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

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

I'm still waiting to hear what NATO's fault in all of this is. What is the actual threat to Russia? Through pages and pages of posts, I've yet to hear any concrete example of NATO actually threatening Russia. — Christoffer

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

There are some concerns on the Russian side that are legitimate

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

I've answered your questions over and over (though you may not like the answers), yet you've still not done me the courtesy of answering my very simple one. What is the objective in absolving the US, NATO and Europe with such passion?

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

I blame the parents.

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

AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,


....
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
— UN Charter

There is a war machine and it is making war. This looks to me the state of affairs but please correct me if I am wrong: it seems very plausible, and would jell with the history of the world...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-american-war-machine/305025/

Even before World War II was over, Carroll argues, the leaders of the Pentagon viewed Russia as the new enemy and nuclear weapons as the tool of choice to use against it. In Carroll’s telling, the United States was primarily to blame for the Cold War’s dramatic escalation, because our government consistently ignored signals that Moscow was willing to step back from the conflict. The fact is, he writes, the Cold War was convenient, first because it could be used by the Army, Navy, and Air Force to justify competing and ever-higher defense expenditures, and later because it came to serve as the economic engine of the country—the “military-industrial-congressional-academic-labor-culture” complex of which Eisenhower warned. — The Atlantic

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm hoping to build out a, especially on Åland and Gotland, a modern high-tech anti-air system with AI. — Christoffer

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

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

Well here is a precedent:

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

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

It literally doesn't matter. Not one bit. Not one iota. Russia told NATO to fuck right off, and NATO did the exact opposite of that, in full cognizance of multiple people in the West telling them that this is a terrible, awful, war-engendering move and lo and behold, and now there's a war. This isn't an issue of morality or law or principle, it's a simple calculation - do you do the thing that the weaponized, nuclear aggressor literally just told you to not do, on pain of war, yes or no? NATO - and again, not just NATO but the EU in general - answered the question with a 'yes'. When you make a decision knowing the consequences of that decision, that's what people call responsibility. Putin is an aggressor and if he dropped dead tomorrow, the world would be a better place. But this white knighting for an institution which looked at war in the face and said 'yep, we'd like a bit of that thanks' - and now gets a war - is totally, absolutely culpable for dead Ukrainians. When you fly straight into the fucking sun and die, you don't get to excuse yourself because the sun was hot.

Putin's war is unjutified and unjustifiable. But acting in full cognizance of the deadly results of an unjustified demand does not let you off the hook. Again, world politics does not work like Harry Potter. Actors don't need their stories to line up, for the sake of your narrative ease-of-mind.

Literally every single one of your questions are irrelevant.

Putin is an aggressor and if he dropped dead tomorrow, the world would be a better place. — StreetlightX

Why only Putin? Who else? I suggest that there a a multitude of people who are aggressors and the world would be a better place without them.

Okay?

I blame the parents. — unenlightened

Santa Klaus doesn't exist! :rofl:

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

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

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

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

[/quote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again my house invasion analogy:

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

Well hang on. For this analogy to hold Poland would have to have been threatened with invasion by Russia to motivate it to join NATO back in 1997. A real concrete threat by your standards. So, prior to 1997, what was the real concrete threat of Russia invading Poland? I'm no Poland history expert, but I don't recall any near misses around that time. For that matter I can't recall anything prior to Latvia and Estonia joining either - not something which meets your actual and concrete threat threshold.

I may well be misremembering, so help me out here. In your analogy - who's the criminal and what concrete evidence did the countries joining NATO have that he wanted to 'break into their houses'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

Interview with Mearsheimer - putting aside his fantasies about the US even attempting to spread democracy and his insanity about China - gets the point across nicely:

Q: You said that it’s about “turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy.” I don’t put much trust or much faith in America “turning” places into liberal democracies. What if Ukraine, the people of Ukraine, want to live in a pro-American liberal democracy?

M: If Ukraine becomes a pro-American liberal democracy, and a member of nato, and a member of the E.U., the Russians will consider that categorically unacceptable. If there were no nato expansion and no E.U. expansion, and Ukraine just became a liberal democracy and was friendly with the United States and the West more generally, it could probably get away with that. You want to understand that there is a three-prong strategy at play here: E.U. expansion, nato expansion, and turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy.

Q: You keep saying “turning Ukraine into a liberal democracy,” and it seems like that’s an issue for the Ukrainians to decide. nato can decide whom it admits, but we saw in 2014 that it appeared as if many Ukrainians wanted to be considered part of Europe. It would seem like almost some sort of imperialism to tell them that they can’t be a liberal democracy.

M: It’s not imperialism; this is great-power politics. When you’re a country like Ukraine and you live next door to a great power like Russia, you have to pay careful attention to what the Russians think, because if you take a stick and you poke them in the eye, they’re going to retaliate. States in the Western hemisphere understand this full well with regard to the United States.

The problem becomes when suspicion is used as facts. When NATO gets "equal blame" for what is happening in Ukraine and any further action by Putin. — Christoffer

Go on... This is a problem because...

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

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

Because it floods the discussion with distractions from the actual conflict, it muddies the waters with irrelevant nonsense that makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening and what could be happening. — Christoffer

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

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

Perhaps you could explain the link you made above in "...makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening". How does expert speculation make it harder to dissect what is happening? It seems to enact your policy you'd need to decide in advance what's happening so that you can rule out alternative theories from muddying the water. But then what would the discussion be for?

Or perhaps you want to limit discussion to only that which has concrete evidence? No speculation.

Have you concrete evidence that NATO weren't to blame in any way? Have you concrete evidence that, of all the things Putin has said about his motives, the ones you've picked out are his 'true' motives? Not just informed speculation, concrete evidence.

putting aside his fantasies about the US even attempting to spread democracy and his insanity about China — StreetlightX

Yeah, you have to wonder about the politics of some of the detractors here when one considers the political positions of some of the people that have actually sounded a note of temperance to their vitriol.

Next we'll be citing Ghengis Khan in his famous "Woah, hang on a minute, let's just think about this first..." speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You should take a more holistic approach. What circumstances gave rise to someone like Hitler getting into power? Let's stop with the single cause fallacies. — Benkei

So if it's the harsh terms Treaty of Versailles, the internal problems of Weimar Germany, and other historical reason for fascism and national socialism to emerge, just what all of that has it to do with your country, which had been neutral during WW1? What have the Dutch to do with the rise of Hitler?

Yes, we naturally ought to be critical of what we do, that is a fundamental part of what democracies are, yet this doesn't mean that we take the viewpoint of "bothsideism" in every case. We really have to look at whose fault things are.

Hence I find it hard to see justifications of the invasion of the Netherlands by Germany in 1940 in the prior actions of the Dutch government. Of course there were reasons for Hitler to invade your country: just like Norway and Denmark, because his opponents might invade them. That isn't a justification and especially it doesn't make it "also" the fault of Norway, Denmark or the Netherlands. The invader is the invader, it's absurd to talk about pre-emptive invasions of sovereign countries.

And this is what I perhaps disagree with you. We have to put things at a scale and to a real perspective.

So earlier before the war had escalated (25 days ago), you wrote:

Russia's internal politics are irrelevant. I don't give a shit that Putin is a criminal. I care about avoiding needless bloodshed and accepting that regional powers project a sphere of influence in which you cannot fuck around without consequences. So all this IMF and NATO shit should be called out for what it is : provocations.

The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate. — Benkei

This is wrong. Russia's internal politics do matter.

Putin had made quite clear for a long time that when it came to Ukraine, he had a lot of other objectives than just to keep NATO out. Yes, he obviously had that as one of the reasons too. But NATO enlargement was just one reason among the many: Starting from the obvious annexation of Crimea which showed the total disregard to agreements Russia had made about the sovereignty of his neighbors (and international law). Also the Ukrainian revolutions were an obvious threat for his authoritarian regime. This is obvious from the assistance that Russia has given now to two countries in it's sphere of influence were popular demonstrations have been put down by force. All the utter bullshit of Ukraine being an artificial country, of Novorossiya, does also matter.

All these other reasons simply cannot be taken out of the picture in order to argue that NATO is at fault here, that if it wouldn't be for NATO, Putin would have been peaceful and respected the sovereignty of the former Soviet countries. He simply wouldn't have acted so, even if it's now a hypothetical. And as I discussed with @Isaac, yes, NATO made errors. Starting from thinking that Russia wouldn't return and that the times had changed since the Cold War and that if they in NATO saw themselves as being different from the Cold War version of the organization, leaders in the Kremlin wouldn't view them like that, but as the old NATO. Yet that's just one side of the issue.

For an authoritarian imperialist like Putin, what better way to regain the collapsed empire than with the justification that NATO made him do it. And with people in the West agreeing with him that yes, they are really the ones to be blamed here. That's not self criticism, that would make our democracies behave better.

So, basically, victim blaming? — Christoffer

Oh yeah poor poor NATO, total victims in this situation, maybe organize a cookie bake for them out of solidarity.

Look, literally none of your moralizing matters. Not one bit. What matters are consequences. And the consequences of NATOs actions, justified by whatever bit of feel-good post-hoc rationalizations, have led, concretely, to a war. No one cares if Russia has 'rights' to do what it does, or if Ukraine happens to fit NATOs bureaucratic criteria, of if NATO is normatively justified in doing what they did. Completely, utterly irrelevant. Russia's feelings are not NATOs fault. NATO acting in full cognizance of those feelings are.

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

I don't know who the fuck 'we' are in this situation because I don't happen to be a bootlicking cheerleader who thinks this is a spectator sport to take a side in and wave flags for. I am not your fucking 'we', thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explain the logic in point 9.

You don't get to tell Russia what counts as an act of aggression towards them or not. This is how the real world works.

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

Yep. So I'm asking you what reason Poland had to feel threatened by Russia in 1997. Otherwise none of that is legitimate and we'd have to look for other reasons they joined NATO which might be more provocative.

you realize that your house is very close to criminal activity, maybe even organized crime. Maybe even hearing about attacks and home invasions that have been done close to you. — Christoffer

What criminal activity? What is the criminal activity in your analogy for Poland in 1997. What had Russia done that puts them in the 'criminal activity' role in your analogy?

the criminals don't like this, because it makes it harder for them to invade and claim people's homes for their activities. So they say to everyone that this security thing needs to "fuck off" or else. — Christoffer

Whose homes? When NATO started expanding in the late 1990s, whose 'homes' had Russia tried to invade?

you realize that "fucking off" will just make you open to invasion once more, — Christoffer

What do you mean 'once more'. Once more after which previous occurrence?

Your analogy seems flawed.

At least Grozny seems reasonably stable (at the moment), as far as I know anyway.
I guess the Russian empire took over now-Chechnya in the 1800s after having kicked other invaders out, like the then-Persians. — jorndoe

Here Putin showed both his ruthlessness and his intelligence in Chechnya.

First he fought a really genocidal campaign against the Chechens. Even the Russian official statistics on Chechen deaths are horrifying. Then he put a son of a former rebel leader in charge, something similar that Russian had done in the 19th Century. It would be like the US would have installed a Taleban leader as President of Afghanistan and then started (as Putin did in Chechnya) building large beautiful Mosques all around Afghanistan. Actually something from the British playbook with the second Boer War. Let's remember that all of the first prime ministers of South Africa were Boer rebel commanders and Churchill's close friend, prime minister Jan Smuts, had been his interrogator when Churchill was a prisoner of war of the Boers. That's the way you really win insurgencies: put the insurgent leaders themselves to run the state after showing that your other option will be genocidal.



Now what plans Putin had or has now for Ukraine, I don't know. But sure is sloppy. Hope he won't use nuclear weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is kindergarten philosophy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who cares what they feel is aggression — Christoffer

Anyone who doesn't think world politics is a video game.

In real life, people need to act and react based on what others do and think and say, justified or not. Because typically people are not utter morons who can afford to entirely ignore their strategic environment out of some high-minded sense of principle, although NATO and the EU seem not to have got the memo.

:100: