It happened 350 times in 2020 and 290 times in 2021 with respect to Russians testing air space alertness of NATO members, including the US but mostly the Baltic states. — Benkei
Suppose NATO was to close up — thought experiment
That's just whataboutism. Nothing to see with Finland's and Sweden's reasons to fear Russian. Either you take the issue seriously, or you don't. — Olivier5
Sweden and Finland have objective reasons to fear Russia. It'd be nice if posters wouldn't deny the glaringly obvious needs of fellow human beings. — Olivier5
It's nothing to do with denying anything. I haven't (yet) denied that they have objective reasons to fear Russia. Its just that you haven't yet supplied any reason that wouldn't also apply to America, so there's clearly some factor you're still missing. — Isaac
Which factor, pray tell? — Olivier5
Does being a brutal dictatorship apply to America too? — Olivier5
Yes, it is a defensive alliance. What it is defending against is all possible risks, not actual current risks.So Finland is joining NATO because something which no-one is even sure happened might happen to them and somehow NATO can stop it?
There’s always political expediency going on in a country. That is not the precursor to this development.I don't think it's why they want to join NATO either, I'm arguing against that position. I suspect they want to join NATO because it's newfound status as 'Good Guy' makes it politically expedient ally.
The western media (by and large, with exceptions) are simultaneously claiming that Russia is a ferocious enemy that will not stop at Ukraine, and then also saying how embarrassing the Russian army is. Those are contradictory views. — Manuel
Draghi:
We agree that we need to continue to support Ukraine, put pressure on Russia but also that we need to ask how to build peace. The negotiating path is difficult."
"Russia is no longer Goliath — Olivier5
Nietzsche was no idiot and he is basically at the root of Nazism. — Olivier5
Putin’s explicit nuclear threat against NATO is justification/reason enough for all current developments regarding NATO. — Punshhh
His philosophy actually.represents a cry of the individual against the collective... — Merkwurdichliebe
Socialism itself can hope to exist only for brief periods here and there, and then only through the exercise of the extremest terrorism. For this reason it is secretly preparing itself for rule through fear and is driving the word “justice” into the heads of the half-educated masses like a nail so as to rob them of their reason… and to create in them a good conscience for the evil game they are to play.
What it is defending against is all possible risks — Punshhh
Putin’s explicit nuclear threat against NATO — Punshhh
Dude, as with the rest of your incoherent rant, there is no logic whatsoever to your question. Of course I don't find Zelensky credible! He's a professional actor and comedian, isn't he? If YOU find him credible, it doesn't mean that everyone else must find him credible! :grin: — Apollodorus
How President Zelensky’s approval ratings have surged - The New Statesman
I know you're gonna say that the Statesman is owned by Putin or the KGB, but I think you can spare yourself the trouble because no one is going to believe that, maybe not even yourself. — Apollodorus
Plus, he has repeatedly made statements that turned out to be contrary to fact. You have yourself admitted that there is a propaganda and info war going on, so why should I blindly believe what Zelensky says? Moreover, even if he isn't credible, he still reportedly said he is "willing to negotiate with Russia”. Besides, my statement referred to the opinion of Western analysts who interpreted Zelensky's comments as indicating that he is prepared to negotiate on the status of Crimea, and possibly on Donbas. — Apollodorus
In any case, if even Zelensky says that a compromise is possible, this shows that he thinks Russia may have a legitimate claim, otherwise why compromise? — Apollodorus
The fact is that if two countries claim that a certain territory belongs to them, they can't both be right. Russia certainly seems to have more of a legitimate claim on Crimea than Ukraine. — Apollodorus
Unfortunately, you refuse to even contemplate Crimean independence and blindly believe your own CIA-NATO propaganda according to which Crimea MUST belong to Ukraine, Tibet MUST belong to China, Cyprus MUST belong to Turkey, etc. — Apollodorus
And, of course, if Ukraine has a right to be independent from the Soviet Union, Crimea also has a right to be independent from Ukraine. You seem to have incomprehensibly (or conveniently) forgotten this, just as you "forgot" that Crimea was never Ukrainian! :grin: — Apollodorus
How do you know America/NATO "didn’t play any role in the declaration of independence of Ukraine"? Where you there or something? America/NATO could perfectly well have encouraged that. It certainly encouraged NATO membership. And to become a member, a country needs to be independent. Very simple and easy to understand IMO. — Apollodorus
If you can't decide which countries should belong to whom, then on what basis do you think you can decide on Crimea? — Apollodorus
If, according to you, non-Western views are the views of "dominant elites that are unable of competing against Western dominant elites", then surely this shows that the dominant views are the views of elites. And this is precisely why we shouldn't stay fixated on elite narratives like those peddled by CIA-NATO trolls and bots, and consider the views of ordinary (and real) people from both sides. — Apollodorus
Furthermore, considering that NATO is clearly involved in this conflict by supplying training, arms, cash, intelligence, propaganda, etc., to Ukraine while at the same time waging economic, financial, and information jihad on Russia, I think it is perfectly legitimate to discuss NATO, its US and UK leaders, their motives, and their aims.
You obviously think people shouldn't even mention NATO, America, England, EU, because, God forbid, it might expose the West's true imperialist agenda. And that's exactly what CIA-NATO bots are programmed to avoid at all costs. Not very successfully, though — Apollodorus
Incidentally, I'm not sure he would have agreed with NATOISM either. — Apollodorus
Wrong! Richard Dawkins had a time machine and he did it. Because he's an asshole! — frank
Oh, I forgot to mention that it’s move to defend against threats doesn’t necessarily include its threat to itself.Clearly not. One possible risk is that its expansion decreases global security. It's not defending against that risk, is it?
I was talking about Putin, you know the autocrat with his finger on the button. Oh and also there is the rhetoric from Lavrov on the issue of nuclear war. As I say, here is justification enough for these developments in NATO.Wait, so now Russia is a threat to NATO? A minute ago Russia wouldn't dare strike against NATO. That's why Sweden and Finland were joining. If Russia are s threat to NATO, Sweden and Finland would be better off independent.
As I say, here is justification enough for these developments in NATO. — Punshhh
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.