All coincidence? We'll see... but that is basically how it would have to happen. — ssu

MUST (Swedish Military Intelligence and Security Service) also came out and said that the behavior of those fighter jets was not normal. They flew directly in line with our borders and at the time of passing Gotland, they did a deliberate steer into our borders close to Gotland before turning away after our response fighters caught up and took pictures of them.

It was deemed by MUST to be a clear deliberate act of aggression, as a message to Sweden. Probably because we might join NATO and also for helping Ukraine.

If they had done this with us as NATO members, the response towards Russia would have been extremely severe. If they don't want us to join NATO, they shouldn't be this stupid, now they're probably just sealing the deal for us.

I'm assuming the hard sanctions are meant to get Russia to a negotiating table, but if that doesn't happen, will those sanctions potentially cause a global depression? — frank

No, not a global depression. It will give everyone dependent on gas and oil, and in some ways wheat a huge problem, but at the same time, it will boost the need for renewables to be developed. But even that will take years if the decision is that they need to do it now. But an example is Germany who's now beginning to change course, thinking of steering away from Nordstream altogether. If we're gonna weigh global warming as a factor of a future massive global problem, to this, then the sanctions might sting the world hard in the short run, but may also push for a faster change that the world would have to do anyway.

Actually, this is a bigger problem for Russia overall. They rely so heavily on exporting oil and gas that whenever the world has turned away from that they have nothing but wheat, and we don't know how climate change will affect Russian farms for that either so they might lose that as well.

They have to become a nation that relies on trade and has other global functions than resources. They would have to focus on things like tech development. But that requires a much more open society that works as a global hub of such knowledge. To reach that kind of society in the future, they have to let go of corruption, propaganda, and old empire dreams. It's impossible to function with the current standards.

So if the sanctions hit hard now, the future will hit harder on Russia.

Btw as I said to Christoffer, it may be that tomorrow Friday Finland might have some bilateral defense agreement with the US or apply for NATO. Or not. But at least it's a possibility that can happen. Many are speculating about it here. When I look at my country's actions when in crisis, that would be similar to our turns when facing the possibility of boxed into a corner. — ssu

Today our government had closed talks about the military strategy going forward. Many mentioned how we need to speed up to reach the 2% of GDP which I'm not sure is needed but at least recommended by NATO in order to become a member. I think however that in the current situation, NATO need to drop that number in order to let Finland and Sweden in fast, so what I think is going on right now is that there might be an agreement already "signed", but not official with the promise that Sweden will eventually reach 2% in 2024 or 2025. This way Sweden can show the numbers to NATO as a planned expansion in order to be let in earlier than a proper 2% reach.

But that's just speculation, no one knows what they're talking about and I think that's the deal. I think Finland and Sweden need to join at the same time and fast so that Russia won't have any time to react to such news. Like, "oh, and now Sweden and Finland are part of NATO."

Then we'll see how angry Vladimir is at us. Perhaps I ought go and fill fuel family's cars tonight as a fuel shortage might hit soon. — ssu

He can be angry, but at least we're no sitting ducks anymore. He brought this on himself by invading Ukraine. He turned me into a pro-NATO person. That's a failure in itself on his part.

Sadly, that is to be expected. Not everybody cares as much as you do. — Olivier5

Yeah, I might rage off, but that may be because I care a lot about stopping a tyrant, some seem to care more about winning an argument.

To stop something, the actual truth is more important than holding an ideological ground. I was against NATO before all of this, I didn't think Sweden should join. But Putin changed the game 180.

So for instance, the exposure of someone living in Australia to the Ukraine war is minimal and implies from Australians a certain detachement. — Olivier5

Well, according to nuclear war predictions, the least fallout would be in Australia, or New Zealand with an average of -35 degrees celsius. So a cozy atomic winter future for anyone who would even survive the worst outcome. So no wonder you could be detached down under. :sweat:

Thank you. But I recommend actually reading them, or rather that the ones I discuss with do it since it sometimes seems like people read one sentence and then don't care before answering. My answer to Joseph Zbigniewski above is an example of what I'm criticizing, I've been saying the same things many times before, but that's a better run through.

I'm asking for substance, just as you seek in mine. And all the frustrating posts from me may be from the frustration of never getting that substance when I ask for it. So I just post my argument again and again trying to explain what I mean in the context of someone's ill-explained argument. I just think that asking for a logical and evidence-based argument about NATO is crucial before posting some opinions about NATO and Russia. Most things I read in here read as conspiracy theories... but I get the blame for lacking substance?

No one flagged this (or any of your other outbursts) and I didn't mod you because it's politics. — Baden

I flagged all his posts that didn't follow the rules of this forum. I guess my example of authoritarianism paid off if those flags were removed by him. And I'm fine with cursing, I do it all the time. But only cursing out insults as the entirety of a post without anything else is what I'm turning against. A spam of posts without any substance other than a fuck you to me.

So, stop being a hypocrite please. If you can dish it out, you're going to have to take it. — Baden

Oh, how you put that out of context. A wonderful way to spin the narrative. You could expand those to show the entire sentence instead, especially the one about "bending down", here's the actual text:

Generally I imagine one deals with nuclear weapon threats by not poking a fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye. That's just me though.
— StreetlightX

So bend down and get fucked. You're an inspiration to the world.

I guess the lack of question mark was an error on my part. I guess that it meant no one could understand that I was referring to "not poking the fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye" as "So bend down and get fucked?"

If you look closely you can see what I mean there.

Anyway, whatever, what's the point in explaining myself.

What you are requesting cannot be provided because it is hidden in "backrooms" and over secure telephone lines. We are not dealing with rank amateurs here, but rather with professional corrupt politicians. — Joseph Zbigniewski

For which we have no real evidence I presume? No witnesses? No leaked documents? No whistleblowers? If nothing of that, how is this a valid premise?

It is, however, obvious from the alignment of NATO policy with U.S. interests. — Joseph Zbigniewski

You have two slopes or valleys with two big rocks at the bottom. How do you prove that both rocks rolled down the same mountain and not from two mountains opposite to each other?

What I mean by that is that just because you see a correlation between NATO and the US, doesn't mean it is controlled by the US. It can also mean that after WWII, much of the interest of each nation in Europe, west of the wall primarily, had similar interests due to the consequences of the war and following cold war. The collaboration between the initial nations fell in line with each other, i.e they fell from different mountains into the same valley. The following expanse of NATO also naturally follows different nations that are closer to the majority of those nation's political and cultural forms.

So, each nation is a different mountain in the same mountain region, but the valley is the same. Most nations who want to join NATO wouldn't do it if the majority of the nations in NATO had vastly different political aspirations. The stability comes from all member nations having similar political philosophies.

Just because NATO and the US seem to correlate with each other, doesn't mean that US controls NATO. It more or less means that the US and the member states of NATO, A) had it easier to find agreements with each other due to similar political philosophies and B) New members had it easier to join because they had similar political philosophies.

If 30 nations are members and most of them share similar political philosophies, i.e they are similar to the US, does that mean that the US controls NATO, or that NATO as a whole consists of nations with similar concerns as the US?

Just seeing a correlation isn't evidence without looking at the details of such a correlation.

Do we not all know how corrupt American politicians, and indeed politicians in general, are? Why, Joe Biden's drug-addicted son Hunter was given high-level executive positions in Ukrainian companies as a result of his influence peddling! — Joseph Zbigniewski

Since the previous premies above aren't conclusive in logic, then pinpointing corrupt politicians in the US does not follow. Yes, there's corruption, no, the US hasn't been proven to control NATO, it is 1 of 30 members.

I am sure that because of this, Biden takes Russia's invasion more personally than he would otherwise. It hits his family in the wallet. It is very possible that the only reason the U.S. has not acted against Russia militarily is because of Putin's cogent reminder regarding what type of weapons Russia is in possession of. — Joseph Zbigniewski

NATO does not act in defense of a nation that isn't a member state is a more possible explanation, since the US has not been proven to control NATO.

Again, I ask for actual support, evidence, deduction that the US is in direct control of NATO. That 29 nations in NATO have no say and just do as the US tells them to do.

I have yet to hear any such things. I only hear the same thing as numerous times before "we all know..." or "All of the evidence is behind closed doors..."
That doesn't sound like evidence to me, that sounds like conspiracy theories.

Give me some actual logic and evidence here.

nor NATO, which takes dictation therefrom — Joseph Zbigniewski

The U.S. did never want another "superpower" within NATO precisely because NATO is an expression and an appendage of U.S. hegemonic policy — Joseph Zbigniewski

So, how in practice does this work? If all nations who have joined NATO have a vote, equal say, how does the US control NATO? Many in here talk about this, but I've yet to hear anyone actually explaining this other than "we all know it", which, I'm sorry, doesn't work for me. And since many of my arguments depend on the notion that NATO is in fact an alliance and not controlled by a single nation, i.e the US, I am asking for clarification on this point. Since there's much talk of Sweden and Finland joining NATO, will we then be controlled by the US? Which would be the result of NATO being controlled by the US.

Can someone clarify this in some actual logic and evidence? I am genuinely asking here.

Marvelous, human evolution has accelerated most favorably! We must call in the paleoanthropologists so that we can demand an explanation. — Joseph Zbigniewski

Do things change over time? Can you prove that something has stayed exactly the same over time?
Look at a map of NATO in 1949. The US has lots of influence. Look at a map of NATO in 2022. The US has less influence. All countries have a vote, the less nations, the more your vote is worth. So, yes, NATO is not the same today and NATO is not the US, whatever people think about it.

The problem here is the infantile "Putin bad" "NATO good" narrative or worse, the idea we can somehow "trust" the US to do better than the Russians, when the whole point of my comments on this thread has been that NATO and the US are not trustworthy at all and knowingly escalated tensions right up to war. — Benkei

Way to strawman my arguments. And also totally miss the points I've been making. But it's ok, I have realized that you don't care so there's no point in trying to explain my points.

But you, and others, apparently think it's fine to play chicken with human lives at stake, because, hey, they're just Ukrainians! To then shed fucking crocodile tears for Ukrainians without looking our own complicity straight in the eye is a fine example of self-delusion. The inability by posters like Christoffer to even slightly start to display some understanding of this after over 50 pages, deserves scorn for either the wilful idiocy it reflects or malice otherwise. — Benkei

Are we playing chicken with people's lives when they not only want survival but also freedom? You ok with them living under the boot? Maybe listen to what the Ukrainians say themselves instead of speaking for them like if you were appointed speaker to their needs.

Maybe you are just frustrated that there's another perspective in all of this that doesn't comply with your own. Maybe this is because I live in a totally other security situation where Russian planes are actually breaking our airspace as we speak. So maybe you don't know as much as you believe.

Fucking children think this is a Idols contest where we are to choose who we trust more. As if trust has any fucking relevance in an arena with real politik players. It's irrelevant as much as it is stupid but entirely in accordance with his predisposition that obviously makes him entirely incapable of being critical. — Benkei

More strawmanning. And more cursing. And more attitude problems.

Who made you a mod? Seriously, who signed off on that?

I can have perfectly civil disagreements but not with ideologues. — Benkei

And I can't have civil disagreements with people who are neither civil nor care for anyone else perspective other than their own.

The problem is that I've asked so many times for clarifications on subjects and counter-arguments and whatever, but I never get them, I never get a logical deduction when I ask for it, I never get anything that sticks together rationally. All I get from you and others are ill-conceived loosely put together opinions (just as ideological as you blame others for) and when I continue to explain myself in detail after detail while asking for more from others, I just have to stand getting called childish, ideologue and whatever other bullshit you can come up with.

And since you are a mod, there's no point in flagging your posts. It's almost a kind of exercise in authoritarian politics trying to.

Aaaah, I see. The U.S. was once a nation which conceived of its (manifest) "destiny" by looking at maps, by the apparent dictates of geography, but today it is not. The U.S. once was a nation which committed cultural and actual genocide against not simply an ethnic group, but an entire family of ethnic groups, but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation willing to manufacture premises for going to war with other nations (the Spanish-American War, the recent Iraq War), but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation which used its "defense" system (is this not what "NATO" is?) in the prosecution of wars in distant countries which were not threatening it in any conceivable way, but today it is not.

Thanks for explaining. — Joseph Zbigniewski

I'm talking about a probability factor for the world as it is today. If you mix history in a blender you can get whatever result you want, or that supports your thesis.

And no, that's not NATO today.

Just watch the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Baghdad. Did you support the bombing of civilians? I didn't.

Nice to know there were no women and children killed in these explosions. — FreeEmotion

Valid point.

?!?

Ummm...

www.history.com/news/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-photos-before-after

The examination of premises is essential to making good arguments. — Joseph Zbigniewski

Today... that's the argument.

Would they act in that way today? I argued that because they are the only ones who've used nukes in history, that could also be a thing that makes them more careful with choosing that solution in any future conflict. There is a national guilt because of this in the US, it's not an act they're proud of and they know the political and humanitarian ramifications of such an act.

With Putin not even letting civilians out of cities that they're now bombing (while surrounding), I am not so sure he cares about the humanitarian aspect. And since he doesn't seem to care about the political ramifications of this invasion, why would he care about that if using a nuke?

Makes sense or not?

I have neither the time nor inclination to take your apparent fragile ego into consideration when clarifying the kindergarten level of your thinking. — Benkei

People speaking like this are probably the ones with an actual fragile ego. I'm surprised you are a mod in here. Show don't tell

Either write better posts or stick to reddit. Bye. — Benkei

Look at Cuthbert here, he actually engages with the question in a way I find more civil. You know, it is possible to do that.

I couldn't answer this question. I tried finding the one I trust less and then picking the other one but I couldn't do it that way round either. Maybe Biden. America is a civilised country. America would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Russians are easily contented with a ready supply of vodka, animal fur, football teams and mansions in Knightsbridge. Making war would be the last thing on their minds. I give up. — Cuthbert

Yes, it is a very hard question actually. I think the only ones who would use nukes are the ones who just don't care if this world ends. I don't think the US want that and I don't think Russia want that. I can only hope that there are people under Putin who just say no to his order if he orders it, because I'm not so sure he cares about the world if it doesn't exist as he wants it to. But people around him don't want Russia to be a radioactive parking lot, so I don't think they would let him fire them off. But I have a hard time trusting a shorter chain of command.

There is, by every info available, probably less red tape involved in firing off a nuke in Russia than there is in the US. So maybe we don't have to value who to trust, we can just mathematically answer it. The longer the red tape is, the more likely that someone in the line of command personnel says no. And maybe that's the answer?

The reason I won’t participate more in this thread is because of these kinds of replies.

My reply was directed at a particular point about a particular conversation.

I was careful with my words and the overall point was to look into the nuance of the situation and steer away over simplifying and casting good against evil. I was in agreed about looking for a resolution rather what I would frame as finger pointing and division for the sake of division. — I like sushi

Well, sorry if my post seems over-simplified, but I'm not sure there is a possible resolution to this conflict that is peaceful or de-escalating. Putin just said to Macron that he will not stop fighting.

I'm not promoting division for the sake of it. I just think that people analyze this situation with a normal measuring tape when Putin's actions are nowhere close to normal. Even people who research eastern politics and Putin say that something's happened to him the last two years, that he acts in a way that isn't the cold calculating KGB man he was before.

And what I see there is a threat of someone with a lot of power starting to act irrationally. This is very dangerous, especially since I cannot see any way out of it when he ignores everyone, including the UNs requests. He won't even open a humanitarian tunnel from the cities he's bombing, which means he doesn't care that civilians are trapped in there while he's bombing them.

There's very little nuance to be made in this and I'm not sure that is an over-simplification?

Again, what's up with the fucking childish questions? I question the US narrative and your reply is, who do you trust more? Seriously?I don't trust either, especially considering the US is the only country that ever used nukes. Twice.

The only relevant difference here is, it is unlikely that the US will attack the Netherlands. — Benkei

You can question both, but who do you trust more in handling nukes? Why is that a childish question? And I also explained how the act of having used a nuke could have created much more care in how to handle the question of using nukes. A nation without that experience doesn't have the national guilt of it.

Do you mean to say that the US would attack nations as long as they're far away from western borders? Do you really think that would happen? How so? With everyone knowing they are the only nation who previously used them and with the knowledge of the extreme political fallout that would create? Do you mean that this is just as likely as a nation with an authoritarian dictator who silences his people, speaks of his empire, and actually threatens others with nuclear weapons? Are you seriously saying that you trust the US and Russia (Putin) on an equal level? I trust fucking China and even North Korea more than Russia, since Russia is the only nation actually showing aggressive behavior with their nukes.

Let go of your childish outbursts and either engage in the discussion or ignore what I write. Getting really fed up with everyone, even the mods, acting like this forum is fucking reddit.

So I guess if we're to look for a reason why your own posts are such garbage, we have to look at something aside from bias? — jamalrob

If you brand everything I write as garbage, then I guess you have no bias at all, right? I would like to add logic and rational deduction to that as well, since there seems to be a rather lacking area in here.

I also wonder why you, as a moderator, write such a post as the one you just did? Just blatantly dismissing everything I write is garbage. Are you seriously saying this, or just because you don't agree with me? I guess this forum changed its rules. I've at least tried to form rational reasoning arguments, requested for it, requested a logical deduction from others, but yeah... doesn't matter it seems.

I don't always agree with George Monbiot but I think he's right here. Pilger really is just a tankie these days, soft on anything that positions itself against the US.

Among the worst disseminators of Kremlin propaganda in the UK are people with whom I have, in the past, shared platforms and made alliances. The grim truth is that, for years, a segment of the “anti-imperialist” left has been recycling and amplifying Putin’s falsehoods. This segment is by no means representative: many other leftists have staunchly and consistently denounced Russian imperialism, just as they rightly denounce the imperialism of the US and UK. But it is, I think, an important one. — jamalrob

I think people who fall too far into their ideological bias tend to just agree with anything that follows the same rhetoric as themselves. So if Putin start having similar rhetoric, even if he lies in order to reach some strategic end goal, people who would usually be strongly opposed to him start to embrace his words.

This is why the act of trying to prevent as much of your own biases and fallacies as possible when arguing is the only way to speak as truthfully as possible for a human being.

Both the US and Russia seek to expand an empire. But personally, I prefer the US clinical approach as a lesser bad (even if it still ends up killing people), than the Putin-led bombardment of civilians and nations to force them to be ruled over. There's a reason that one type prevailed over the other through the 20th century. At least we in the west can shout and talk about the US imperialism, even right to the leader's faces without being killed or imprisoned. There is a clear less bad and overwhelmingly bad in all of this, even if the usual suspects of anti-imperialists think everything is equally bad in a black and white way.

the Biden administration did the right thing: It didn't do anything with it's nuclear forces.
— ssu

Publicly. We have no clue really. — Benkei

Do you trust Biden or Putin more with nuclear weapons? Do you trust the chain of command in the US more than Putin's? Everyone can argue that the US also has nukes and they're the only nation who actually used them, but all of that just smells over-simplification from the regular "the US is to blame for everything"-people. It can also be that because they are the only ones who used nukes, they know the consequences, the national guilt, the terror that it implies. There are reasons for the miles-long red tape before even touching the keys of the "football", it's because it should be extremely problematic to fire a nuke.

The question is really: do you trust Putin more than the US when it comes to who would initiate total annihilation?

Bad intel doesn't explain seeing what isn't there. Blurry vision, seeing vague and undistinguishable things, does not account for making those things into something identified and intelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bad intel could be the same as people misinterpreting surveillence information. On top of that, this info going up the chain from the analysts at CIA to Bush and him only getting the info that there are weapons of mass destruction there. That can absolutely happen and give reason to invade, however stupid or lack of judgment that is. We still don't know if it was bad intel or intentional play of words to justify it.
If intelligence agencies were to only act on 100% proven intel, we would have had a lot of shit happening in the world because almost nothing was prevented. We can criticize and blame these agencies all over the world for many things, but... and I have actual sources for this... there are things happening all the time that gets prevented by them. If they only act on 100% verified information, it could slip through a lot of bad things happening.

But the intel about weapons of mass destruction was, as said, either intentional play with words, or just one of the worst fuckups of intel gathering and processing we've seen.

I generally ignore people who claim to know the intentions of others, especially when the other is a proven strategist, and strategy is a skill based on keeping one's intentions secret. — Metaphysician Undercover

So the leaked documents, the sources and intel from within Kreml so on and so forth do not point towards such a conclusion? I guess it's easy to dismiss anything by arguing like that, but what is most likely? What everything points towards (not only what he says, but everything else as well), or someone speculating about Putin as if he was a cardboard cutout standard world leader figure with predictable methods? That he is a strategist does not mean that everything people have dug up on him and his mindset is wrong. You can't exist as a world leader for over 20 years without information slipping away.

For the first time (like there), polls say that more Finns are for NATO membership than against. Still many that haven't decided. Russia invading Ukraine finally changed the mood here dramatically. — ssu

It's the same in Sweden, polls have shifted. It's just that our politicians are very afraid of that choice because of Sweden's long tradition of "neutrality" (questionable during WWII, but whatever). So I can understand how our prime minister has an extremely hard choice to make. If WWIII breaks out, without us in NATO, we could do the same as before, just chilling out and then have one of the best economies in the world when everyone else is in rubble. But if we join NATO, we would be forced to fight in any conflict NATO ends up in.

But I think it's worth it. Russia, or rather Putin, is such a manchild that it's too unpredictable to stay out. And if WWIII involves nukes, it doesn't matter if everyone else around us gets hit, the fallout will still kill us and everyone else. So for regular warfare, it would be rational to be part of NATO. But another thing is that if Finland joins, we might be well off anyway. I'm not sure it's very strategic for Russia to invade Sweden when it's pretty much encircled with NATO members. It's a very unstrategic place to invade and the only fallback is the Baltic sea.

So I don't know what's the best course of action for Sweden. I generally think NATO is the best choice, it creates a large border towards Russia that Russia will never be able to attack other than with nukes, but that's endgame anyway so it doesn't matter who you are.

I haven't heard that from the Russians. That I would put in the "hyping fear" category. At least now, for the time being. — ssu

I think it was a misinterpretation of when Russia threatened us. Russia never said "invade", they just threatened. It could mean firing missiles or something, who knows, some retaliation because we sent weapons to Ukraine.

At this time, it has become pretty clear that Russia is just threatening, with nukes, with forces or whatever. They're desperate. If they were to ever attack, they would have two fronts, one in Ukraine and one in the north, diluting their military. With the economy crashing and war chest being in trouble, it's close to impossible for them to do something like that. And if they attack any NATO member, it's gonna be like having a swarm of bees attacking Russia. It's gonna flatten the entire nation. Putin would be hunted down, probably into the same fate as Hitler, offing himself in a bunker. The only viable option for them would then be nukes, but that would end everything, which, because I feel like Putin is just a crazy mentally challenged manchild, whatever credit other people like to give him, is a real risk. If he's cornered into his bunker and everyone wants him dead, then he might as well fire off everything. And this is why he is in my opinion the biggest risk of total annihilation we have. It's why I have no moral problem with offing him.

This is a good demonstration of the role of intention in interpretation. You see what you want to see. They wanted to invade Iraq, they saw weapons of mass destruction there. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but we don't know if that was an intentional play or if they just had bad intel by bad intel operators. If the intel had been correct, it might actually have been warranted, otherwise, the nation might have become another North Korea, but in a far more dangerous place so close to Europe. Even if it's questionable if an invasion would have been necessary anyway, it would at least have had an intention that far outweighs anything of what actually happened.

I don't think this distinction is valid. They wanted to exercise control over what they perceived as an unruly state, through disposal of its leader. Seems like a very similar situation to me. The tactics differ widely. — Metaphysician Undercover

Those are not the same. Putin wants to redraw borders, Ukraine should be "his". This was never the long-term intention with Iraq, regardless of initial intentions for the invasion. And the focus was on the leader and change in the political system. Of course everything of that failed in the long term, as it usually does when the US tries it. But it's easy to also forget all the people who were actually killed and terrorized by Saddam in Iraq and who welcomed the invasion and removal of him. What I mean is that the invasion of Iraq is in no way comparable to either the intentions or methods in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is a massive attack on a free nation with the intent of claiming it and reforming it into the Russian empire with Putin as their leader.

They picked one hell of an opponent to fight for freedom against. — FreeEmotion

How did THEY pick the opponent? Does the country being invaded get to pick who's invading them?

I think NATO is pushing the Ukrainian president on, as a pawn in their hands - his pleas for help were not answered in time. — FreeEmotion

NATO cannot fight in Ukraine because NATO is a defensive alliance only for its member states. They don't attack or go into a non-member nation to help out. I don't understand why people find this hard to understand? NATO only initiate combat if one of their member-nations are attacked and they can't do anything in Ukraine since they're not members. Doesn't matter if they plea for help.

Ask any military strategist (not politician) what the best thing to do in the situation. I am sure it will be to agree to a ceasefire. If not, then I will just accept that. — FreeEmotion

So they should just roll over and be fucked by Putin then? You don't understand people fighting for their lives and freedom? This is Putin's crime, he has no right whatsoever, he breaks international law, almost the entire UN condemns the invasion and any I find it horrifying that people even consider letting Putin just take Ukraine in order to ceasefire.

Haven't we learned what happens when we give a narcissistic authoritarian dictator what he wants? Haven't the 20th century shown us just what happens if we just give him free reign? If this goes on, then Putin will be on a hit list. The entire world will hunt him and his minions down. Russia will probably become a closed nation with extreme totalitarian standards. When I propose attacking Putin and his minions himself, it's not just to help Ukraine, it's also to free Russia. People in Russia need to be free of Putin. Just look at how many oppose the war, oppose Putin, even risking their own life and freedom doing it.

Why are people still making the mistake of appeasement against people who rise to dangerous levels of power? And only when that power and terror has reached too far do people do anything. Enough is enough, there's only one way to fix this situation, even if it's extremely hard and complex.

My personal opinion knowing what little I do is that I hope Putin will step back and someone with better diplomatic skills steps into his place and improves the current position of Russia. I think it was a mistake for Ukraine to push to get into NATO even though they had every right to apply NOT that that is any excuse for the actions and rhetoric used by Putin at all. — I like sushi

Putin will not back down like that. This is not how Putin's regime works. They're closer to how any other authoritarian regime worked during the 20th century than any modern democratic one. Putin is closer to Hitler in this regard, having his trusted inner circle, an extreme protective machine around him, total control over the news (and now even more when they've shut down any independent news stations), and killing or imprisoning people who oppose him. Do you really think that Putin would "step down"?

And Russia has no right to demand a free nation not to join NATO. They can ask them not to in a diplomatic fashion, but they can't demand anything. Just like Russia can't demand Sweden or Finland not to join NATO. Because of the latest fighter jet incident here in Sweden, I'm thinking that joining NATO isn't just good for security, it would also be a big fuck you to Putin and his minions.

STOCKHOLM, March 2 (Reuters) - Four Russian fighter jets briefly entered Swedish territory over the Baltic Sea on Wednesday, the Swedish Armed Forces said, sparking a swift condemnation from Sweden's defence minister.

Two Russian SU27 and two SU24 fighter jets briefly entered Swedish airspace east of the Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, Sweden's Armed Forces said in a statement, adding that Swedish JAS 39 Gripen jets were sent to document the violation. — ssu

Yes, things have been on a higher alert level since this. Fortunately, we have pretty fast response times for this. If they had any intention other than "making a statement", they would have been shot down before they were even close to Gotland.

It's ironic that this happens at the same time as I was writing in here about reasons to join NATO for Sweden and Finland as an act of defense against Russian aggression. Maybe people could understand why nations want to join NATO now instead of pushing the bullshit narrative of the US forcing such things upon us. If these fighter jets had breeched our airspace while we were part of NATO, that would have been a serious matter for Russia that they can't just talk themselves out of.

When this is all over, if it is all over, lets see if we agree lives could have been saved by surrendering early. At the moment Ukraine has the worlds support like it never had before the invasion, so a ceasefire will ensure situation hugely in their favor. I hope Zelenski makes the right choices. — FreeEmotion

Ukraine doesn't want to be part of a totalitarian regime. They're not just fighting for their lives, they are fighting for their freedom. For many of them I think that if Russia takes over Ukraine, they would try and leave the country, seek freedom somewhere else.

Everything I can find that hints at Putin's mindset seem to boil down to a total miscalculation of what Ukrainians want. I think he had become so delusional about his own importance, maybe even lied so much he started believing his own lies, that he genuinely thought Ukrainians would want him as their leader. It might be that he has now realized this wasn't the case and, therefore, he doesn't care anymore about civilian lives. So now he's only aiming to claim the land.

At the moment, Mariupol is completely surrounded. People talk of a Leningradsituation. If this happens, Putin might have close to a million civilian casualties.

Putin did something terrible in invading Ukraine and George W. Bush did something in invading Iraq? Not sure if we are all against invasions in violation of the UN Charter. — FreeEmotion

US invasion of Iraq was a farce. It was either a strategy to "fool" the world that an invasion was needed, or just the worst intel operators ever.

But even if the US invasion should be considered a violation, Putin's war is on another level. The key differences are that US didn't invade to make Iraq into a new state of the US. If anything, they just wanted the oil. The second, and most important thing, is that the US actively tried to avoid collateral damage. When it happened, there were major internal criticism, major criticism from the public and it was never handled like it didn't happen. Putin just aims his missiles straight into populated areas with civilians and just doesn't care. The only reason civilians aren't killed more is because there are some Russian soldiers actually thinking that driving over civilians with tanks is a bad thing. Putin and his minions just don't care if civilians die. If the only way to conquer Ukraine was to just level a city filled with civilians, he would do it. The only reason he isn't doing it is that he needs to convince the Ukrainians to be little Russians to big Russia (as in the manifesto). He's the old-style dictator who shoots civilians and hopes they'll still love him when this is over.

So I wouldn't say that those two invasions were the same, it's not black and white and if Iraq was dark grey, this war is pitch black.

I could talk for a while about why Americans assume their political structure should be exported to raise up all the suffering people of the world, IOW, why the American system is kind of like a religion, but that might be too far afield of the thread's topic.

I don't know if China also thinks their system (which is still evolving) should be exported. — frank

If we are to actually find out what nation should "lead the world" with "exporting political and cultural forms", the only thing we can practically use to figure that out would be to look at the indexes of life quality and other similar lists.

Then figure out which nation gets generally the highest between all statistics and use that to "fix" other nations.

It's either that or each nation needs to figure it out for themselves. There is an argument to be made for previously suffering nations who are now building their society into better life quality to be left alone to suffer through it instead of them just "taking" another nation's political and cultural form to speed up the process. While it makes the process go faster, it might not build up a genuine cultural core within the people. So by them suffering into their own functioning society, they also grow internally with that change if left alone to do it by themselves.

But at the same time, many nations have in history seen a system they liked better and adopted it into society, for better or worse.

But I think the core thing is that culture and politics should never be exported, it should only be open to being imported, through knowledge and interactions between nations. If a nation wants to adopt Chinese politics, they should be able to, if someone else wants to adopt western culture, they should be able to. Of course... I'm kinda speaking of Ukraine here. They started to import the western form in politics and culture and they have every right to do that to themselves.

There are some aspects of Chinese culture that just rub me the wrong way, sort of like I gather American ways irritate the fuck out of non-Americans. — frank

Some? Are you talking about culture or politics? If people think a Chinese superpower rule is good for the world, they must be totally unaware of how things are in China. Culture is one thing, that's the day-to-day interaction of regular people. But the politics of China is not ready for global export, it's broken to its core.

I think he wants Russia to be among equals among core nations. He needs to do something about his economy and his legitimacy though. — frank

You can't force people to be your friend, that will end up you being alone. And if you force someone to be part of your family, that's just mafia methods. Which might be why many think of Putin and Russia as a mafia state, not only in terms of operation, but "the family".

For the Russian leadership, blaming the West for the war in Ukraine is a matter of survival. If Putin fails to convincingly pin this war on NATO and "Ukrainian drug addicts", if the average folks realize that their president has bombed their Ukrainian brothers and sisters for no reason other than a power trip, then Putin is politically dead. And possibly, biologically dead too. So blaming the West is key to his survival. — Olivier5

And this is EXACTLY why the argument I've been pushing in this thread is important. The "blame" needs to be proven to be either towards the west or towards Putin. If the west can't be proven guilty of what happened, then it's impossible for Putin himself to blame the west with any form of credibility. This is why speculations and suspicions about "the west" are totally irrelevant next to actual evidence of guilt

It's a public debate criminal court basically. To establish if Putin had a just cause or can be absolutely blamed for delusional empire aspirations.

He already signalled his demands at the negotiating table: he wants Ukraine to be recognized as neutral. He wants it demilitarized, and he's probably going to choose its next leader, who'll be a puppet.

He'll basically put a squash on Ukraine's economy by diminishing its ties with Europe.

The west will then back off the sanctions and go back to normal with no further overtures to Ukraine and less trust for Russia than it had. — frank

If the manifesto of "The new world order" is correct, you have to add that as well to speculations on Putin's ambitions. What Putin says officially during the ongoing conflict means very little. He also said he wants to denazify Ukraine and that Ukraine is filled with drug addict nazis. So by his word we have millions of people flooding into other European countries now and they're all nazis and drug addicts and drugged nazis. He's basically full of shit. The manifesto was supposedly what was going to be released after a fast takeover of Ukraine, it's a declaration of the new empire that points more clearly to the goal he's aiming for. At least, as long as he's not just a fucking nutcase, he would have the intellect to realize by now that this manifest would be toast.

but it is worthy to note that Russia is getting backed into a corner where their only option is nuclear, meaning on all conventional levels, they will likely come up short in the conquest to to rebuild their former empire. — Hanover

Since they have no right to Ukraine or any nation other than the borders of their own, Putin could just retreat the troops, deal to get the sanctions lifted, and promise to care for what he already has (current Russia). That is also an option, but that isn't an option for Putin.

This is why I'm fearing that he might take the world down with him. It's either to establish the new world order and rebuild the empire, or fuck the world and the west and NATO and every single fucker (hit the button).

I disagree here, amassing troops on a border is a threat, in my opinion, and that is how I see it. I don't think I need to push the point further. Actually I want to look at the media coverage on this. — FreeEmotion

But it isn't a threat, it's not a threat that warrants extreme actions as counters to it, which is what Putin is doing. You cannot use it as any evidence of threat in order to then justify attacking that nation, just because you "feel" it's a threat. If that were the case, then if Sweden joins NATO and Russia breaks airspace or sea with submarines, then that is an act of war, so let's invade Russia. That won't happen. And if Russia had troops close to Finland and Finland was a member in NATO, would that warrant them to attack Russia? With the combined outcome being "they threatened us with having troops on their side of the border so Russia is to blame for what we did"

We can talk of escalating conflict of the psychology of it all. Actions and who's to blame have clear parameters based on all of this. Blaming others for your actions without any logical reasoning as to why others are to blame doesn't make them any more guilty.

Exactly. And if they are paranoid, everything is an act of aggression. I am sure they at NATO know what gets them worried. They have to. And they keep doing it. — FreeEmotion

Still not the fault of NATO if Putin starts a war. What NATO and other nations are doing is up to them. Russia has no claim in demanding anything abour other independent nations' right to choose their defense strategy.

True. Which is why it went from 12 to 30 as the cold war faded. — Christoffer

Which can be a natural progression of an alliance overall. I mean, EU has also expanded, so that doesn't mean anything specific for just NATO. Over time most alliances grow.

False. They have to vote. I do not know the level of influence the US has. — Christoffer

Exactly, but some position that the US controls NATO, and therefore they have an anti-Russia agenda and all the expansion efforts are only there to beat back Russia. If they only have one vote, how can that be?

True. Not threatened in words. Taken action that they know full well Russia does not like or will perceive as a threat, like putting your hand in the glove compartment when a police officer ask you to step out of the car. Maybe you are reaching for your mask, but you know how that will go down. — Christoffer

Taking actions that Russia doesn't like, in this case, building defense in member nations close to Russia, still doesn't warrant Russia to do anything. What nations do in their nations is their business. That Russia doesn't like, why should that be cared for? Is Putin a child whose feelings shouldn't be hurt? Since we established that NATO does not act with invasion or offensive actions over any borders without first being attacked, then him not liking people establishing a defense just boils down to him totally misunderstanding NATO, or... as I've described, he knows that if his precious nations he wants to claim become members, he cannot establish the old Russian empire he wants. Nothing of that is nothing more than Putin's ideas of NATO threatening, they did never and have not actually threatened him.

And... the police officer? Is Russia the police officer? Should Europe bend down to Russia and Putins will? No, he's not a police officer in that analogy, he's a guy pretending to be a police officer and when we say that he doesn't have the right to ask us to do anything he shoots us.

False. Based on the whims and fancies of NATO members who can veto. — FreeEmotion

If false, provide an example of an event where NATO forced someone. — Christoffer

Again, if Russia feels threatened and has said it does not want a nation to join NATO then what is a threat? Threatening means doing something that is interpreted as a threat, and you know it will. Again, put your hands under seat to reach for your mask. — Christoffer

How is a defensive collaboration a threat? Putin can say whatever he wants, he can believe whatever he wants, but it's still not a threat. If Sweden joins NATO in order to feel more secure on the global geopolitical stage, that is not a threat to Putin, regardless of his fantasies that such an action is.

If Sweden, however, said that we will take back Kalinigrad because we think that this part should belong to us (since it once did long ago), then that is a threat.

Us setting up a better anti-air defense on Gotland in collaboration with NATO, even if it's to secure against a Russian attack... is still not a threatening act to Russia or Putin, regardless of his delusions.

All of this is about establishing actual guilt. What he believes is irrelevant. Because "guilt" of others for Putin's actions gives him partial justification for his actions. I'm saying that he doesn't have justification for his actions.

That is the importance of this argument.

False. They have therefore unequal blame, a factor of some sort. Putin could have tried non-violence. — Christoffer

Exactly like how things like this are done in modern times. If you want a nation back, ask them, do you want this? Do we all want to vote in this? If it leads to a vote and it fails, tough luck better luck next time. There's nothing wrong in wanting to expand a nation, or create a union, what is bad is if you try to claim it by force. This is considered a crime by international law.

The world is not the same today and can't be judged by the same measuring tape as before.

There is such a thing as the psychology of international relations. If there is any doubt, see how Israel will react to massing of troops on its border. — FreeEmotion

Still can't do anything. A nation can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't break borders and actively threaten another nation. Putin knew this, that's why he played the innocence card with gathering troops around Ukraine before the invasion. And no one can blame him for any of that. We could question his motives, speculate, we could criticize him for doing it and pressure him to answer why, but since he didn't threaten Ukraine, it's all in line with what a nation can do on their side of the border. But when he invaded, that's when he broke everything and why the world now acts.

There's nothing in international law or any kind of post-world war agreement in the world that a nation can't put forces at their borders. And the same goes with NATO building defense in NATO member nations. People, like Putin, can complain and question, but he has no right to demand anything and he has no right to feel threatened by it, regardless of what fantasy he cooks up to be the case.

The blame game is not really applicable to international politics, nor is it good to apply it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, that's where this part of the debate started. By the usual suspects in here on this topic dismissing any notion that Putin acts on his own and has little to no real viable reasons to do what he does. If there are no viable reasons, then his actions become purely criminal. If there isn't a threat against Russia, if he would just let go of his empire dreams and cared for the Russia as it is, nothing would happen to him or Russia. But this is not the case, his actions stem from claiming something he has no right to, and in doing so murdering civilians, destroying another nation and decimating his own people's economy and freedom.

To even say that NATO is to blame for this, creates a situation where we give credit to Putin for having valid reasons to act out aggressions. But since no such blame can be established, since no actual threats have been made towards Russia and Putin, we can interpret his actions with far more judgment than in the opposite scenario.

I don't know if you'd noticed, but defense and attack use the same military. Whether it's one or the other is about intent, nothing concrete can prove which it is. — Isaac

Nothing concrete can prove which it is? So invading Ukraine is the same as Sweden increasing its military spending and maybe joining NATO. Because it's the same military, one is bombing civilians and forcing themselves into another nation, one is building an army guarding the people of Sweden... it's just a mess, how could I ever see the difference here between defense and offense...? It's impossible!! :chin:

Why? — Isaac

Why? — 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. — Christoffer

Yes, I see how the discussion is changed, but you didn't say changed, you said "harder". — Isaac

It makes it harder to discuss the topic overall if a foundational piece is still up for debate.

We're talking politics here, we don't conduct political philosophy as if we were establishing the existence of God. God help us if we did. — Isaac

Burden of proof still applies. You're not free of logical fallacies just because we talk political philosophy.

No, but it has everything to do with your "we can't discuss anything without concrete evidence" rule. If you demand concrete evidence before we can discuss 'The West's' role, then why doesn't the same criteria apply to you discussing Putin's motives? — Isaac

Because how can we establish a clear motive if the reasons for that motive need to be established first? If NATO were to be blamed, then his motives would have some form of just cause. But if NATO is not to be blamed, then he acts alone or he acts through false or through invented reasons. It generally informs the "bad man" argument. If he is a bad man acting out selfish delusions or does he have just reasons for his acts (outside of bombing civilians and all that shit). The consequence of answering this question is that it informs a large part of how to properly analyze the events, intentions/motives.

Of course it matters. Your argument is that it wasn't a threat to Russia, so their 'reasons' had to be something other than 'to threaten Russia'. If you can't say what their reasons were, then how can you say they weren't 'to threaten Russia'? — Isaac

Well, the reasons don't matter since joining NATO is basically done to increase security through an alliance of defense. If Australia joins NATO, don't you think that this is because of the tensions in the pacific and has little to no connection with Russia? They would join in order to have security against China, that's their reason. How does that fit with "threatening Russia"?

So the reasons can be whatever. But you frame it exactly in the way that you don't have evidence for:

so their 'reasons' had to be something other than 'to threaten Russia'. — Isaac

You are here basically saying that nations actively join NATO "to threaten Russia" and if I cannot say the actual reason, it means the reason is "to threaten Russia". Really?

Yes. An analogy which relies on them have solely defensive reasons to join NATO (and NATO solely defensive reasons to allow them). So your analogy fails unless you can demonstrate that this was the case. — Isaac

This is one part that I asked over and over you to answer. And it follows burden of proof. If the official and mission statement for NATO is to form an alliance of defense so that if any nation gets attacked, all nations will aid in defense of that member nation. You have to prove that there's another agenda. For example, I want you to explain the reasons why Sweden and Finland want to join NATO. Because that explanation would inform whether Sweden and Finland have any other agendas with joining NATO.

You can't say "Who Knows?" in one breath and then in the other say that threatening Russia definitely wasn't one of them. If no-one knows the reasons, then why is Russia acting irrationally in assuming that threatening it wasn't one of them? — Isaac

Again,burden of proof. You aren't correct in your conclusion because I can't name one nation's reason to join NATO for defence. You aren't automatically correct because we don't know Polands reason back then. Are you unable to see how all of this lacks any kind of logic? How can you be right like that? It's you who needs to provide support for the conclusion that joining NATO is an act of threat against Russia. So for, I see jack shit from everyone having this conclusion.

We've been through this. There doesn't need to be 'concrete' threats for strategic decisions to be monumentally reckless. Concrete threats are not the only type of threat. In fact they're probably the least common since 1945. — Isaac

RECKLESSNESS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NATO'S FAULT PUTIN INVADES UKRAINE!

You are fundamentally confused if you believe that being reckless = threat. Being reckless can be PERCEIVED as a threat by Russia/Putin. But that doesn't mean NATO IS TO BE BLAMED, it doesn't mean NATO has any logical GUILT for Putin's actions.

Putin perceiving threat [does not equal] Actual threat by NATO
Putin's actions based on his perceived threat [does not equal] NATO being responsible for those actions.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Imagine if Putin really is delusional, imagine that he truly is a fucking crazy man who belongs in a mental institution. Now, his mental condition makes him perceive everyone as a threat. People start taking actions to be able to have a defense against any kind of action he would take, irrational as he is. He doesn't see it that way, he sees conspiracy, he sees all of them threatening him, so he acts out violently. Fortunately, people had the defense, so they could defend against it, but your argument is that joining together for defense is partly to blame for Putin's violent outburst, so we should blame everyone who wanted to defend themselves.

Human feelings are extremely complex and difficult to decipher, from observation of a person's actions. That's why psychology is borderline science. And, in psychology the patient is supposed to try and make one's feeling known to the psychologist. When an individual intentionally hides one's feelings, the acts are twisted around multiple motives, so psychological problems are often referred to as a "complex". Jealousy for example manifests itself in very strange ways. — Metaphysician Undercover

Neither warrants blame on NATO. The argument is not about whether Putin feels the need to act, but who's to blame for his acts. Is blaming NATO for his actions logical? Do they have guilt in what is happening or are the actions Putin's? If NATO is to blame, how is that so? What warrants them equal blame? No one seem to answer me this.

"Feelings" are attributable to individual human beings, very unique and particular to the individual, as they are tied up within the highly structured and organized chemical system within the human being. It makes absolutely no sense to say that an entity like "Russia" has feelings. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm sorry, Putin.

No I literally rejected the very terms in which you framed the problem, so maybe before we get to 'logic' we can ask if you are capable of literacy first. Baby steps. — StreetlightX

How is that in any shape or form not in line with the problem?

Here's baby steps for your baby brain:

1. NATO is a defensive alliance that is made up of a union of nations that help each other if one nation gets attacked.

Regarded as true. If false, please provide a logical argument for why this isn't the case.

2. NATO's expansion is based on a US agenda.

Regarded as false. If true, please provide evidence to how this works and how all other nations doesn't have the same power as US within NATO.

3. NATO's expansion has never been through any attack on anyone's border.

Regarded as true. If false, please provide example.

4. NATO has never directly attacked Russia or threatened Russia.

Regarded as true. If false provide evidence that they have threatened or attacked Russia.

5. NATO expansion is based primarily on a nation's will to join NATO. NATO doesn't force anyone to join.

Regarded as true. If false, provide an example of an event where NATO forced someone.

6. A nation joining NATO is an active and direct threat against Russia.

Regarded as false. If true, provide a logical argument for how joining NATO is the same as threatening Russia.

7. NATO has equal blame for Putin's actions.

Regarded as false. If true, please provide a logical and rational argument for how that is true.

Each answer can be started with true or false, then provide further elaboration. But I predict that you will ignore this and just tell me how stupid I am, because that is the level at which you operate. Like a baby.


Once again. Putin and Russia feeling a perceived threat from NATO does not make an act of aggression, invasion, war or direct military threats by Putin and Russia something to blame NATO for. As long as NATO hasn't threatened to invade Russia, there is no actual threat made by NATO, therefore there is no act by Russia that NATO can be blamed for. A defensive build-up of military defensive forces in nations Russia has no control over (independent free nations) is not the same as threatening Russia. The only viable threat through this would be if there was an example of NATO actively attacking another nation without being attacked first, essentially breaking the defense protocol.

Russia, Putin, is acting by his own hand. His actions, invasion, war, threats etc. is something he and Russia alone are responsible for, not NATO. If you want to blame NATO, then you need to establish a clear threat towards Russia, not what the manchild Putin feels is the case.

No, this is about blaming NATO for what NATO has done. Again, if you feel the need to choose a team, that's your problem. — StreetlightX

What has NATO done? What are you blaming NATO for? Answer already

You don't seem to understand that these words are meaningless in the real world and this is not a video game. — StreetlightX

So building a defense within your own nation is considered an offensive act warranting getting offensive acts of invasion or threats of violence against you? That's your logic, right? Because that's what Sweden is experiencing right now. If we join NATO, we will be blamed for Putin invading us or some other nation.

EXPLAIN YOUR LOGIC PLEASE

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

But this is about blaming NATO for what Putin is doing. Stop fucking around and answer me what threats they've actually done. What Russia "feels" is a threat can only warrant them to build up their own defense, but acting out aggression and invading others or conducting actual military threats based on their "feeling" does not warrant NATO to be blamed for Russia's offensive acts.

You all don't seem to understand the difference between defence and offense, or that "building defense" is not the same as "invading another country" or "making actual military threats towards another nation"

Show some logic on a philosophy forum. Your reasoning fits more on Reddit than here. If I ask for logic in your reasoning, then provide it, and don't spin off in other directions distracting from the fact that there's no logic to your conclusions.

Deduce why NATO is to blame for Putin's actions. Simple fucking request here. I've given you enough of my time to do it and yet there's nothing by noise.

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. — Isaac

It doesn't matter if they were actually threatened, it doesn't matter the reasons. Maybe they wanted to be part of a defensive alliance just to be secure for any possible future conflict. There are a large number of reasons for them joining, neither warrants blame on them for any actions by others (Russia).

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? — Isaac

You are the one making the Poland argument. Their reason could be general security. I'm making the analogy based on the guilt blaming of NATO in today's conflict with Russia. Get in the game and stop steering this into some other argument that is irrelevant.

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

The reasons can be the general security that each nation wanted to have. Maybe the general security was because the collapse of the Soviet Union was a bit of an unknown factor. Who knows? The fact is that the decision of an independent nation to increase security and defense is not another nation's fucking business as long as that action doesn't act as a direct and concrete threat.

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

Your analogy seems flawed. — Isaac

You intentionally stupify yourself in order to defend yourself against me asking for logic to you blaming NATO for Putin's actions.

Show me concrete threats to Russia, I've asked many times, just answer for once.