I see your point,Christoffer. I am somehow agree with you. But what I tried to explain with you is that there are some countries which use the "democracy" just for economicall interests. They cheat. While Ukraine wants to protect their history and sovereignty, Catalonia just wants to be a tax heaven being apart from Spain. I see a huge difference in terms of "democracy" or "reestructure" the maps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What? I just asked you for sources to back up the claim that "this is all Putin". If you were adding a little rhetorical hyperbole, that's absolutely fine, I've no problem with that, but then your response doesn't make any sense because I asked you about your treatment of the portion of blame the US and Europe must shoulder. If your phrase "this is all Putin" was merely rhetorical hyperbole, then the question remains unanswered. Why shoot down all the attempts to talk about the extent to which the US and Europe are culpable?

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

Wait, are you using opinion pieces as sources? Not factual sources for your own inductional reasoning? — Christoffer

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

If you're gonna use sources to argue a point, it becomes extremely skewed if the sources are merly opinion pieces or far-leaning political voices. — Christoffer

Seriously? Are you actually going to try and pull off an 'all your sources are biased, but mine a perfectly objective' argument? How naive are you? All sources are biased, the trick is to learn what the bias is. I'm biased in favour of finding fault with my government and its allies. I've explained why I'm biased in that direction - they're the governments I have some little influence over and even if I'm wrong, it's still useful to keep them on their toes. So yes, all my sources are biased in that direction. Bias doesn't equate to lies, it's just a filter through which facts are viewed.

Has nothing to do with the events today or the acts of Putin. — Christoffer

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

What is your point? What is your actual argument? — Christoffer

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

Neither connected to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine — Christoffer

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

The independent media outlets broadcasting live news with experts from the IRES Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies, have a bit more validity to them than your biased opinion pieces that you linked to. — Christoffer

How so?

Like this: — Christoffer

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

Then, if going with articles that are less opinion pieces — Christoffer

How is that less of an opinion piece? It's literally presenting an (informed) opinion.

Since we all know that it is the latter, — Christoffer

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

What is the advantage of blaming them for everything like you do? — Christoffer

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

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

To remind you...

this is all Putin. — Christoffer

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

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


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

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

The major thing that you never ever seem to understand is that I've never said anything of Europe or US being "innocent". I'm just saying that your invented guilt of "the west" — Christoffer

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

You simply inflate the guilt of the west as being more influential and dismiss any notion of Putin's guilt. — Christoffer

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

What are Putin's intentions based on the history of his rule and rise to power? — Christoffer

I largely agree with you about Putin's intentions. I don't see the point in spelling that out any further.

Why does he actually feel threatened by NATO? — Christoffer

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

In practice, how does NATO expand itself? — Christoffer

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

Does Ukraine not have rights to its own independence? — Christoffer

Yes

Is Russia ruled by many or just one man (Putin), and if not one man, who shares the power and how? — Christoffer

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

Western contempt and bad faith toward the Slavic people — baker

The French have always idealized the 'Slavic soul'. The Greeks tend to be pro-slav, the Italians too. Don't confuse the West with America and the UK.

Of course, the English (the "WASPs") were untouchable. There weren't even any pejorative terms for them. There is definitely an ingrained belief among European peoples that slavs are "lesser". I feel certain that western Europeans hate the idea of a strong slavic country, as Russia potentially represents, since it challenges their ingrained bias. — Joseph Zbigniewski

Totally correct. Racism in Europe (and America) is very much alive and well, only that it has acquired different forms. It certainly occurs in England where there is prejudice not only toward "darkies" but also toward the Irish, the Russians, and above all, the Germans. Obviously, this is a reflection of England's past (and present) imperial ambitions. State propaganda can inculcate 'ingrained' bias in public perception of other nations.

I definitely think the Germans and the Slavs need to play a greater role in Europe in order to counteract the prevalent Anglo-Saxon feeling of cultural and racial "superiority".

Germany's decision to massively increase its military expenditure and ship arms to Ukraine may be a welcome sign of it finally beginning to reassert itself and no longer play second fiddle to England and France.

You can take it from me, that a young Polish boy growing up in anything but a Polish neighborhood "caught hell" on a daily basis, being continually assaulted with "dumb polack" — Joseph Zbigniewski

Just for the record, if you grew up in America, you know good and well that this is about Pollocks, not slavs in general. I have no idea how the dumb pollack thing got started.

I interact daily with Czechs, Poles, Russians, and what have you. There's no racism. They're just white people with funny accents.

Surely even you can see that trying to claim him as an expert when he agrees with you and delusional when he doesn't is utterly absurd. — Isaac

But he isn't delusional!!! I'm not sure where you see the illogicality here.

He clearly states how Russia thinks. What is so hard to understand that Russia see's the West as a threat AND has territorial aspirations on the territory of it's neighbors?

Cannot those happen at the same time? Mearsheimer understands this and that is why he wanted Ukraine to retain a nuclear deterrence. Putin has shown quite well these both sides in his words and actions. Haven't you ever heard about Novorossiya? No?

Besides, don't sideline all those third nations starting from Ukraine. Yes, I understand, you want to talk about the US. However, they aren't the only actor important in the story. And if I say that this war is Putin's fault, it doesn't mean that the US or NATO has done everything right.

What is false to think that all this is happening because of the US wants to enlarge NATO and nothing else. Either you genuinely think that Russia would have left Ukraine alone if NATO wouldn't have made any moves to the East or then don't care an iota on what Russia does with its neighbors. Well, if the second is true, why post on this thread? If the first is true, then that is absolute horseshit! You can just look at the meddling of Russia in other ex-Soviet states that nobody is talking about joining NATO and just what Putin has said for years about "the artificial" Ukraine.

The former Soviet countries have had the urge to join NATO because of Russia's imperial aspirations. What is so wrong to opt for EU / NATO / The West than to be under the control of an authoritarian imperialist like Putin?

Both and write correctly what it looks like when people are obsessed about the actions of the US and see everything happening in the World because of it. Although the US is important, not everything revolves around it's decisions and actions.

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

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

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

It certainly occurs in England where there is prejudice not only toward "darkies" but also toward the Irish, the Russians, and above all, the Germans. — Apollodorus

And certainly against the French as well, and the Italians, the Belgium, etc. The Brits and Americans tend to think highly of themselves, they treat everybody else with contempt, not just the Slavs.

I have an Italian friend here (Rome, Italy) who keeps ranting on and on about how Italians are treated with contempt, and how American tourists ask her questions in English, in a soddin' Roman street. Try and ask a question in Italian in any US city, and watch the face people make (except in Rhode Island where it'd be fine).

There is even a song in French about the contempt displayed by anglo types...

Words from 2014 from Adrian Basora, words that still apply.

Extremely well:

Putin’s Motives and Russian Grand Strategy

Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine strategy is driven by three goals: survival, empire and legacy.

First and foremost, Putin sees the fate of Ukraine as an existential issue both for himself and for the authoritarian regime that he and his inner circle have gradually rebuilt over the past fifteen years. The Orange Revolution of 2004 was a deep shock to Putin because of the echoes it created in Russia and because Ukraine seemed to be on the brink of becoming a major source of longer-term “democratic diffusion” right on Russia’s long southwestern border. Fortunately for Putin, however, the luster of this revolution quickly wore off once its leaders gained office and failed to live up to their reformist promises. From the start there was infighting between Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko; reforms were postponed; the Ukrainian economy spiraled downward and corruption remained rampant.

By the time Yushchenko’s presidency ended in 2010, many voters had come to see Viktor Yanukovych as a preferable alternative. Yanukovich also reportedly benefited from substantial financial and “political technology” support from Moscow. For Putin, Yanukovych was a promising alternative to the western-oriented “Orange” leaders, since he seemed likely to maintain strong trade and financial ties with Russia, show proper deference towards Moscow and, above all, keep Ukraine out of NATO. But it turned out that too many Ukrainians were unwilling to follow the Putin/Yanukovich script.

When Yanukovich fled Kiev on February 21, it must have seemed to the Kremlin that a second wave of the Orange Revolution had taken control of Ukraine. Putin no doubt trembled with fury – but also with fear.

Putin’s second driving motive for going all out to reassert as much dominance as possible in Ukraine combines his goals of restoring a Russian empire and of burnishing his personal legacy. It is abundantly clear that Putin seeks to restore Russia to its former imperial glory, and in so doing to secure for himself a place in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders of all time. In a 2005 speech, Putin famously stated that “the breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”

Now we are seeing the next act in this tragedy playing out...

:up: My fault. I forgot to mention the "frogs" and the rest .... :smile:

There is definitely an air of superiority in the "Anglo-Saxons", no doubt about it. In a way, it's understandable, when you have been ruling the world for centuries it can get to your head, however unconsciously. But to many others it smacks of arrogance and even racism.

According to some analysts this has been a contributing factor to the failure of US-UK adventures in places like Iraq and Afghanistan ....

Talking of the French, Putin's friend Gerard Depardieu, who has been a Russian citizen for a few years, has just declared his opposition to the war: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/01/french-actor-depardieu-objects-to-fratricidal-war-a76686

Belarus appears to have entered the war yesterday based on imint. This is pure desperation. Belarus just had a year of mass uprisings against the Russian backed regime. Protests have started back up, there have been mass arrests and riot police mobilized across the country the past few days. Now former leaders in the Belorussian army are telling commanders to disobey orders to attack (obviously not all are because they've moved in some of the more professional, reliable paratroopers elements into Ukraine, while denying it).

Generally it is bad news when your people are changing "glory to Ukraine," as you send your mostly conscripted army to fight there.

This also means the more reliable armed forces are out of town. Putin is also pushing to place nuclear weapons in Belarus, which will make breaking away far harder. I would be surprised if these protests don't pick up speed. It's now or never for would be revolutionaries. Expats can pick up arms in Ukraine and slip across the border.

227 civilians and 19 security forces (at least) died in riots in Kazakhstan less than two months ago. The unrest was only stopped when Russia deployed 2,500 troops to back their client government. Protests had already started back up in Kazakhstan and begun spreading before the invasion of Ukraine.

The protests in January were sparked by high food and gas prices, which the war is spiking again.

Perhaps Putin felt he had to act, to show strength, after one client broke away, and two others revolted within the span of a year, but the military ineptitude Russia is showing seems to make it increasingly likely that these kick back up.

Belorussians and Ukrainians look to EU aligned neighbors and see the much better growth and freedom there. Central Asian nations look to China's meteoric growth and Belt and Road investments on their behalf and see a better system. Russia seems to have nothing to offer its clients but total economic stagnation (per capita, Russians have fallen behind China, in absolute terms, the economy of Russia is now smaller than Canada). This might be the move that ends the Russian satellite system, maybe even Putin.

According to some analysts this has been a contributing factor to the failure of US-UK adventures in places like Iraq and Afghanistan — Apollodorus

Why yes. I know something about that, re. Afghanistan.

At some point, circa 2013 on a flight to Kabul, i got seated next to some UK general who introduced himself as the UK top commander in Afghanistan. Forgot his name. We started a discussion about how it was all going. I remember he said Afghanistan was a lost cause since the US moved their attention to Iraq, and he was right about that. What stroke me though, was how little he knew about Afghans and their motivations. And the same applied in all the Western embassies I went through during that trip: nobody gave much of a shit for afghan culture. The only ones I left with an impression of having met a true professional and not an inexperienced joker, were the Indian and the Russian embassies.

Rough translation of a Lt. Colonel's speech to Belorussians:

Introduction

Hello defenders of the nation, my address to you. I am Lietenant Colonel of the Reserve, Valery Stepanovych.

I'm introducing myself because I quit some time ago, so it's possible newer recruits don't know me; though I think you've all heard of the Black Eagles. <<Dmitry: Best I can tell, “Black Eagle” was an honorary rank awarded to elite special forces members of the Belarus Paratroopers>>

A lot of our valor comes from there. You've also heard that the 38th Guard Brigade used to run 10k every morning in full gear and then swim in the lake.

Well, I was the guy who every day for four years ran at the front, and dived first into the lake. I'm black eagle one.

All the most important things in life generally happen quickly, and without warning.

It's impossible to prepare to become a hero. It's just that in a person's life there arise circumstances where he must act, here and now.

To act, and become a part of history. Or to wait for a more opportune moment. Though fate tends to offer a chance to do something truly meaningful but once.

I served in the airborne for a long time. Over ten years in the "Rezko <<reserves, maybe?>>" Brigade alone, from soldier to brigade commander.

Those who have met me can't help but be honest, I was one of the officers most fanatically loyal to the army. A patriot. Duty was all.
Mercantilism was always foreign to me. I bring this up so that no one begins building theories that someone hired me to make these remarks.

There's nothing in my biography suggesting I might be for sale, and at my age, people don't change.
The Airborne was my everything, and in all the years after I left the service I continued to help and support my Brigade.

In front of my house, for 18 years, had stood a flagpole with the banner of the VDV (paratroopers).

Today, I decided to record my first ever video address because my comrades, guys in light blue striped shirts like the one I wore, are sitting in the forest on the borders of Ukraine and it looks likely that shortly they'll be participating in something very bad.

Something that could have catastrophic consequences for our country, and comprehensively tarnish the honor and traditions of the army, which were established by many generations of paratroopers and it's likely not all will make it home alive.

The Russian army, which has tremendous combat experience, has spent 3 days in hell. The number of dead count in the thousands. The number of prisoners is in the hundreds. Military and civilian hospitals at the border are overflowing with wounded.

None of the objectives of the 'operation' have been achieved.

As of this moment they have not managed to seize Kyiv, or any regional center.
The Russian army is already sufficiently wearied, and the Ukrainians having survived the critical first 72 hours have successfully mobilized, organized, sorted out their logistics, received support (moral and in war materiel) from the whole world, but most importantly, saw that they have been attacked by ordinary mortals, stopped fearing them, and tasted victory. This army is not going to retreat and won't surrender.

The Russians simply became victims of their own propagandists, who promised that the people of Ukraine would great the invaders with bread and salt like liberators.

But you know all this.

You may be forbidden smartphones, but you're still in Belarus, in contact with friends and family. You've had time to understand and process everything.

Does anyone actually think that your deployment into Ukraine will go better than the New Year's storming of Grozny in 1995 (first Chechen war, a disaster for Russian soldiers)?


Information warfare is a terrifying thing. Propogandists have become so skilled and definitional games, at presenting black as white and vice versa. I don't want to get into the politics. Politics has always been foreign to me.

However, any clear thinking person must understand three things:

First, Ukraine has never been a threat to Belarus and is not threatening Belarus now.

Second, there are no drug addicts or nationalists in the Ukrainian government, and even if there were they’d have been appointed in free democratic elections.

Third, there is no legal basis for the invasion of Belarus armed forces onto the territory of Ukraine, and moreover such an incursion is specifically banned by our Constitution.

This isn’t our war. You won’t be defending your country, your home or your family. You won’t earn any honor in this conflict, only shame and indignity, blood and death, and pariah status for Belarus for decades.

Brothers, find a way not to participate in this dirty business.

Officers, will you be able to live with yourselves knowing you let the boys under your command die for nothing?
How are you going to look the mothers who gave you their sons in the eye?

Separately, I’d like to address the people on whom much depends. The military commanders with many stars on the epaulets.

For many of you I was a commander and a mentor. In my memory, you remain as decent and responsible military leaders, with initiative and capable of quickly orientating themselves in a complex situation, competently and deeply analysing it, and calculating the consequences of various options.


Lads, at the end of the day this is your primary functional duty. It is precisely for this that the nation spent so many years preparing you. No matter how much they pressure you, do what a real man must, make the right decision, muster your civic bravery, and do not send your soldiers into the slaughter.

Sometimes the greatest act of valor is simply saying “no,” and entering history as a person who saved hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives, and relations with a fraternal people (brotherly nation).

Even if they fire you, believe me, you’ll be heroes.

It’s been an honor.

----

If that's the conservative professional military take, this won't end well for Putin. He will be "liberating" Minsk in no time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All sources are biased — Isaac

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How so? — Isaac

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To remind you...

this is all Putin.
— Christoffer

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes — Isaac

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

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

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

Russia seems to have nothing to offer its clients but total economic stagnation (per capita, Russians have fallen behind China, in absolute terms, the economy of Russia is now smaller than Canada). — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is in line with what I've been reading. I thought maybe taking Ukraine was part of a plan to revitalize the economy?

More control of gas pipelines seems to only mean more money for oligarchs. Unfortunately, it seems like they also plundered the defense budget too.

On another note, I guess I was behind. Belorussians are already sabotaging railways and transport for the Russians, with some groups forming.

More mass arrests Sunday, unclear about Monday. They are clamping down on information.

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

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

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

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

MOSCOW (The Borowitz Report)—Vladimir Putin has become “deeply worried” about his strategy after learning that Donald J. Trump called him smart, Kremlin sources have revealed.

After Trump praised Putin Saturday night at the Conservative Political Action Conference, in Orlando, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, reluctantly shared a video of the disturbing moment with the Russian President.

“As Putin watched Trump call him smart, all the blood drained from his face,” a source said. “He was clearly shaken.”

After watching the video of Trump, Putin spent a sleepless night in consultation with Russian military and intelligence officials to determine where and how he had gone wrong.

"He’s rethinking everything now, and he’s in a very fragile state of mind,” the source said. “If it comes out that Don, Jr., or Eric thinks he’s smart, that could break him.”

Meanwhile, Donald J. Trump doubled down on his support for the Russian President, offering Putin advice on declaring Russia bankrupt.

Most nations have had trade deals and good relations with Russia, up until Putin's aggressions started in 2014. If you view the world as a "we against them", which Putin seems to do, of course you are threatened. But that doesn't mean that you actually are threatened, it means you are delusional in thinking- and acting accordingly. — Christoffer

Ok well if I were put in as president of Russia (!) I would feel threatened and humiliated with the constant media attacks ("Russia influenced the election" never mind that this is a colossal security failure on the US ), Olympic doping scandal, banning of RT (whom Hilary Clinton testified were 'Very Good') and so on. So count me delusional on this one. I think anyone in his right mind would feel it, with years and years of sanctions and highlighting the persecution of Russian opposition leaders. This would be like Russia complaining about Bernie Sanders being sidelined or 2020 election fraud. Of course we all know exactly what happened because the Media Tells us So.

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

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

This is still not to show how much greater they are, but instead an interest of a superpower to be an economic superpower. This is done by the US, Russia and China while smaller nations with power also tries to gain power through it. Everyone does it — Christoffer

I agree, everyone does it.

. An unstable region could automatically lead to conflict with NATO if that nation joins — Christoffer

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

The difference is that Russia has an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders. — Christoffer

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

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

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

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

There is an anti-Slavic nationalism that has become so deeply ingrained in Western culture — Joseph Zbigniewski

Is this reflected in this statement?

President Joe Biden was back to declaring that Russia was “sitting on top of an economy that has nuclear weapons and oil wells and nothing else.” — Foreign Affairs

While Ukraine wants to protect their history and sovereignty, — javi2541997

That's all well and good, judging from the demographics of the language, it won't be easy to govern by Russia.

Kremlin sources have revealed. — Olivier5

Vladimir Putin has become “deeply worried” about his strategy after learning that Donald J. Trump called him smart, Kremlin sources have revealed. — Olivier5

They reveal what he wants them to reveal, after all, that is how the KGB worked isn't it?

There is no way any leader could have run any country so long if they were shaken by what other people say even President Trump. Is this for real?

By the way, anyone here who can't bear to watch CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera ? It's not all lies, but the bias is tiring. They have, like all good media outlets, taken sides. That's what journalism is about isn't it?

CNN: (Selected) CNN anchor slams Lavrov speech
UNHCR: This may be 'Europe's largest refugee crisis this century'

BBC is even better: (front page)

Fresh blasts in Kyiv after Russia warns capital
Dread in Kyiv as huge Russian convoy advances
Russian oligarch warns sanctions will not stop war

and...

10 TV shows to watch this March

We can switch between Kiev and our other entertainment I guess.

Don't watch any of those. It will rot your brain. Just read newspapers.

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

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

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

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

I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, but from what I read from your post but it seems you are in some part agreeing with Putin's actions. If that is what your position is, I will agree with the idea that Putin for the most part seems rational and may have his reasons to invade Ukraine as he has beyond just trying to return Russia in some way back to it's former USSR glory days, but Putin must have known that the US, Europe, and the rest of our allies can not allow just sit on our hands as his forces invade Ukraine and act in may ways the same way they did before the end of the Cold War.

Putin's/Russia's action was bound to cause a reaction from the West, and this reaction (sanctions, sending military aid to Ukraine. etc.) was of course going to be interpreted as more "hostile" actions from the West, even though Russia themselves have done the same thing in wars that the US was fighting in. I guess what I'm trying to get at is what do you think Putin (and those that support him) end game is? To become as powerful as they were before the breakup of the USSR or even more powerful? We already have China trying to become the largest superpower in Asia, and if they achieve that will they stop at that? It is a given that not everyone is 'happy' about the US and her allies trying to be the only superpower in the world (along with US military bases on almost every corner of it) , but would the world be any better with one or more autocrats changing that dynamic and for them to either rule the world or part of it with an iron fist much like every autocrat before them has?

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

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

I'll tell you how it doesn't expand - it doesn't expand by countries asking "hey can you let me in?" and NATO going "mmmm, OK since you asked so nicely, yeah totally". It's not a fucking gentlemen's club. It's a strategic decision, and ideally, one not made by morons who, knowing full well that Russia has literally been to war over this very issue before, think, ah fuck it, lets keep arming Ukraine and making moves to expand the European sphere of influence Eastward. Oops, turns out, these decisions *are* made by morons [PDF - this paper has the answer you're looking for, incidentally], morons who you would like to exculpate in order to flag-wave your Voldermort Theory of international politics. This notion of an innocent, doe-eyed NATO (and EU) just waving people in willy-nilly because they asked nicely is just as stupid as your Harry Potter theory of Mad King Putin.