly and decisively integrate US-controlled Germany into Western Europe”):

Whether Germany will in the future be a benefit or a curse to the free world will be determined, not only by the Germans, but by the occupying powers. … Our own stake and responsibility is also greater. Now is the time for French initiative and leadership of the type required to integrate the German Federal Republic promptly and decisively into Western Europe … We have also reserved to ourselves in the Occupation Statute very considerable powers with respect to the action of the German Federal Republic …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) – CVCE

You are saying that the French proposed a European Coal and Steel Community in 1950:

So if it's the French Foreign Minister that first proposes an European Coal and Steel Community in 1950 — ssu

Obviously, this is one of your usual straw men, because Marshall proposed his Plan in May 1947 and France started receiving US aid in December, even before the Marshall Plan became effective in April 1948.

If you are unaware of the fact that 1947 is chronologically prior to 1950, this is your fault, not mine.

Moreover, European economic integration was stipulated in the official Congress act as a precondition for Marshall Plan aid. This means that, by definition, when France signed up to the Plan, which it did at the Franco-British Paris Conference of July 1947, i.e., even before the plan officially came into effect, it committed itself to abide by the plan. There is nothing unclear about that.

Of course, France could have refused. But it depended on US financial and military assistance in its wars in Indochina and Algeria. So it had no choice but to comply with US demands. And once it had accepted US aid, it was obliged to deliver what it had agreed to.

In any case, the Americans clearly asked France to see to it that Franco-German integration went ahead, and we've got the documents to prove this.

So, denying the facts, especially after accepting that they are correct, seems pretty irrational to me.

And, as I've said many times before, posting irrelevant pictures does absolutely nothing to support your spurious arguments. :grin:

Of course, France could have refused. But it depended on US financial and military assistance in its wars in Indochina and Algeria. So it had no choice but to comply with US demands. And once it had accepted US aid, it was obliged to deliver what it had agreed to. — Apollodorus

Oh right.

This is something that happened far earlier than Suez. You see, if you have the US forcing something on France and the UK, there you have the example. Not here.

How you interpret for example the Dean Acheson letter as "forcing France to do" is beyond me, or anyone that reads the letter.

Now you might refer to historical events, but we disagree in the interpretation. Where you have a total blindspot can be seen from many of your comments, just like the following, for example:

If we think about it, the EU has a population of some 450 million. And yet it plays second fiddle to America with a population of only 330 million. Surely, this can't be right. Shameful and disgraceful, really. And definitely undemocratic. — Apollodorus

You see, I gather you understand well the policy of "divide et impera", divide and rule. Yet you have really problems to understand the opposite, a policy to encourage integration and union, and how it actually works. It has been very successful for the US. Yet this strategy only works when there is a mutual desire to do it and when those to be encouraged to integrate don't view the other (here the US) as a threat. Divide and rule "works" when otherwise the people would form an alliance against you.

And why it is shameful and disgraceful not to aspire for World domination and be a team player I really don't know.

:rofl: I think it is you who has no understanding of how international relations work and that it is a give-and-take process in which the party that holds the weaker bargaining chips has to give in to the party with the stronger hand.

France was fighting a war with the Việt Minh in Indochina (1946-1954) and with the National Liberation Front in Algeria (1954-1962). Therefore, it depended on US financial and military assistance and had to comply with US demands. Nothing to do with Suez!

Your argument was that European states were “sovereign” at the time they joined the economic integration process leading to the European Union (EU).

My counterargument is that “sovereign” in this context cannot be used in an unqualified sense.

To begin with, some European states like Germany and Austria were under Allied military occupation which really means US control, as the US held the supreme Allied command.

Germany, which was the focus of US interest and at the very core of the European project, got a constitution in 1949 but it was never put to public vote and the US expert involved in drafting it, Prof. Friedrich, observed that it was “not the creation of a free people”:

On May 8, 1949 – the fourth anniversary of unconditional surrender – the Parliamentary Council - adopted at Bonn the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany … Any consideration of this Basic Law should start from the fact that the charter is not the creation of a free people …

- Carl J. Friedrich, “Rebuilding the German Constitution, II”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 43, No. 4 Aug. 1949, p. 704.

Moreover, as Germany remained under Allied occupation, its relations with the Allies were dictated by the Occupation Statute that was in force until 1955.

Article 2 of the Statute says:

2. In order to ensure the accomplishment of the basic purposes of the occupation, powers in the following fields are specifically reserved, including the right to request and verify information and statistics needed by the occupation authorities:
…
c) foreign affairs, including international agreements made by or on behalf of Germany

Text of Occupation Statute promulgated on the 12th May 1949 by the Military Governors and Commanders in Chief of the Western Zones – CVCE

So, the law that was in force at the time placed German foreign policy and international agreements under the control of the US-led Allied military commanders.

US State Secretary Acheson admits that the Allies were making decisions on behalf of the Germans.

Oct. 30 1949, Acheson to Schuman:

These difficult problems involve direct and indirect interests of our own, and in most of them we have grown accustomed in the past four years to making decisions for the Germans …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) - CVCE

US High Commissioner in Germany, John J. McCloy himself admitted that he had "the powers of a dictator":

I had the powers of a dictator as High Commissioner of Allied Forces in West Germany, but I think I was a benevolent dictator. I think the rebuilding came off very well, with no significant problems.

John J. McCloy, Lawyer and Diplomat, Is Dead at 93 – New York Times

Surely, you can see that you cannot possibly simultaneously have (a) a sovereign Germany and (b) a Germany controlled by a (self-confessed) US dictator?

I think the evidence is overwhelming that Germany was NOT a “sovereign” state.

France was under US pressure, as already explained.

Smaller countries that depended on the economies of Germany and France had no choice but to join them.

By definition, the states involved (1) had to comply with the economic integration program stipulated in the Marshall Plan and (2) had to cede some of their sovereign powers to supranational institutions as the said institutions could not have functioned otherwise.

It follows that it is incorrect to insist that these European countries were (or are) unqualifiedly “sovereign”. At the very least, given America’s economic, financial, and military dominance, they were less free to manifest their sovereignty than America, especially vis-à-vis the latter.

What you are claiming there doesn't make any sense and is inconsistent with both logic and the historical evidence ....

I don't get what all the fuss is over Ukraine. Russia wants a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO - NATO will not agree to that. There's an easy solution - compromise.

Russia
Give back Crimea
Agree to a demilitarized zone on Ukraine border - to be monitored by UN

NATO
Ukraine will not be invited to join NATO for some period of time - say until 2050.

There - wasn't that easy? I'm gonna take off the rest of the day. Tomorrow I'll solve the Middle East crisis . . .

There - wasn't that easy? — EricH

Not quite.

In 1951, China invaded, occupied and annexed Tibet.

In 1974, Turkey (a NATO member!) invaded and occupied North Cyprus.

I think Tibet and Cyprus must be returned to their original and rightful owners before any demands are placed on Russia.

Therefore, it depended on US financial and military assistance and had to comply with US demands. Nothing to do with Suez! — Apollodorus

You didn't understand.

The Suez crisis was the time when the US used real pressure on UK and France to stop their military operation. That's the time when the US used pressure. Not when they asked France to take leadership on an issue both countries agreed on. Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that sometimes countries can find policies they both find beneficial.

To begin with, some European states like Germany and Austria were under Allied military occupation which really means US control, as the US held the supreme Allied command. — Apollodorus

And others were not defeated Axis powers.

I think Tibet and Cyprus must be returned to their original and rightful owners before any demands are placed on Russia. — Apollodorus

Who do you think their rightful owners are? Independent Tibet? And with Cyprus? UK? The Ottoman Empire? The Venetians?

Back to the actual topic of the thread:

Macron held talks with Putin. I think France is also in charge of the EU presidency now. At least France and Russia agreed on something. Perhaps the way out of this threat of war is for the Normandy process to continue and the Minsk peace agreement to be ratified. If this is done, of course the West ought to support Ukraine that the agreement isn't used as a Trojan horse by Russia (which Ukraine fears). And Putin would show to his domestic public that he has showed it again to the West and the border camping-trip of perhaps 170 000 troops was needed.

(They couldn't find a longer table?)


Or then he could perhaps just annex parts of Donbass that he already has and nobody basically can do anything about it. At least the shelling might stop then.

Who do you think their rightful owners are? Independent Tibet? — ssu

That’s just more weasel words and straw men, isn’t it?

Of course Tibet should belong to the Tibetans! Who do you think Finland should belong to? Sweden maybe? :grin:

You are obviously unaware of the fact that there is a Tibetan government-in-exile (based in India) and that in 1991, US President George Bush signed a Congressional Act that explicitly called Tibet "an occupied country", and identified the Dalai Lama and his administration as "Tibet's true representatives".

Your comments merely expose the inconsistency and double standards of the anti-Russia camp. And as I said before, irrelevant pictures should not be mistaken for rational argument.

If we put to one side the political activism, the “nuke-the-Russians” sloganeering, and the pro-EU and pro-NATO propaganda, we must admit that unlimited expansion as insisted on by the EU and NATO (a) logically leads to world government and (b) is bound to lead to conflict with those nations that decline to submit to EU or NATO rule, like Russia and China.

This means that national sovereignty isn’t something that should be ignored. If we base our arguments on the national sovereignty of Ukraine, then we should also consider the sovereignty of other countries, including Russia, and above all, the sovereignty of the European countries that are part of NATO and the European Union (EU).

We have seen that Germany, which was at the core of the US-led European integration project, was not a sovereign country. When it signed the 1951 Treaty of Paris which established the European Coal and Steel Community which pursued “ever-closer union among European nations” and formed the foundations on which the EU was built, Germany was under Allied military occupation.

Germany’s 1949 constitution was not submitted to popular vote, it was simply approved by the occupying powers.

Article 24 (of the original version) says:

The Federation [of German Länder] may join a system of mutual collective security; in doing so, it will agree to restrictions on its sovereign rights.

Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 23. Mai 1949 - DokumentArchiv

At the Treaty of Paris, the signatory countries also issued the Europe Declaration which stated:

By the signature of this Treaty, the involved parties give proof of their determination to create the first supranational institution and that thus they are laying the true foundation of an organised Europe. This Europe remains open to all European countries that have freedom of choice. We profoundly hope that other countries will join us in our common endeavour.

But, first, as we have seen, this “freedom-of-choice” formula merely served to mask the fact that the signatory nations themselves were not quite as “free” as one might think.

Second, they ceded some of their sovereign rights to the supranational institutions they were creating, and so did new members.

Third, as later became apparent, this supranational and “organized” Europe was open not only to European countries but also to sundry non-European ones, like Turkey, a Mid-Eastern (or West Asian) country, and even to Russia itself, a country that stretches as far east as China and North Korea!

Indeed, EU-related institutions and programs like the European Neighborhood Policy, the Eastern Partnership, the Union for the Mediterranean, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe, and many others, demonstrate the EU’s insatiable appetite for expansion.

And fourth, this constant expansion is not simply a matter of candidate countries opting to join. It is a gradual and highly intricate process in which a country is drawn into a spiderweb of agreements, treaties, rules, regulations, and laws, often without the general public even being aware. Even governments may be unaware of all the legal, financial, and economic ramifications.

A country becomes a member of EU-related institutions years before it joins the EU. And every time it does so, it gives up a chunk of its sovereignty, so that it becomes debatable exactly how “sovereign” a country is at the moment it “freely” becomes an EU member.

Here is a BBC article from 2016 when Britain was still part of the EU:

Britain is a parliamentary democracy. That means we all get to choose the parliaments that make decisions on our behalf at Westminster.
And between elections, those parliaments are sovereign. But in 1972, the UK Parliament decided to give up some of that sovereignty.
It chose to pool some power with other countries in what was then called the European Community. And that means that on some issues, it is the EU institutions in Brussels and not MPs in Westminster who have the final say.
There is disagreement over how many of the laws that govern our lives originate in the European Union. Some of those campaigning to remain in the EU claim that only 13% of laws passed by Parliament implement the UK's obligations under EU law.
This figure ignores the many EU regulations that are automatically binding on the UK and do not pass through Parliament ....

- UK and the EU: Sovereignty and laws, stats and facts – BBC News, May 31, 2016

Note that this is the BBC, not Russian propaganda. It took Britain about four years to leave the EU and it is still mired in legal wrangles with member countries, some like France even demanding that Britain be “punished” for leaving.

And we mustn’t forget that this “free and sovereign” Europe remains dominated by and dependent on America and US-dominated or -controlled organizations like NATO.

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.

If America wants Russia to get out of Europe, then it should lead by example and go first. And Europeans should encourage it to do so ....

So it was all a negotiation tactic?

We'll see what it was.

The likeliest thing is that this hasn't gone as Putin planned earlier, the moves of the game are still going on.

Your comments merely expose the inconsistency and double standards of the anti-Russia camp. And as I said before, irrelevant pictures should not be mistaken for rational argument. — Apollodorus

Lol.

I think an Independent Tibet would be great. There is Nepal, Bhutan etc. so why not an Independent Tibet! On the status of the government-in-exile I didn't know. China is another of these countries who see as a victim of history and having the right to it's "old provinces".

we must admit that unlimited expansion as insisted on by the EU and NATO (a) logically leads to world government — Apollodorus

:roll:

-Wasn't that already the UN? :snicker:

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there. — Apollodorus

Oh sure, @Apollodorus. But apparently they are not allowed to make organizations and collaborate with each other.

The likeliest thing is that this hasn't gone as Putin planned earlier, the moves of the game are still going on. — ssu

You mean about splitting the US off from NATO? Or what?

There is Nepal, Bhutan etc. so why not an Independent Tibet! On the status of the government-in-exile I didn't know. — ssu

This only demonstrates that you don't know. And that your earlier question about who the rightful owners of Tibet are was a rhetorical one, which seems to be your idea of "discussing" things.

The fact is that those who want to see sanctions or military action against Russia for invading Ukraine, are being inconsistent and duplicitous if they refuse to call for action against China for invading and occupying Tibet or against Turkey for invading and occupying Cyprus.

These are unacceptable double standards, especially coming from NATO of which Turkey is a member.

Plus, you are misrepresenting my statements. I never said European countries can't form alliances. What I'm saying is that EU and NATO unlimited expansion can only lead to world government and that countries objecting to this have a right to take countermeasures.

And I was objecting to Europe being dominated by America and its British and German puppets. Not everyone in Europe wants to be ruled by Washington and NATO, in the same way not all Americans want to be dominated by Paris or Berlin.

There have been protests in Slovakia against a defense treaty with NATO

And France’s Macron has said:

Can NATO solve the whole question of Europe’s collective security? I don’t believe so. There is no security for Europeans if there is no security for Russia. Russia is European. Whoever believes in Europe must know how to work with Russia and find the ways and the means to construct the European future among Europeans

Macron: No security for Europeans if there is no security for Russia – Peoples World

Note that he said to construct the European future among Europeans.

Clearly, not all Europeans want to be America’s puppets. In fact, most Europeans want a free and independent Europe, which is only natural if we think about it. IMO their voices need to be heard and respected.

What I'm saying is that EU and NATO unlimited expansion can only lead to world government and that countries objecting to this have a right to take countermeasures. — Apollodorus

And hence it's OK for Russia to annex parts from Georgia and Ukraine?

Or do you condemn that kind of action, just as invading Tibet? (Do notice that the Turkish part of Cyprus hasn't been annexed by Turkey, but is a republic only recognized only by Turkey).

Clearly, not all Europeans want to be America’s puppets. — Apollodorus

Not either Russia's puppets, but that I gather you see Putin only "defending the interests of Russia". And Brussells? It might be a huge bureaucracy, but it isn't imperialist and de facto confederation however much they would want to be a federation.

And I was objecting to Europe being dominated by America and its British and German puppets. — Apollodorus

You talk easily of puppets. Or see just puppets and puppet masters everywhere.

The Normandy format can be a way to solve this crisis.

You mean about splitting the US off from NATO? Or what? — frank

Of course Putin would really want to see NATO going the way of SEATO or CENTO. If Russia can engage European countries on a bilateral basis, it will be strong. That's why Putin absolutely hates to face Western Europe in the form of EU. Or in security issue talk to NATO. Yet let's not forget that both CENTO and SEATO are not anymore.

But do note the difference between those treaty members: CENTO dissappeared in revolutions and later two former member states, Iraq and Iran, had a bloody war. In SEATO there was hardly much if anything unifying in the security worries of it's members: for Pakistan the central threat was India, for South Korea North Korea and for New Zealand nobody I guess. The members simply started jumping out of the treaty.

NATO here is different. European countries have gotten content with the organization and wanted to have it around even after Soviet Union collapsed. (Let's not forget that an unified Germany still got some to be worried about the militarily harmless economic giant.) So Putin has a lot to do.

:up:

What you need to understand is that there is a difference between stating your personal opinion and denying or misrepresenting the facts.

I think it is clear from your comments that either (a) you don’t know the facts or (b) you don’t care about the facts because you’ve got a political agenda.

The fact is that NATO member Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus and installed a puppet state under Turkish military occupation:

The international community considers the TRNC's [Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus] territory as Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. The occupation is viewed as illegal under international law, amounting to illegal occupation of European Union territory since Cyprus became a member. The international community found this declaration [of TRNC independence] invalid, on the ground that Turkey had occupied territory belonging to Cyprus and that the putative state was therefore an infringement on Cypriot sovereignty

Turkish invasion of Cyprus - Wikipedia

This is precisely why Turkey is the only country on the planet that recognizes its own puppet state in Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is a classical example of puppet state!

According to the European Court of Human Rights, the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legitimate government in Cyprus, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a puppet state under Turkish effective control

Puppet state - Wikipedia

And if Turkey is allowed to do that in Cyprus, I don't see on what basis you object to Russia doing the same in Ukraine. What you are saying doesn't make any sense.

And you seem to have some difficulty grasping the concept of national sovereignty. You claimed that the countries that formed the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) which laid the foundations for the European Union (EU) were “sovereign”.

I demonstrated to you that Germany, which was at the very center of the European integration project was NOT a sovereign state. The Eastern half was under Russian and Polish occupation and the Western half was under American, British, and French occupation. From 1945 to 1949 Germany was not even a state, consisting of separate occupation zones.

In 1949, the Western Allies, US, UK, and France, merged their three zones, ordered the Germans to draft an (interim) constitution under US direction, elect a president, and created the “Federal Republic of Germany”.

However, the German constitution was never submitted to popular vote, the new German state remained under US-led military occupation, and simultaneously with the constitution, the occupying powers issued the Occupation Statute that gave them the final say in all German legal matters and gave them control over Germany’s foreign policy and international agreements.

The supreme authority was US High Commissioner for Germany McCloy, who publicly admitted that he had the powers of a dictator:

I had the powers of a dictator as High Commissioner of Allied Forces in West Germany, but I think I was a benevolent dictator.

Who gave McCloy those powers? Not the German people, but the US government of Harry Truman!
Please note that “dictator” here is not meant metaphorically but literally, McCloy having been granted absolute authority by the said US government.

From the start, Germany had ZERO sovereignty, the sole sovereign authority in Germany until 1948 being the US-led Allied Control Council after which it passed over to McCloy.

When Germany signed up to the Marshall Plan that obliged it to work for European integration (see the 1949 Petersberg Agreement) it was still at war with the Allies (because the Allies refused to end the state of war), it was under Allied military occupation and under US control, it did not have a foreign office, it was not a diplomatic entity, and it depended on US financial aid.

Ditto, when Germany signed the 1951 Treaty of Paris that established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), it was NOT a sovereign state.

The other countries that joined the European integration project were not fully sovereign either. They depended on US financial aid, they pledged themselves to European integration by accepting US aid, and by the very act of joining the various European institutions, they legally ceded some of their sovereign powers. This is precisely what has been a subject of intense controversy and debate that seems to have escaped you.

Moreover, the sovereignty of Europe itself is being questioned, with leading EU members like France and Germany demanding greater European sovereignty vis-à-vis other powers, in particular, greater strategic sovereignty vis-à-vis America:

France and Germany bear a “special responsibility” to make the European Union a stronger world power as Paris assumes the bloc’s rotating presidency, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock told AFP on Friday.
Germany’s coalition government has said it wants to increase the bloc’s “strategic sovereignty” as rivalries between world powers such as the United States, China and Russia adversely affect the EU.

Germany backs France for ‘more sovereign’ Europe – Euractiv

And this is the core of the current crisis. NOT Finland’s concerns, but the balance of power between global spheres of interest.

While demanding greater independence from America, the European Union has been constantly expanding, from the original ECSC Six to currently 27, and it is clearly aiming to expand far beyond Europe proper.

The EU attempted to incorporate the whole MENA (Mid East and North Africa) region through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) of 1995, and Russia through the EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) of 1997. Clearly, after European integration come Euro-Mediterranean, Euro-African, and Euro-Asian integration, the logical end result being world state and world government.

And just as Russia rejected EU membership after Putin came to power, it now objects to endless NATO expansion on its borders.

French President Macron has publicly recognized the legitimacy of Russia’s security concerns, and even leading Americans have done the same.

Bernie Sanders has said:

I am extremely concerned when I hear the familiar drum beats in Washington. Putin may be a liar and a demagogue, but it is hypocritical for the United States to insist that we do not accept the principle of 'spheres of influence’. Even if Russia was not ruled by a corrupt authoritarian leader like Vladimir Putin, Russia, like the United States, would still have an interest in the security policies of its neighbors. Does anyone really believe that the United States would not have something to say if, for example, Mexico was to form a military alliance with a US adversary?

Bernie Sanders Says U.S. 'Hypocritical' To Reject Russia Concerns Over NATO Expansion - NewsWeek

The 1999 European Security Charter (Article II, Paragraph 8) that was signed by the US and Russia says countries should be free to choose their own security arrangements and alliances, but that they “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states”.

- Istanbul Document 1999 – OSCE

So, even leaving aside all other considerations, Russia has a point in terms of international law.

The way I see it, in this particular case, even if NATO refuses to set limits to its expansion, Ukraine should sign a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia. If it refuses to do so, then I think it is obvious that there are some ulterior motives there, probably instigated by the EU and NATO's expansionist intentions.

I'll ask you again.

Do you condemn the annexations that Russia has done concerning Georgia and Ukraine?

Do you view them equivalent to what Turkey did? Both countries (Turkey and Russia) "came to the help" of their ethnic minorities, just with Russia going past the puppet state phase and made direct annexations.

You have accused me of double standards, which is false. I don't accept Chinese annexation of Tibet or Turkish actions, but seems that for you the above is extremely hard to do when it's Russia doing similar actions. But of course I could be wrong, but I wish you would reply to this and not brush it aside again.

The way I see it, in this particular case, even if NATO refuses to set limits to its expansion, Ukraine should sign a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia. If it refuses to do so, then I think it is obvious that there are some ulterior motives there, probably instigated by the EU and NATO's expansionist intentions. — Apollodorus

Obviously Russia and Ukraine could make a peace agreement. Russia is fighting already a proxy war with Ukraine, which you seem not to understand.

Who has attacked whom? Conveniently forgetting the Budapest memorandum from 1994 along with a multitude of international laws and agreements, yet somehow you see Ukraine as the aggressor and Russia as the victim, hence you sure talk like a Russian troll.

Let's just remember what Russia and the US agreed with Ukraine and other ex-Soviet countries that posessed nuclear weapons in order to have their nuclear weapons to be given to Russia:

According to the memorandum, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they would:

- Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

- Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

- Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.

- Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

-Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

As Russia doesn't respect the sovereignty and borders of it's neighbors, there urge to join NATO is totally logical. Your total inability to understand this is obvious as the actions of the dominant country does have an effect on how countries view it.

Conveniently forgetting the Budapest memorandum from 1994 along with a multitude of international laws and agreements, yet somehow see Ukraine as the aggressor, hence you sure talk like a Russian troll. — ssu

Well, just because you are a troll, it doesn't mean that others must be trolls. :grin:

I NEVER said that Ukraine is the aggressor. So, clearly, that is another straw man of yours and a lie.

Moreover, we've discussed this many times before. See Is China going to surpass the US and become the world's most powerful superpower?

So I don’t know how you can pretend that you don’t know my position when I stated it very clearly:

Given that Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus, and China invaded, occupied, and annexed Tibet with impunity, it doesn’t make sense to call for war on Russia for annexing Crimea. — Apollodorus

I think this is perfectly logical and easy to understand to most thinking people (though perhaps not to Finnish activists). Your reply was to suggest that I was a “Russian silovik”!

And you did appear to defend Turkey’s actions in Cyprus by invoking Ataturk and by falsely claiming that Europe attacked Turkey, when it is a well-known fact that it is the other way round. It was the Seljuk Turks who came from Central Asia to invade Iran, Iraq, and most of the Mid East, after which they invaded Anatolia which was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and other local populations:

From their homelands near the Aral Sea, the Seljuks advanced first into Khorasan and then into mainland Persia, before eventually conquering Baghdad and eastern Anatolia. The Seljuks won the battle of Manzikert in 1071, and then conquered most of the rest of Anatolia, wresting it from the Byzantine Empire.

Seljuk Empire – Wikipedia

This is elementary knowledge that is in the public domain and easy to access by anyone who takes an interest in the facts. But it takes someone like you to deny the facts, which I think we have already identified as your habit and method.

I also stated in very clear and unambiguous terms the following:

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there. — Apollodorus

Yet you chose to deride me for it!

Anyway, you can say whatever you want, the issue isn’t going to be resolved by Finland or Ukraine.

In order to solve a problem of this type you need to understand the real causes and the wider geopolitical ramifications.

As far as I am aware, most people on this planet believe in a free, democratic, and equitable world. But such a world isn’t going to fall out of the sky and into our lap, it needs to be built through hard work.

To achieve this, European countries need to have more power within the European Union, and Europe needs to have more power in the world.

We are in 2022, not in the 1940’s. We can’t apply the standards of post-war Europe to the 21st century. Europe cannot be eternally dependent on, and subservient to, America. I know that Britain loves being America’s poodle because it is an extremely Americanized nation, but this is not what the rest of Europe wants.

Britain has left the European Union. In my view, this was the right thing to do in view of the referendum results, and hopefully others will follow soon. But Britain must now decide whether it is on Europe’s side or on America’s side. It can’t keep acting as an extension of America for ever, as this upsets the continent’s balance of power, which will be exploited by others.

The other step that needs to be taken is to establish greater equality - economic, political, and military - among European states. It is unacceptable to have some European countries getting poorer and poorer, and others richer and richer, often at the former’s expense. Germany must be allowed to have the same military capability as Britain and France.

Last but not least, Europe needs to finally gain independence from America and stand on its own feet and in a relation of economic, political, and military parity with America, Russia, and China. This is why it is imperative for Europe to quit kowtowing to America and urgently start making its own arrangements with Russia, as a sovereign power, not as an extension of Washington or Wall Street.

In addition to having close geographical, historical, and cultural links, Europe and Russia are natural allies and partners. Europe needs Russia’s resources, especially in the energy sector, and Russia needs Europe’s economy. It is in the interest of both to foster peaceful economic cooperation between them.

As part of this process, Europe must persuade Ukraine to come to a compromise. There is no other way. France and Germany have shown that they understand this well. The rest of the world must begin to understand it, too. And that includes America and its British poodle ….

So you do you or not condemn the annexations that Russia has done? Do you think it is similar to what Turkey has done in Cyprus or China in Tibet?

Please answer the question.

And you did appear to defend Turkey’s actions in Cyprus by invoking Ataturk and by falsely claiming that Europe attacked Turkey, when it is a well-known fact that it is the other way round. — Apollodorus

Nonsense. I don't know what you are blabbering about.

The Ottoman Empire, the sick man of Europe, had huge parts of it made Western colonies. If you refer to earlier history, well, weren't we talking about the present, not the siege of Vienna or the fall of Constantinople.


(Of course, in the above map some parts were lost even earlier than WW1)

It is in the interest of both to foster peaceful economic cooperation between them. — Apollodorus

Of course. European countries do want to have good relations with Russia.

Perhaps Russia then should stop annexing parts of other countries make demands on just what other countries can do with their own foreign and security policy and what kind of military exercises they can have inside their own borders. Russia surely can have whatever exercises inside it's own territory. The simple fact, that you are incapable to fathom or more likely, deliberately don't want to understand, is that the aggression Russia has shown has altered the relations with Europe.

I NEVER said that Ukraine is the aggressor. So, clearly, that is another straw man of yours and a lie. — Apollodorus

Well good that we cleared that. Do note that you still said this:

Ukraine should sign a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia. — Apollodorus

It's a bit strange to sign this when the other country is fighting a proxy war against you. (And even the proxy part is dubious as there are Russian forces in Donetsk and Luhansk.) I mean really: would Ukraine, that has a weaker army and no nuclear weapons, take hostile action against the country that has the most nuclear weapons in the world?

A peace treaty would be the more fitting word for this, not "mutual non-aggresion pact". Comes mind the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Well good that we cleared that. — ssu

That's exactly what I'm saying. We've established that it was a lie, and it's good that you agree! :grin:

Nonsense. I don't know what you are blabbering about. — ssu

Really!? This is your statement:

It's been a long time since the Ottomans were trying to take Vienna. And do remember that they do have their history of Western aggression and the West wanting to divide into colonies the whole of their country. The whole westernization of the Atatürk era was first and foremost done to make the country strong enough to defend the country from outside aggression — ssu

That was your response to my comment on Turkey's invasion of Cyprus! Are you retracting that now?

I also stated in very clear and unambiguous terms the following:

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there. — Apollodorus

Yet you chose to deride me for it! Read your own posts:

Who do you think their rightful owners are? Independent Tibet? And with Cyprus? UK? The Ottoman Empire? The Venetians? — ssu

We know that you've got an anti-Russian bias from your own statements and the "discussions" you have started:

Even as a young teen I found it whimsical and totally attached from reality. Soviet propaganda, that is .... — ssu

Sounds like you haven't grown up yet.

And as I said, posting irrelevant pictures does NOT "validate" your spurious arguments. But it may indicate troll behavior .... :smile:

hat was your response to my comment on Turkey's invasion of Cyprus! Are you retracting that now? — Apollodorus

That is totally false. Your making up things.

What you said and what I actually responded to was you very hostile statement about Turkey:

Turkey is anti-European and anti-Western, and Europe's enemy No 1.

Therefore I am against Turkey. — Apollodorus

This statement wasn't at all about Cyprus. This statement shows what you think of Turkey in general. To this I responded how Turkey hasn't been actually a threat since the Ottoman's tried to take Vienna.

That's exactly what I'm saying. We've established that it was a lie, and it's good that you agree! :grin: — Apollodorus

What we established was only that both agree that Ukraine hasn't been the aggressor.

So, are you going to answer my question:

Do you or do you not condemn the annexations that Russia has done? Do you think it is similar to what Turkey has done in Cyprus or China in Tibet?

We know that you've got an anti-Russian bias from your own statements and the "discussions" you have started:

Even as a young teen I found it whimsical and totally attached from reality. Soviet propaganda, that is ....
— ssu — Apollodorus

This is not an anti-Russian bias. :roll:

This statement shows what you think of Turkey in general. — ssu

My statement clearly refers to the fact that historically, Turkey has been the enemy of Europe and Turkey invaded Europe and continues to do so as evidenced by its invasion of Cyprus and, more recently, its designation of the Mediterranean as "Turkey's blue homeland", its plans to invade Greek islands, etc., etc.

And because I am against countries invading and occupying other countries, I am against Turkey's actions vis-a-vis Europe, or any other country. Very simple and logical IMO.

What we established was only that both agree that Ukraine hasn't been the aggressor. — ssu

No. Not "only". We also established that your baseless accusation that I "see Ukraine as the aggressor" was false. And this applies to many other statements of yours, as I have demonstrated many times ... :grin:

Again false. Do understand that "mutual non-aggression pact" obviously refers to a situation where either side could show aggression towards the other, or that there is the potential for it. That somehow really Ukraine would show aggression towards the largest nuclear power is beyond reason. As I have said again and again, the proper term would be to make a peace agreement. There is nothing false in that, but you keep just strawmanning.

And any way, it's now clear you won't even answer the question if you condemn or not Russia's actions of annexing parts of it's neighbors, which are quite similar to those examples of Turkey and China we referred to.

And that tells actually a lot about you.

This is not an anti-Russian bias. :roll: — frank

But for some it seems that to be opposed to Soviet propaganda is the same as being against the Russian people.

Btw, @frank, do notice what I said about Russia hating to engage in talks with European countries by using the EU. Or the EU giving answers on behalf of it's member states. This kind of response limits Russia's ability to find weak spots or put EU members against each other. As Russia also approached the Nordic countries, it was obvious from the start that there would need to be cooperation to answer to Russia's inquiries.

(REUTERS) Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Thursday said a collective response from the European Union to Russian security proposals would lead to a breakdown in talks, but insisted Moscow was in favour of diplomacy to ease tensions over Ukraine.

Well, EU minister Joseph Borrell answered on behalf of the member states.

“We remain gravely concerned about the current situation and firmly believe that tensions and disagreements must be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy,” the EU leader writes. “We call on Russia to de-escalate and to reverse its military build-up in and around Ukraine, and in Belarus.”

Did you see news that sanctions could somehow limit the ability of Russia to pay off debt? The country with the biggest liability is France.

That somehow really Ukraine would show aggression towards the largest nuclear power is beyond reason. — ssu

It isn't "beyond reason" at all. Though I admit that it may be beyond the reason of those with limited powers of reason! :grin:

Ukraine itself may be no threat to Russia. But the situation will be different when NATO parks its nuclear missiles on Ukrainian soil. Russia is NOT objecting to Ukraine, it is objecting to Ukraine becoming a member of America's NATO, don't you get it?

Your problem is that the more you go down your chosen path of activism and propaganda, the more irrational you become. That’s why your arguments lack objectivity and logic.

EU and NATO infinite expansion may sound “legitimate” at first sight. But only if you don’t think it through. Because if you think about it, it is a form of imperialism that can only lead to world government. This is what you’re logically subscribing to if you side with NATO and the EU.

And that’s why you fail to grasp the situation and you refuse to ask yourself some basic questions. For example, if Russia has not threatened America or NATO, why is America getting involved?

Moreover, by definition, if you take the position that Russia’s demands are unacceptable to America but America’s demands should be accepted by Russia, (a) you are siding with America and (b) you are saying that Europe should abide by America’s rules.

And you have failed to explain why Europe and the world should abide by America’s rules, so you can’t even back up your own argument!

I think it makes much more sense for America to get out of Europe and for Britain to stop acting like an extension of America. Britain thinks it can do anything it wants to in Europe because it knows that Uncle Sam will always come to the rescue of his faithful poodle as well as his own self-interests (or the interests of Wall Street).

Europe can only return to sanity and become a normal place if foreign powers stop interfering in its internal affairs. If there was no US-instigated EU and NATO, the “Ukraine crisis” wouldn’t exist and Europe and Russia would have normal economic relations like good neighbors. It follows that the problem is not Russia, but America.

Unfortunately, you have clearly taken an anti-Russian stance from the start by comparing Putin with Saddam Hussein:

The bottom line is that the demands Putin put on the table were obvious non-starters, they simply won't be achieved, and that's the worrying issue. In fact, when Saddam Hussein decided to "solve" his financial troubles by annexing Kuwait, the fig leaf for deploying a huge army on the Kuwaiti border was far better than now with Putin. — ssu

That’s a total straw man. How is invading Ukraine going to solve Putin’s “financial troubles”? I think it's the other way round, waging war on Russia will bring profits of many trillions of dollars to America's defense and energy industries.

As for Turkey, it’s a well-known fact that it has expansionist plans in Europe. It has declared the Mediterranean Sea “Turkey’s blue homeland”, it has drafted plans to invade Greek islands, and it has similar plans for other parts of Europe. If that isn’t hostile, I don’t know what is.

The purpose of the Blue Homeland strategy is that Turkey should dominate the Mediterranean and reclaim the mercantile and maritime power once held by the Ottomans

Blue Homeland: Turkey’s Strategy in the Eastern Mediterranean – Euractiv

Turkey has a plan for the invasion of Greece, secret documents reveal – Nordic Monitor

This is why Turkey nearly started a war with France last year and it only backed down when Macron put Erdogan in his place. France understands Europe’s genuine interests. America, its British poodle, and Finland, don’t.

And don’t forget the criminal and genocidal activities of the Ottoman Empire which you are trying to justify.

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

In any case, the situation is obviously far more complex than anti-Russian propaganda is trying to paint it:

NATO is uncharacteristically divided on how to deal with Russia in the escalating crisis over Ukraine. The US and the UK favor deterrence and a hard line; Germany, France and Italy are emphasizing dialogue, and a third group, including Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia, wants to stay out of the conflict and any troop deployment

NATO and Russia: Conflicting views in southeastern Europe

And despite the official propaganda, there is in fact widespread opposition to NATO’s expansionist and imperialist designs, including in Britain:

No War in Ukraine - Stop The War Coalition

IMO you really need to get your head out of your Finnish bunker and see that not everybody has the same Russophobic mentality as you do. In fact, most people outside the Finnish outback don’t.

Russia is NOT objecting to Ukraine, it is objecting to Ukraine becoming a member of America's NATO, don't you get it? — Apollodorus

You didn't explain why this justifies an invasion.

If you really want to exercise your anti-America, you should say, "This is just the sort of aggression we've come to expect from America. And just as it's wrong when America does it, it's wrong for Russia now."

You see, if you give Russia a pass for placing an army around Ukraine because they have a right to increase their sphere of influence, you're basically laying that same right on America.

Don't be morally ambiguous, condemn wrong wherever and whoever is doing it.