But I’m pro-West and find all these countries more oppressive powers than the US so I support policies and a stance aiming at suppressing or containing the threat coming from these countries. — neomac
Although I understand what you are defending with arguments, here is when I disagree with you. Are you really sure that the USA is a lesser threat to the world?
Latin America, Asia, Africa and East Europe would disagree with you. It is obvious that the White House no longer bombs citizens and cities, but the ambitions remain in a more subtle way: imposing Capitalism worldwide, the rule of the Dollar, your military headquarters being settled worldwide (we have two!), Hollywood culture..., the homogeneous plan of speaking English worldwide, etc. If you do not consider those as a threat… — javi2541997
Latin America, Asia, Africa and East Europe would disagree with you. — javi2541997
It is obvious that the White House no longer bombs citizens and cities, but the ambitions remain in a more subtle way: imposing Capitalism worldwide, the rule of the Dollar, your military headquarters being settled worldwide (we have two!), Hollywood culture..., the homogeneous plan of speaking English worldwide, etc. If you do not consider those as a threat… — javi2541997
Still not enough, you have to compare the AVG living standards between Russia and the West. — neomac
OK. I will not give up on my beliefs, so here is the comparative between Russia and your lovely 'Western family'
Russia: GDP Increase $4.771 trillion
• Per capita Increase $33,263
Gini (2020) Positive 36.0
HDI (2021) Increase 0.822 very high.
Spain: GDP $2.36 trillion
• Per capita Increase $31,223
Gini (2021) Positive decrease 33.0[9]
HDI (2021) Increase 0.905
Greece: GDP $418.113 billion
Per Capita $22,595
Gini (2022) Positive decrease 31.4[7]
HDI Increase 0.887.
Are you happy now? And keep in mind that Russia is suffering an unfair financial block from the West. Imagine their development without our weird behaviour in Europe just to make the White House happy. — javi2541997
Dude, it’s not that difficult to fetch stats about Russia on the Internet. — neomac
I don't believe those statistics. They are made by Western universities and foundations. They have zero relevance to me. — javi2541997
China, Iran and North Korea are indirectly supporting Russia and its most ambitious stated goal to establish a new World Order alternative to the Western-led World Order, also through this war. — neomac
A fully understandable objective, don't you think? They are free to attempt to get a different type of world. Who are we to stop them? Maybe this is where the conflict could arise. The continuous obsession with implementing how the nations should be and live. — javi2541997
Indeed I talked about AVG standard of life, meaning that it is important to see how public and private resources and services are distributed over the population, how large is the middle class, how easy it is to move from lower classes to higher, etc. — neomac
OK, I see you like the digits I showed, so I will continue to use others as well - they are reliable, don't be shy to accept them - :
Russia: In 2022, the Economist calculated that Russia did graduate into the category of high-income economies by 2022, if counted at purchasing power parity rather than the exchange rate, but could fall below the threshold because of invasion of Ukraine. In December 2022 in a study an economist at the Bank of Russia’s Research and Forecasting Department, finds that the import dependence of the Russian economy is relatively low, does not exceed the median for other countries and the share of imports in most industries is lower than in other countries. The key explanation for this could be the low involvement of the Russian economy in global value supply chains and its focus on production of raw materials. However, 60% of Russia’s imports come from the countries that have announced sanctions against Russia. Russia's expenditure on education has grown from 2.7% of the GDP in 2005 to 4.7% in 2018 but remains below the OECD average of 4.9% A 2015 estimate by the United States Central Intelligence Agency puts the literacy rate in Russia at 99.7% (99.7% for men, 99.6% for women). The Human Rights Measurement Initiative finds that Russia is fulfilling 86.8% of what it should be fulfilling for the right to education, based on its level of income. Russia 1
A member of the middle class is defined as someone who considers themselves ‘above average’ on two or more of the indices.
By this measure, almost 50.8% of all Russian families belonged to the middle class, up from 41.8% in 2000. Check this out!!! https://iq.hse.ru/en/news/276242940.html#:~:text=Russia%E2%80%99s%20Middle%20Class%201%20Between%20the%20rich%20and,for%20its%20active%20use%20of%20paid%20services.%20 — javi2541997
I even doubt they are suitable metrics to asses the AVG life standards in Moscow. — neomac
I thought you would not like - or accept - the metrics of Moscow's living standards and economics, even though I made a big effort to share them with you...
That's why I get bothered. Why don't you believe in information related to Russia? — javi2541997
Still prefer it over Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. — neomac
Why are you always obsessed with these four countries? — javi2541997
Russia and China are inspiring models.
Two main reasons for my argument:
1. They have economic stability, and they are important in the financial scene. Russia is the main supplier of oil and gas, and China the supplier of... everything. Imagine if they were not being banned or blocked by the westerners, they would be superpowers.
2. They do not have immigration problems or cultural conflicts. They are well known for keeping aside illegal immigration, and it is very difficult to establish ghettos in their cities. It is important to keep the cities safe. Are you going to ignore the illegal immigration problem in Europe too? — javi2541997
I’m particularly disturbed by military nuclear powers with an authoritarian regime... — neomac
This is outrageous. As far as I know, the USA - king of the westerners - is the only nation who dropped nuclear weapons on another nation: Japan. Or do you think that the Japanese deserved it because they were ruled by Hirohito? — javi2541997
I’m asking you if YOU would prefer to live as an AVG person in China, Russia, Iran or as an AVG person in a Western country, let’s say, Spain, WHATEVER YOUR understanding of life in these countries is and whatever parameters YOU find relevant to assess life standards. — neomac
Yes. — javi2541997
Again, I’m not talking about privileged people, nor about the ability to live (happily or unhappily) in a country, — neomac
My arguments were not written in this direction, but I am perceiving that you want to twist them. Are you looking for evidence and data? OK, I will show you, despite the fact that you will not take them into account, because if they show high standards in those countries, you will not believe it...
Moscow: Gross Regional Product: €281billion / (€22205 per capita) The city has over 40 percent of its territory covered by greenery, making it one of the greenest cities in the world. Moscow has one of the largest municipal economies in Europe and it accounts more than one-fifth of Russia's gross domestic product (GDP). Overall, economic stability has improved in recent years. In 2019 the Economist Intelligence Unit's Worldwide Cost of Living survey put Moscow to 102nd place in the biannual ranking of 133 most expensive cities. There are 1,696 high schools in Moscow, as well as 91 colleges. The Moscow Metro is a world leader in the frequency of train traffic—intervals during peak hours do not exceed 90 seconds. The Moscow Metro is also the first and only one in the world to switch to this schedule. In February 2023, Moscow was the first in the world to reduce the intervals of metro trains to 80 seconds. It is the third metro system in the world (after Madrid and Beijing), which has two ring lines.
Moscow
It seems to me a pretty and attractive city to live in... — javi2541997
.still prefer to live as an avg English or Irish in Tatcher's era than an avg Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean. You? — neomac
Would you rather be a middle-class person in Russia or in a PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain) country? That's the question we should care about, and how we can understand if some countries are worthy of living in, and others don't. It is not the Anglo-Saxon world only — javi2541997
Gay marriage is not accepted even in Italy. — neomac
But then why do our Western media only focus on Russian abuse of gay people and not on Italy? Don't you really perceive the hypocrisy I am talking about? — javi2541997
I don’t talk about tourism, I don’t talk about giving a chance. I talk about living your life as an avg person in Western countries vs in one of those authoritarian countries. Which one do you personally prefer? — neomac
I know a lot of people who are happy and find their lives satisfied living in China, for example. It is a country with a lot of opportunities. Before this useless war, Moscow was an interesting city for a lot of international stakeholders. Oh, one thing, they are not authoritarian just because the law is effective in their countries. I promise I want to try to live there for a while. Would you do the same in Romania or the South of Spain? Again, the Western World is not only the UK and US. :smile: — javi2541997
Your conclusion: Most countries are rubbish regarding the treatment of their citizens, but for unclear reasons, the Western world is more attractive than the East because *insert a senseless argument* — javi2541997
I don’t love the Western world. I simply prefer to live as an avg Westerner than an avg Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean. You? — neomac
Well, they have a good economic and beautiful cities, culture, museums, etc. Maybe I will give it a chance in the future. Who knows? What I am sure about is that I will not go to Mississippi or Ohio. I don't want to get shot by police officers just for being Hispanic. — javi2541997
I want to know the truth, and it seems that the Western media is far from telling me so. — javi2541997
I personally don’t give a shit if Ukraine recognises gay marriages. — neomac
But they want to be part of the Western World, not the East! — javi2541997
The difference would still be that you can whine over Western hypocrisy against the British government and build a political protest over it, try to do the same in Russia. — neomac
You didn't understand anything of what I wrote... There were a lot of Irishmen who tried to criticise the hypocrisy and abuse of British politics, but they ended up dying of starvation or in jail... So the abuse of governments happens everywhere, not only in Russia. But we only feel astonished when they are the ones one who act in such a way. — javi2541997
Iraq and Vietnam either, but we destroyed their structures and created a big division amongst their citizens. Do you perceive the hypocrisy of the Western now? — javi2541997
I respect your love and commitment to the Western world. — javi2541997
That's the Western world you love and care for — javi2541997
Who am I to say that you are wrong? — javi2541997
Yet, sorry to accuse you that you have been brainwashed by the Western media to dislike Russia and everything related to East Europe. — javi2541997
I wish some would have the same empathy and respect for other cultures and preferences... — javi2541997
It is funny when our journalists - my circus country included, for sure! - are obsessed with showing how evil Putin is. He is attacking the sovereignty of Ukraine! - whilst nobody cared about Georgia back in 2008 - and he is a dictator because he poisoned his political rivals - whilst Ukraine doesn't even recognise gay marriage, but hey, they deserve to be part of EU membership and Western civilisation. — javi2541997
Furthermore, are you aware of how the UK acted against IRA members in N. Ireland back in the 1970s and 1980s? Do you really think that's a moral and legitimate way to proceed? The 1981 Irish hunger strike left ten young boys dying for starvation due to their hunger strike. Margaret Thatcher showed zero empathy for them and zero respect for their deaths. Could you imagine the hypocrisy if this happened in Russia?
I ask you: Why didn't the world condemn - or block - the United Kingdom for such abominable behaviour? — javi2541997
Ha! This is funny, you feel bothered because we identify American interests as not reliable, yet you are completely free to not trust Russian objectives. If you read your arguments deeply, you are agreeing with me indirectly. I said a lot of times in this thread that some users just call me 'troll' or 'Pro-Russian' for having a more neutral position and trying to understand the behaviour of Putin. Doesn't this position make you be a partisan of the Western world? Why do we trust in America and not in Russia when the latter is closer to our interests and reality? At least Russia never applied tariffs to Spanish products. On the other hand, the interests of Russia and the EU are absolutely legitimate. You are the ones who have always seen them as enemies, not us. — javi2541997
The partisans of the Western world say that we don't have to buy Russian natural resources because they are evil. But hey! Let's buy oil and gas from Algeria and Qatar, countries where free expression doesn't exist and women are objects. Why don't we block them as well? It is easier to see the world in your bubble from Washington. — javi2541997
The issue that bothers me the most is how we are wasting resources and time on nothing. Just to satisfy the caprices of a few. Russia is ready to end this war, but for unknown reasons, Ukraine and some - the UK and USA - don't want to. — javi2541997
War became virtually inevitable when Washington expressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and then backed up that intention by supporting a coup and by starting to train and arm the Ukrainians. — Tzeentch
Even if NATO membership was being held off, the Russians feared Washington would create a fait accompli when it started arming the Ukrainians to such an extent that in time the Russians wouldn't be able to object. — Tzeentch
The importance of Ukraine is especially tied to Crimea and Sevastopol. Ukraine entering a rival military alliance would mean Russian access to the Black Sea and its strategic partners could be cut off at any point in time. It had a long-term lend lease deal, which Ukraine could simply cancel and then it would be up to Russia to invade, which would at that point be completely unfeasible. — Tzeentch
Everybody involved at the political level is (or should be) aware of this, which is why Washington's attempt to change Ukraine's neutral status in 2008 and 2014 should be seen as a deliberate attempt at escalation. — Tzeentch
EU membership may be a difficult point. The EU isn't a military alliance, but the Europhiles in Brussel certainly fantasize about turning the EU into a 'United States of Europe', with a European army, etc., which would essentially create the same situation as if Ukraine would join NATO. One could argue that such a situation is far away, but the nature of geopolitics is long-term. — Tzeentch
The harsh truth is that the rest of Ukraine is only of marginal importance to Russia and Washington, and it will likely end up being the pawn in the geopolitical game for years to come. I only see things getting worse for Ukraine. — Tzeentch
I was called 'Pro-Putin' for just defending Dostoevsky... *sigh* — javi2541997
My suggestion would be, don't waste your time replying to forum members that try to frame you as being partisan. They're not worth your time and effort.
For me, it is clear that Washington is so interested in degrading Russia and pushing EU members against them. A terrible situation for both Europeans and Russians, but not for Americans. Yikes! — javi2541997
Exactly. European and American interests diverge at key points, and the current European leadership is completely incapable of safeguarding those lines. — Tzeentch
Damn. I extend an olive branch and gave a serious response to your question, and you give me this? How sad. — Tzeentch
Obviously I cannot look into the minds of the Kremlin, but if I had to make an educated guess:
- Either force a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine problem that involves a neutral Ukraine.
- In the absence of a diplomatic solution, Russia would annex those parts of Ukraine that it deems vitally important (unclear if this includes more than what it already holds), and turn the rest of Ukraine into a ruin. — Tzeentch
I couldn't have said it better. That's what is close to winning the war we ever could get. — javi2541997
I take that as a clear sign they believe the West is out of aces and they are winning the war. — Tzeentch
These oompa loompas keep saying the quiet part out loud: — Tzeentch
Ukraine's fight is being instrumentalized by the West. Occupying Russia in Ukraine is a great way of keeping NATO safe. — Tzeentch
NATO security at Ukraine's expense? It's what I and many others have been saying here for a while. — Tzeentch
What's worse is that this "plan" is fucking stupid, excuse my French. It's probably what the Americans are whispering in the ears of our dimwitted European "leadership" to foster support for a war that's not in Europe's interest. — Tzeentch
How is NATO going to be secure by essentially degrading European-Russian relations and remilitarizing Russia while DEmilitarizing Europe? — Tzeentch
Months before the coup take place. — Tzeentch
Did they make good on their promises to ensure a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine? — Tzeentch
Russians have less claim to it as Turks, and they have less claim to it than Tatars. You basically claim that Catherine's conquest somehow made it Russian forever, while all the other changes are irrelevant. — Jabberwock
Indeed I claimed/argued that BOTH the following arguments of yours are non sequiturs — neomac
Because you don’t know what it means. If you do, then you’ve failed to understand what was said. I’m not interested in holding your hand in explanation. You’re worth the minimal amount of time.
But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt.
— Mikie
Some more dogmatic claims. — neomac
No, just pure logic. But it does presume I’m dealing with a non-pathological adult, so I can see why you’ve struggled with it. — Mikie
it would still be a non sequitur, because propositional logic has nothing to do with interpreting claims literally or non-literally, but with FORMAL logic links between propositions. — neomac
That wasn’t the numbered statement, which you used to show us all your poor understanding of freshman logic. That was the statement you incorrectly claimed was a non sequitur.
At least try to get that right. — Mikie
But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt. — Mikie
.By conveniently chopping my quotation you overlooked 2 points: 1. — neomac
Yeah, because I stop reading after you show you have no clue what you’re talking about — Mikie
I see in there 4 main claims and no argument in their support — neomac
Yeah, I’m really not interested in what you consider an argument or not an argument. You’ve shown so far to have the understanding and conversational style of a high schooler who thinks he’s in a debate, and “winning.” The reality is that you’re just embarrassing. — Mikie
- I need however a (plausible enough) argument for “assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, — neomac
Then go read a book. I couldn’t care less about what you “need.” I’m certainly not going to explain it to a child who thinks he’s in debate class. — Mikie
And conveniently so because you are unable to properly argue and counter-argue. — neomac
Says the guy doing nothing except making random claims and bickering over statements he doesn’t understand. — Mikie
You’re a waste of time. Do me a favor: read a book about logic and Ukraine. You can use it. Then grow up a little.
Maybe repeat “your guru Mearsheimer” for the thousandth time. Solidify your place in the running for goofiest forum members. — Mikie
"There was no reason to do so" is a general statement, which I believe true. Clearly I don't mean "any reason whatsoever," as there can always be reasons given about anything. But no (good) reason, no. It's obvious that is implied. — Mikie
But I understand that if you're reading everything literally — Mikie
it wasn’t a syllogism — Mikie
You wrote: “I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it”, the question is why on earth China or Russia should hear your advise “however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington”?! — neomac
First, I’m not literally saying I would “give advice” to China or Russia. So that’s ridiculous. — Mikie
Second, the statement about reasoning behind the fears refers to the Monroe Doctrine, and how it doesn’t matter if one thinks it is irrational or rational. Why? Because it is, in fact, a policy. — Mikie
.Depends on the goals. I assume starting conflicts and wars isn’t the objective, and if it is it’s wrong. But assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, then putting missiles in Cuba was a mistake — and was extremely risky and foolish if done for other reasons (like getting weapons out of Turkey, which I also think was a mistake on the US’s part) — Mikie
.USSR’s move was indeed effective to counter the military nuclear threat coming from the US — neomac
That it turned out OK doesn’t make it a good decision. This is a common mistake in decision-making.
That I even have to point this out further shows I’m dealing with an intellectual child — Mikie
.The problem is that “it'd be nice” is expressing your best wishes, your preferences. As I anticipated the reality may very well differ from what we prefer. — neomac
Once again you have no clue what you’re talking about. Mine wasn’t a statement about reality. It was expressing a basic value, and assuming other non-pathological people also share that value. Not wanting the world to be engulfed in nuclear Holocaust is a pretty minimal and non-controversial expectation — Mikie
.I skip everything you write — Mikie
Now if you don’t mind, I’d like to get back to a better conversation with Jabberwock — Mikie
Why someone would refer to Brzezinski to deny Washington's culpability remains a mystery. — Tzeentch
“Non sequitur” is a Latin expression not English — neomac
I know what non sequitur means. You apparently don't. You've also proven my point about misunderstanding English nuance. — Mikie
everyone with a functioning brain, including Russia, are aware that “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO” is about Ukraine and Georgia’s perceived historical threats coming from Russia. — neomac
I'm not talking about Ukraine or Georgia's perceptions. I'm sure they have their reasons, which I respect. To argue it was mostly about "historical threats" is at best haIf-truth. But try to stay on topic.
I'm talking about Russia's perception, right or wrong. Everyone knew they considered NATO expansion a threat. — Mikie
but because Brzenzinski was an actual prominent national security advisor of American administrations, — neomac
And this is a reason to take him more seriously? — Mikie
.By analogy, if YOU want to sensibly claim it’s US/West/NATO’s fault to provoke Putin because he perceives Ukraine joining NATO as a security threat, then YOU (not the Russians) have to provide strong reasons to support such threat perception. — neomac
I already did. China making the exact same moves in Mexico that the US/NATO has done in Ukraine, and you bet your ass the US would react. — Mikie
And I don't have to give reasons for the threat perception, any more than I have to give reasons for Georgian threat perceptions of Russia. I simply look at what they say, and if it makes some sense, I take it seriously. In this case, it seems to me Russia has some reason for concern. But in any case, it's not what I think -- it's what THEY think. Which I've repeated several times. — Mikie
What would the threat be if China offered a military pact to Canada, trained Canadian troops, supplied weapons, and conducted military drills along the US border? Why would the US consider this pact a threat? Can you guess? Or would you dismiss that claim as well? If so, I applaud your consistency. If not, what's the difference? — Mikie
I noticed you couldn't answer this. Too bad. — Mikie
Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington
— Mikie
To assess if your fears are rational, you have to be at least able to reconstruct the reasons of your fears. — neomac
Good god, can you read?
I'll repeat: Regardless of what *I* myself believe about the Monroe Doctrine, it is in fact a foreign policy of the US. So the question isn't about "rationalizing" fears, especially not my own. If you had taken a few extra seconds to read what was written, you'd quickly see your response was irrelevant[/b]. — Mikie
If the US considers nuclear weapons in CUBA a threat, then the USSR doing so anyway, despite these warnings, is a mistake[/b]. — Mikie
.If you're struggling with WHY it's a mistake, I'll tell you: because it'd be nice not having World War III. In the case of Russia, it'd be nice not having Russians and Ukrainians killed and billions of dollars spent on weapons — Mikie
too ignorant about logic to understand how logically confused your claim is. — neomac
Intellectualizing something rather straightforward doesn't have the affect you think it does. — Mikie
So are you denying that “non sequitur” means “it doesn’t follow” or that it is used as a label for a “logic fallacy”, prof? — neomac
I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is poor. But that's not my fault. I assume you're not a native English speaker, and in that case I'm not making fun -- I certainly wouldn't be good at understanding the nuances of Russian or Spanish. — Mikie
So it’s false your claim that NATO didn’t expand because of the “Russian threat” . — neomac
What was the threat in 2008, and why was it never mentioned? If kept quiet about, where is the evidence that Russian invasion or aggression was imminent at that time?
I won't hold my breath -- because there was none. Just vague appeals to old tensions, most of them within Ukraine itself (which was deeply split, as is seen from election results/language distribution comparisons).
So if there was no imminent threat from Russia, why did NATO expand? Well, they told us why at the Bucharest Summit. No mystery. — Mikie
Brzeziński — neomac
Shouldn't that be "your guru Brzenzinski"? — Mikie
why NATO’s Article 5 [1] (which is clearly defensive) is a security threat aimed against Russia? — neomac
Ask the Russians. They’ll tell you. And it’s they who get to determine what’s threatening to them and what isn’t— not you and me.
— Mikie
No no I’m asking you, because you take Putin’s alleged rationale to actually have not only explanatory but also justificatory power for the origin of this war, not as a convenient lie just to persuade “useful Idiots” in the West, right? — neomac
So you ask me, not the Russians, because you assume I'm going to repeat what the Russian's have said about this?
Your logic is baffling. — Mikie
What would the threat be if China offered a military pact to Canada, trained Canadian troops, supplied weapons, and conducted military drills along the US border? Why would the US consider this pact a threat? Can you guess? Or would you dismiss that claim as well? If so, I applaud your consistency. If not, what's the difference? — Mikie
.In this case, how could you even complain about Western dirty propaganda, if you fall so candidly to foreign dirty propaganda? — neomac
Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington — Mikie
As I argued I’m TOTALLY convinced that Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be “threatening” to Russian security — neomac
Okay…so what’s the issue?
In that case, 2008 was a mistake. The US should not have continued pushing NATO membership for years. Period.
— Mikie
Another non sequitur. — neomac
And again you don't know what that means, or you fail to see the connection. I'll assume the latter, so I'll make it clearer:
(1) If it is true that Russia considered NATO expansion to be a threat (and a "red line"), then
(2) The United States pushing NATO expansion anyway, despite these warnings, was clearly a mistake. — Mikie
Apparently you're arguing it wasn't a mistake, that somehow pushing for NATO expansion, despite Russian warnings, was a good move. — Mikie
I suppose you believe it was wise for the USSR to put nuclear weapons in Cuba, right? That wasn't a mistake either, by your logic. — Mikie
As I said one can take “Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be ‘threatening’ to Russian security” as a premise to support NATO expansion as well. — neomac
So when a war finally breaks out because of this expansion, we still think it's just fine?
You'd fit right in with the Washington crowd. — Mikie
Anything else you feel like wanting to embarrass yourself with? — neomac
It wasn’t close to a non sequitur. Try learning what words mean before trying to sound smart.
The only one embarrassing themselves is you. — Mikie
.Because to me it’s a textbook example of dismissive comment about the relevance of historical evidences behind NATO expansion against the Russian threat. — neomac
NATO didn’t expand because of the “Russian threat,” which is the point — Mikie
why NATO’s Article 5 [1] (which is clearly defensive) is a security threat aimed against Russia? — neomac
Ask the Russians. They’ll tell you. And it’s they who get to determine what’s threatening to them and what isn’t— not you and me. — Mikie
Maybe a Canada joining a “defensive” military alliance with China would be fine in the US— who knows? But I’m guessing the US would consider it a threat— and if I were China, or Canada, I would take that seriously.
declared intentions — neomac
No one is talking about “declared intentions,” only what was considered a provocation and threat — which was clear enough for our own ambassador to understand. — Mikie
As I argued I’m TOTALLY convinced that Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be “threatening” to Russian security — neomac
Okay…so what’s the issue?
In that case, 2008 was a mistake. The US should not have continued pushing NATO membership for years. Period. — Mikie
This is a non sequitur. — neomac
Learn what these words mean before using them. — Mikie
.your dismissive attitude toward overwhelming historical evidences — neomac
Nope. That was your projection — Mikie
Pls fill in a few of the most unequivocal quotes from Putin 2000-2008 presidency explaining why Ukraine is a “red line” and what that implies, what is going to happen if it is crossed — neomac
I just did above. Plenty more. — Mikie
The appearance on our borders of a powerful military bloc ... will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country's security,
Again what do you mean by “Russia was such a threat”, — neomac
That Russia has imperial ambitions, that they seek to conquer not just Ukraine but other countries, etc. Claims that have been made by the US and others since 2014, and retroactively made as justification for 2008 — which isn’t true.
NATO is a hegemonic security supplier and Ukraine is a non-hegemonic security seeker (from Russian threats), that is how they met each other. Anyone with a working brain would get that knowing the history of Russia and the history of Ukraine. — neomac
I’ve already acknowledged this. — Mikie
Indeed American as any hegemon can commit mistakes and very big ones, but even in this case that doesn’t necessarily mean that NATO involvement was not justified AT ALL. It can simply mean that NATO involvement was poorly planned and/or executed. — neomac
It wasn’t poorly planned, and of course there are reasons and justifications given. The actual reason is that the US wanted to make Eastern Europe like Western Europe, and figured Russia was to weak to do anything about it. So in 2008, despite warnings, they started the process anyway.
You can buy the US rationale if you want to. I don’t. But either way, the outcome was clear: it would provoke Russia. This was known since the early 90s, in fact. — Mikie
but the latter PRESUPPOSES that Russia was interested in preventing NATO expansion in Ukraine — neomac
Are you really not convinced that at least by 2008, Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be threatening to Russian security? They said so explicitly. It’s not about what you or I feel, it’s about how they felt about it. The US knew, and has known for years, and made the decision to go forward with expansion anyway. So Crimea and now the Ukraine War shouldn’t be a mystery. — Mikie
your guru Mearsheimer) — neomac
your guru Mearsheimer — neomac
your guru Mearsheimer — neomac
You seem obsessed with this guy. I haven’t cited him once— except in response to your referencing him.
So, are you just ignorant or what? — Mikie
Because Russia had stated, for years, that NATO membership in Ukraine was considered a red line. There was no reason to do so. — Mikie
From the official Kremlin press release on the creation of the NATO-Russia Council:
On the topic of Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the Russian President said that it was entitled to make the decision independently. He does not see it as something that could cloud the relations between Russia and Ukraine. But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged. — President of Russia — Jabberwock
Why stupid provocation? — neomac
Because Russia had stated, for years, that NATO membership in Ukraine was considered a red line. There was no reason to do so. — Mikie
You’re confusing the very real tensions between Ukraine and Russia, which Mearsheimer discusses, and the justification for NATO involvement — Mikie
which today is claimed to be the threat of Russian imperialism — which is incorrect, and which is why the very same person (Mearsheimer) was rightly against it all along, including 1993. — Mikie
If Russia was such a threat, surely that would have been mentioned in 2008. But even if kept secret for whatever reason, anyone with a working brain would see that NATO involvement would only exacerbate the issue, thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy. — Mikie
But then what was the point of having Ukraine joining NATO? — neomac
US hegemony. To make Ukraine a “Western bulwark on Russian borders.” Russia was believed to be to WEAK to prevent NATO expansion at that point, in 2008.
It certainly wasn’t because of a Russian imperialist threat. Which is why none of that was mentioned, and which is why Putin was himself at the summit. Any talk of Russian threats as justification for NATO wasn’t even mentioned until 2014. — Mikie
I’ll skip the rest of your jumbled ramblings. You’ve not shown you even understand what’s being argued. I’m talking about Putin’s Russia, 2000-2008, and about NATO. I’m not talking about historical relations or ancient history or 90s reactions to the dissolution of the USSR. — Mikie
.Yes it is, indeed this is what was argued to support NATO — neomac
70 years ago.
That’s not what was argued in 2008.
After the collapse of Soviet Union, the US didn’t fear imminent hegemonic competition from Russia OBVIOUSLY. — neomac
Right— which makes the Bucharest Summit an unnecessary and stupid provocation — Mikie
.So Russia was considered “such a threat” by many prominent/influential Western analysts and East European countries — neomac
No, it wasn’t.
Nor was Russian imperialism cited as a reason in 2008 — Mikie
Indeed I cited it precisely because it talks about Russian threats prior 2008 — neomac
No, it doesn’t. You’re inability to comprehend what you read isn’t my problem. I’ll help:
No one was claiming Putin had imperialist ambitions back then. — Mikie
Which is true. Which your falsely-dated reference outlines very well:
Political will aside, extending NATO’s security umbrella into the heart of the old Soviet Union is not wise. It is sure to engage the Russians and cause them to act belligerently. — The Article You Quoted But Didn’t Understand
It’s laughable you still think this somehow supports all the smoke you blow. — Mikie
mine was just a typo — neomac
It wasn’t a typo. 1993 and 2013 are vastly different. You simply misread the fact that the article was accessed in the 2010s. You just carelessly used it in the hopes it would support your case, failing to notice it supports exactly what I mentioned — and which you can’t seem to follow (or won’t allow yourself to). But your poor reading comprehension isn’t my fault. — Mikie
relevant evidences to fix security dilemmas in geopolitics (have you ever heard of Mearsheimer's offensive realism?). — neomac
The same Mearsheimer who agrees there was no evidence whatsoever of Putin’s imperialism for the NATO provocation in 2008? Sure. — Mikie
If that’s what you mean, no I don’t consider that evidence for why NATO needed expansion at the Bucharest summit in April of 2008. A meeting in which Putin was invited. (Odd move if he was considered such a threat.) — Mikie
The narrative of Russian imperialism prior to 2008 necessitating the expansion of NATO is revisionism. That’s not what happened. Which is why you and people like you can give no evidence of it, and have to report to vague statements like “Russian history.” — Mikie
So much so that you guru Mearsheimer wrote an article about it in Summer 2013 — neomac
No he didn’t. He wrote that in 1993. And he never once advocates for Ukraine becoming a member of NATO— in fact accurately predicts that any tensions between the countries would only escalate if that happened. Which is exactly what happened. He states this clearly in the paper you cite but apparently didn’t read.
Try to get the basic facts right at least. — Mikie
Still, after 510 pages, no one has given a shred of evidence for the “Russian threat” prior to 2008, when the NATO provocation began. — Mikie
Are you aware that the so called "Russian threat" is only in Washington's paranoia? If you were from Finland, Poland, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, etc. I would respect your argument. But, it is obvious that Putin is not that stupid to attack NATO members. — javi2541997
Dude, I was referring to the current war. — neomac
No, you didn't: The Americans fought against the British Imperial power in the past...,
1776 is pretty far from our current year, indeed! — javi2541997
It’s on the Westerners to decide what to do about it in the face of the Russian threat against the West too, and declaredly so. — neomac
Your arguments are based on the false premise that in the Western world there are no threats, which, of course, is completely wrong. I think that before giving lessons to the East we should have to look ourselves in the mirror, and act humbly. If you think that a Russian commander is more dangerous for your security than some psychopath with the right to purchase weapons, you are not experiencing reality, and it is clear that you are living under the lies of Western propaganda. I see and experience a lot of threats in daily life which do not come from Russia precisely: Inflation, scarcity, unemployment, insecurity, political instability, etc. But, didn't you pretend to defend that the Western world is awesome? — javi2541997
Because Ukraine is not threatening to the West, it wants to join the West. — neomac
They want to be funded by the Western world, which is different. Because speaking plainly and frankly, they are part of the East world. They no longer want to be funded by Russia for reasons that remain unclear to me. — javi2541997
Yet they largely support the war, as far as I can tell: — neomac
I can't take you seriously if you believe in those statistics. — javi2541997
Nobody has invaded Russia proper. — neomac
Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies, starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941, during the Second World War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa — javi2541997
I'd prefer me, you and our entire families to be bombed, raped and tortured by the Russians — neomac
Ask to yourself: Are the families of the Western world responsible? — javi2541997
Secondly, why don't we care about the rest of the world as well as we do about Ukraine? What about Syria? Afghanistan? Niger? Libya and Morocco natural disasters? Do these ring a bell to you? — javi2541997
Thirdly, what about Russian citizens? They are not guilty of having Putin as President running their country. — javi2541997
It was cultural and identitarian too. — neomac
Interesting. You can fight for your American identity and cultural values, but hey! We do not allow Russians to defend their Cyrillic heritage! Russians bad and Putin a dictator! — javi2541997
Weren’t you the one claiming that Putin was an imperialist trying to take over the world a while back? Right… — Mikie
What I cannot understand is the big efforts of some politicians and neomac to deny Ukraine's Nazi past - or even present - arguing that Putin is just a psychopath. — javi2541997
True, but both nations agree on the fact that they are in the Western world, and share the same language and interests. The rebellion of the USA against the UK was a taxation or public administration problem rather than a cultural war. — javi2541997
Nah, we all are already busy paying the high costs and inflation, while our public budget is feeding them. :roll: — javi2541997
: culture, language (Cyrillic) and religion (Orthodox church) — javi2541997
So, the constant efforts of Zelensky to not be compared to the Russian spectrum is, more or less, vane. — javi2541997
I agree with the first link on the fact that Ukraine's identity is messy. — javi2541997