Putin is against Ukraine joining NATO because he believes that Ukraine might use military forces against Russia to reclaim the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014, or to reclaim parts in eastern Ukraine that are controlled by Russian-backed separatists.
“Imagine that Ukraine becomes a NATO member and launches those military operations.” Should we fight NATO then? Has anyone thought about it?” Putin said during a press conference at the Kremlin with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. — One World News
Europe gains nothing, loses a lot, and it's failure to do anything meaningful to have peace, is because European elites do not care much about European interest, neither Ukrainians nor their own populations; they care about US interests, for reason I honestly don't get (I talked years ago with bureaucrats in Brussels about there being no purpose or benefit to antagonizing Russia for no discernible reason; they honestly didn't get my point of view, would just repeat USA talking points about the issue). — boethius
The same thing is happening in Ukraine. "The Russian advance has stalled"; "the Russians will soon control Black Sea ports and shipping"; "Ukrainian regular troops and volunteers are fighting very effectively"; "the Ukrainians are likely to win"; "the Ukrainians are likely to lose"; and so on and so forth. — Bitter Crank
Furthermore, Ukraine is rich in natural resources, particularly in mineral deposits. It possesses the world’s largest reserves of commercial-grade iron ore—30 billion tonnes of ore or around one-fifth of the global total. It’s also worth noting that Ukraine ranks second in terms of known natural gas reserves in Europe, which today remain largely untapped. — Visuals
the sheer desperation and moral bankruptcy of the media enterprise — FreeEmotion
Always bear in mind that most of the media are for profit enterprises. They are not staffed by philosophers (like that would help) or public intellectuals. Reporters, commentators, hosts, producers, etc. possess varying levels of depth and insightfulness. If a big war had broken out between Myanmar and Thailand instead of between Ukraine and Russia, the same batch of people (more or less) would have descended on Bangkok and started to report back. — Bitter Crank
First of all, NATO didn't attack Iraq, it wasn't an NATO operation. NATO countries belonged to the alliance, but so did Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt and even Hafez Assad's Syria.If WMD's existed, and also don't forget the ability to 'hit London in 45 minutes' was a reality, I would have given the benefit of the doubt to NATO and the powers that invaded Iraq. — FreeEmotion
In the same way, if Russia has the knowledge that the military arrangements being carried out in Ukraine posed a threat to its security, then I am not going to say that invasion was the wrong thing to do. — FreeEmotion
Europe gains nothing, loses a lot, and it's failure to do anything meaningful to have peace, is because European elites do not care much about European interest, neither Ukrainians nor their own populations; they care about US interests, for reason I honestly don't get (I talked years ago with bureaucrats in Brussels about there being no purpose or benefit to antagonizing Russia for no discernible reason; they honestly didn't get my point of view, would just repeat USA talking points about the issue).
When I pushed for some sort of justification, "like why? why though?" they would just get angry with me. — boethius
First of all, NATO didn't attack Iraq, it wasn't an NATO operation. NATO countries belonged to the alliance, but so did Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt and even Hafez Assad's Syria. — ssu
Had the Gulf War not happened, it's likely that Saddam Hussein would have obtained a nuclear deterrence (even if the Israelis hit the Osirak reactor earlier). But the Gulf War, the later weapons inspections and Operation Desert Fox destroyed it — ssu
And thus the drumming for war, talks of the "Mushroom Cloud" after 2001 by Bush were propaganda concocted in the White House.[/quote
I will take your word for it, I am not sure of those facts, how much was concocted.
— ssu
Sorry, but I draw the line to justifiable defense to when a country is actually invaded. Not to attacking other countries because of vague hypotheticals. Pre-emption is still an attack, and then the war preparations ought to be evident to have any justifiable credibility (which is usually difficult). What kind of a threat Ukraine posed to the country with the largest nuclear weapons arsenal? Just answer that yourself. — ssu
If you accept that Russia has the right to attack Ukraine, then to be logical you should accept that then the US had the right to invade Iraq, because of the "potential", basically hypothetical threat that it posed. But that isn't even the real reason why Putin attacked Ukraine: he wants to control Ukraine and already has taken chunks of it. It's simply classic imperialism. — ssu
Or think about it this way: if Russia would promise to withdraw from Ukraine, promise to give back the Donbass and Crimea and stick to the Budapest memorandum and only thing Ukraine had to do is promise that it never, never joins NATO and remains neutral, you think Zelenskyi wouldn't take that offer? I'm sure he would. I think that even NATO would go with that sighing a relief. Do you genuinely think that Putin would give that kind of proposal? Of course not!
To think the Russian attack was a) only to halt NATO expansion or that b) Ukraine posed a threat to Russia is simply stupidity of believing the lies of Vladimir Putin. And that is foolish and basically dangerous. — ssu
How correct you are. And of course, the ugly parts in 9/11 like the people leaping to their death from the twin towers, or in war coverage of dead children or that insides of humans spilled out look quite like the stuff on display at your supermarket's meat counter is usually censored starting by the photographers themselves. If news or a media outlet shows truly shocking footage, they do have an agenda. Even if reporting atrocities is something good journalism ought to do.It is a pleasure (on one level) to view a horrible event than has no person consequences. 9/11 is a classic example: Fascinating event! I knew absolutely no one who would be or was affected. The forest fires in California were not entertaining, because I knew a couple of people who were directly affected, and we could both see and smell the smoke 1500 miles away. — Bitter Crank
After the Osirak raid in 1981 I think Israel was complacent and people didn't notice that Iraq continued the research. Another example is how far the Syrians got with their nuclear program and Israel only by chance got information about it and destroyed it (without talking much about it).it is likely the Israelis would have destroyed any chance of that, and also, why has Iran not developed nuclear weapons yet? — FreeEmotion
How? You see, Russia has the Kaliningrad enclave surrounded by NATO countries, that doesn't have a landbridge (the famous Suwalki corridor) to Belarus or mainland Russia.And Russia has already built a bridge to Crimea. And Russia would have had a multitude of ways to keep a) Ukraine out of NATO and b) the European NATO countries disarming themselves. Starting annexing territories made the totally different response, which you seem not to get!. I am of the opinion that Putin has a valid point, if Ukraine joins NATO his hands are tied regarding Crimea. — FreeEmotion
And where then do you yourself draw the line where countries "pose a threat" to Russia and are the ones where Russia is justified to use military force. I guess that means also that my country and @Christoffer's country pose a threat to Russia and for you, it's justifiable that Russia will attack us too, because of "the threat" we impose to Russia. Because that will be the next phase of this conflict. It's already well under way.Ukraine poses a threat to Russia in many ways, because its alliance with the West will benefit them to the detriment of Russia. If you do not accept that I can do nothing about it. — FreeEmotion
Zelenskyi is trying to stay alive and lead his country against Russian invasion. Oh right, it's the "bidding of his NATO masters", when the country isn't in NATO...I believe Zelenskyi is bound to doing the bidding of his NATO masters at the moment — FreeEmotion
Oh right, it's the "bidding of his NATO masters", when the country isn't in NATO... — ssu
From all the media and rhetoric that has spilled out, it appears that the NATO wants to diminish Russia if not destroy it, or reduce its international influence to that or Romania or Botswana (just two countries that come to mind) — FreeEmotion
The major benefit of reading is getting information, — Bitter Crank
LMAO. — hairy belly
Putin says these things. Those are the reasons given to this war. That is the Stalinist narrative. What do you think the de-nazification of Ukraine is about? — ssu
The main point is that this is a ridiculous war. It genuinely doesn't have credible argumentation. The Putin that annexed Crimea was totally different: thought about actual Russians and Russian speaking minorities, gained total strategic surprise and used well all his information warfare abilities. This is the propaganda of Stalin. — ssu
No EU "credible negotiation" would have done anything. If one thinks so, one is just fooling oneself and basically going and trusting a liar, who said that Russia wouldn't attack. I guess this and the idea that "all this wouldn't have happened if no NATO enlargement" are just those arguments for those who only see to criticize the West as something valid (as they don't care so much about Putin or Russia). — ssu
To think the Russian attack was a) only to halt NATO expansion or that b) Ukraine posed a threat to Russia is simply stupidity of believing the lies of Vladimir Putin. And that is foolish and basically dangerous. — ssu
A continued role for NATO benefitting the US' influence in it as the most powerful military country. It's ability to project that power across the world through local bases. An increase in countries wanting to join NATO. — Benkei
The cost? Mostly a loss of soft power (weakened trust in Western countries), which weakens European countries more than it does the US. Again a relative gain for the US, although they never cared much about soft power to begin with. — Benkei
When that "securing" happens through annexations, you do understand that is really classical imperialism.The long term strategic objectives: to secure Crimea with a land bridge, take land east of the Dnieper river (at least enough to easily attack any buildup on the near side), — boethius
Yes, and people holding the view that the real culprit here is NATO hold dearly to what George Bush jr. proclaimed. Which was just one US President (that change every then and now) and which needs all the members to agree with the issue.True, Ukraine has a "right" to join NATO and sign the treatise it wants ... problem is NATO wasn't actually making an invitation with anything on the table to sign. — boethius
And that actually would have been totally possible, if Russia wouldn't have had the imperial aspirations towards Ukraine. Far before all of this, Putin used to be the most popular politician in Ukraine. Not anymore.Ukraine also has a "right" to sign a treaty with Russia (committing to not join NATO for example), it can do so now, and it could have done so years ago too. — boethius
And how much Putin thought of the Budapest memorandum or international law in 2014? I think you can put Russia in the same category.Only the US can just go around ripping up treatise; other Nations would think twice before reneging on a treaty it just signed without any rational whatsoever. — boethius
It's also undeniable that the EU has put zero pressure on Ukraine, even symbolically, to curb this movement. — boethius
Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), often known as Azov Detachment or Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) is a right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine.
In 2014, the regiment gained attention after allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich. In 2014, a spokesman for the regiment said around 10–20% of the unit were neo-Nazis. In 2018, a provision in an appropriations bill passed by the United States Congress blocked military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology
When that "securing" happens through annexations, you do understand that is really classical imperialism. — ssu
And you do understand that the whole motivation for countries neighboring Russia to join NATO is the threat of this? — ssu
Yes, and people holding the view that the real culprit here is NATO hold dearly to what George Bush jr. proclaimed. Which was just one US President (that change every then and now) and which needs all the members to agree with the issue. — ssu
And that actually would have been totally possible, if Russia wouldn't have had the imperial aspirations towards Ukraine. Far before all of this, Putin used to be the most popular politician in Ukraine. Not anymore. — ssu
And how much Putin thought of the Budapest memorandum or international law in 2014? I think you can put Russia in the same category. — ssu
The basic logic is: Well, if EU isn't offering us anything, and forcing us to reorient our entire economy both inwards (to be immune to sanctions threats) and towards China (to be immune to sanctions threats) and offload our USD and build up gold reserves ... may as well take Ukraine. — boethius
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.