Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were trying to encourage "free market" reform -- meaning free for exploitation by the West. The end goal is break-up and balkanization of the country. All the stereotyping and demonization that passes for "historical analysis" is our way of justifying it. If the Russians are backward enough, we can convince ourselves that they deserve it.

---

How were they exploited? They were giving a seat at the table. They are a 100% commodity based economy. Still are. But, hey I am sure the Chinese agreement and their dealings with Crimea, the Stans and Georgia will create a record economic boom.

Those moves seem so much better than a Free Market economy trading with the EU and North America. Funny thing about Free Market exploitation, everyone usually ends up with a higher standard of living.

---

The "loosely confederated Russia", that [Zbigniew] Brzezinski imagines, would be a toothless, dependent nation that could not defend its own borders or sovereignty. It would not be able to prevent more powerful countries from invading, occupying and establishing military bases on its soil. Nor would it be able to unify its disparate people beneath a single banner or pursue a positive "unified" vision for the future of the country. A confederal Russia --fragmented into a myriad of smaller parts -- would allow the US to maintain its dominant role in the region without threat of challenge or interference. And that appears to be Brzezinski's real goal as he pointed out in this passage in his magnum opus The Grand Chessboard....

Brzezinski sums up US imperial ambitions succinctly. Washington plans to establish its primacy in the world's most prosperous and populous region, Eurasia. And -- in order to do so -- Russia must be decimated and partitioned, its leaders must be toppled and replaced, and its vast resources must be transferred to the iron grip of global transnationals who will use them to perpetuate the flow of wealth from east to west. In other words, Moscow must accept its humble role in the new order as America's de-facto Gas and Mining Company.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/03112022-washingtons-plan-to-break-up-russia-oped/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

You are quoting his book. Seemed you were in favor of his views. I am not.

I do not think we should help Ukraine because of any grand strategy. I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

I also do not think Russia is a victim or the US was part of some grand plan to keep them down or exploit them. Russia has brought stuff on them through actions.

---

None of this is about helping Ukraine. Their people are being sent to battle with practically no training, sometimes to die within days of being conscripted. They're being sacrificed to buy time and to save what little is left of Biden's popularity. If we wanted to help them, we'd tell them to negotiate an end to the war. We won't do that because we think America would lose face.

---

That's what happens in wars of attrition - people being sent into battle as cannon fodder.

And yes, we are doing it to help Ukraine. That it also helps us does not mean it does not help Ukraine. The Ukrainians are willing to die to save their country. As long as they are willing to do so, we should send ammo. Because their survival as a country is a good thing for us. because their victory over Russia is a good thing for us.

---

That's what happens in a war of attrition when you're losing. Their survival as a country is precisely why they should be negotiating an end to the war, even if it means giving up some land.

---

They are killing 1k Russians a day. They understand that the more Russians they kill, the more Russian tanks they kill, the longer it will take for Russia to attack them again.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

They also like to gloss over that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turks, Japanese, and others were historically far more expansionist than the Germans (Germany was late to the game)...and every bit as much as the Russians.

(And lets not discuss how the USA came to dominate the entire continent and hold possessions in the far off Pacific)

---

thank you for that conclusive proof that America is not, nor never has been an expansionist power.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

so profoundly obtuse.

Expansionism IS the history of Russia. Relentless cycles of expansion,

---

Expansionism is also the history of the USA

How do you think we got to dominate an entire continent (dominate two of them actually) and own Hawaii and various islands 3,000 miles away?

At the end of the day the USA exits and its not going anywhere....nations around the USA will just have to learn how to get along with DC unless they want trouble.

And Russia as well exists....and its not going anywhere no matter what Georgetown grads in DC might fantasize about.

---

yes, we expanded. Thru indigenous stone-age cultures that were going to be subsumed by someone if not us. And we did it without building a culture of engaging in wars with great powers. (or even minor powers).

Not so with Russia. They have marched armies across borders of every country that touches them, in some case a half-dozen countries away, over and over and over. Not against steppe nomad tribes either. They've done it to the greatest powers of the day over the boundaries of empire. Over and over and over.....

---

I must have missed those two wars with the UK...and the threat on multiple occasions to fight another war with them again over the Pacific Northwest and even annex Canada.

Or when the USA threated France and Spain to get off our continent and either the sell the land or get run over.

Or the time we steam rolled over Mexico and annex 1/3rd of their country.

(none of these am I complaining about for the record)

You have a very rosy colored pictured of how DC reacts to rivals in North America...and eventually the whole hemisphere.

Has Russia ever declared all Europe and Asia its private zone of influence? Well the USA did with the entire freaking Western Hemisphere

[The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States' exclusive sphere of interest.]

---

Yes, the Monroe Doctrine is real, and it prevented European intrigues from creating problems in our neighborhood, an enforced neutrality, if you will. It worked splendidly.

Have you ever looked at the present footprint of Russia? It's quite a bit larger than ours. And still they are not happy. Still they are expanding. Expanding is what they do...... We, on the other hand, were quite comfortable to stop at the Pacific shore, except for a handful of Pacific island territories that help defend our Pacific shores. No country in history with the power we enjoy has done less than we have w/r/t imperial expansion.

You are cherry picking history to make the USA a bad guy and Russia a good guy. Not impressive.

---

Only if that is how you interpret USA history...as some kind of moralist story or narrative.
Nothing moralist about it. Native American cultures were going to be rolled up by somebody. Better us than some other power with imperial ambitions.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR
you continue to presume, quite illogically, that the USSR was only an expansionist totalitarian empire regime in Russian history. It was not. Such is the only model Russia has ever had.

Neither the USA or Russia are "bad" in wanting to expand their territory historically (brings security and land for settlers)
There you go again - assigning moral equivalence between imperial autarky and constitutional republic.

Russia expanded into the East into basically nothing....no real population centers from the Ural mountains to the Pacific...
Ditto for USA moving west. Almost the same kind of demography...scattered stone age cultures engaged in hunter/gatherer existence.
In the West they faced the Poles (and others) also interested in expansion and fought wars with them.
to dominate them into a Russian empire......

The USA as you said was lucky to face stone age tribes as it expanded across the continent and was able to buy off and intimidate other European powers who did not yet have a strong presence.

America is a super power because it expanded across a continent. (by war, intimidation, and negotiation)

Russia is a regional power because it did the same.
but what do they do with their power? We do not do what Russia does. Never have.

Both exist...and you have to explain today why its right for us to fight proxy wars around the borderlands of Russia...while explaining how that would be wrong if Moscow did it to us in Canada or Mexico.

---

Russia of 2024 might as well be the Russia of 1724 - seeing itself as the rightful hegemon of everything between the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Wall of China.

---

This is barely believable enough for a video game, much less a premise for real world policy.

---

I agree that Russia of 2024 is substantially weaker than Russia of 1724. And I suspect the trend will continue.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Putin has been avoiding the NATO countries like the plague. Meanwhile they are trying to Article V him at every turn. https://t.co/zw4TbxShYW

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) June 4, 2024

---

I follow the RHL and like her work, but her take here is just plumb goofy.

what the hell is an alliance for if not to prepare for war?
is it not clear in the article that Nato is NOT preparing to deploy combat units on the Russian border?
isn't public war planning a good way to demonstrate resolve and build deterrence?

My daughter, btw, will be in command of the major logistics node on one of those blue arrows.

---

She follows me on X. We're just worried that this war is going to get uglier and become another forever war.

---

we could take that issue completely off the table by by defeating Russia.

It only becomes a forever war if the policy is "we will support Ukraine as long as it takes" rather than "we will help Ukraine win."

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

so profoundly obtuse.

Expansionism IS the history of Russia. Relentless cycles of expansion,

---

Expansionism is also the history of the USA

How do you think we got to dominate an entire continent (dominate two of them actually) and own Hawaii and various islands 3,000 miles away?

At the end of the day the USA exits and its not going anywhere....nations around the USA will just have to learn how to get along with DC unless they want trouble.

And Russia as well exists....and it's not going anywhere no matter what Georgetown grads in DC might fantasize about.

---

Russia did not need to invade Ukraine to remain secure. It could have played the long game and wait for pro-Russian people/parties to get elected into power.

---

And immediately overthrown with our help. Pro-Russian people and parties are one of the main grievances we cite in order to justify intervention.

---

Sigh. We did not overthrow the Yanukovich government. The Ukrainian people did.

---

Spare us the propaganda.

---

I'm trying to, but the monkeys keep flinging it around like feces.

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

false dilemma nonsense.

No one here is advocating that Nato should go to war with Russia. Rather, we are assessing the obvious = Russia is fully mobilized and senses weakness in the west (thanks in no small part due to blather like yours) and trying to send enough ammo to Ukraine to stop Russia in Ukraine (rather than letting Russia roll right up to Nato borders).

Our generals are telling field and company grade officers "We are going to war! Get ready for it. NOW!" Best way to stop that from happening is to send ammo to Ukraine.

---

NATO would love to go to war with Russia. The current administration would love it as well.

WW3 benefits everything about the current neoliberal establishment and all the pieces are coming together to make it a reality.

---

then why hasn't Nato invaded already? It's +30 years since the collapse of the USSR. What are we waiting for?

.

---

I assume because not every NATO country is into the Nuland-NeoCon strategy of "surround Russian and keep the pressure on"

France and German are often very cautious about such things.

Poland is with the USA in being very aggressive.

Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Slovenia don't want this at all.

So NATO is not of one mind about this stuff

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

They also like to gloss over that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turks, Japanese, and others were historically far more expansionist than the Germans (Germany was late to the game)...and every bit as much as the Russians.

(And lets not discuss how the USA came to dominate the entire continent and hold possessions in the far off Pacific)

---

thank you for that conclusive proof that America is not, nor never has been an expansionist power.

---

Let's go to the maps to see!

It's almost like we expanded across an entire continent and then once hitting a large ocean we expanded across it all the way to Asia.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading other countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions to restore stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were trying to encourage "free market" reform -- meaning free for exploitation by the West. The end goal is break-up and balkanization of the country. All the stereotyping and demonization that passes for "historical analysis" is our way of justifying it. If the Russians are backward enough, we can convince ourselves that they deserve it.

---

How were they exploited? They were giving a seat at the table. They are a 100% commodity based economy. Still are. But, hey I am sure the Chinese agreement and their dealings with Crimea, the Stans and Georgia will create a record economic boom.

Those moves seem so much better than a Free Market economy trading with the EU and North America. Funny thing about Free Market exploitation, everyone usually ends up with a higher standard of living.

---

The "loosely confederated Russia", that [Zbigniew] Brzezinski imagines, would be a toothless, dependent nation that could not defend its own borders or sovereignty. It would not be able to prevent more powerful countries from invading, occupying and establishing military bases on its soil. Nor would it be able to unify its disparate people beneath a single banner or pursue a positive "unified" vision for the future of the country. A confederal Russia --fragmented into a myriad of smaller parts -- would allow the US to maintain its dominant role in the region without threat of challenge or interference. And that appears to be Brzezinski's real goal as he pointed out in this passage in his magnum opus The Grand Chessboard....

Brzezinski sums up US imperial ambitions succinctly. Washington plans to establish its primacy in the world's most prosperous and populous region, Eurasia. And -- in order to do so -- Russia must be decimated and partitioned, its leaders must be toppled and replaced, and its vast resources must be transferred to the iron grip of global transnationals who will use them to perpetuate the flow of wealth from east to west. In other words, Moscow must accept its humble role in the new order as America's de-facto Gas and Mining Company.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/03112022-washingtons-plan-to-break-up-russia-oped/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

You are quoting his book. Seemed you were in favor of his views. I am not.

I do not think we should help Ukraine because of any grand strategy. I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

I also do not think Russia is a victim or the US was part of some grand plan to keep them down or exploit them. Russia has brought stuff on them through actions.

---

None of this is about helping Ukraine. Their people are being sent to battle with practically no training, sometimes to die within days of being conscripted. They're being sacrificed to buy time and to save what little is left of Biden's popularity. If we wanted to help them, we'd tell them to negotiate an end to the war. We won't do that because we think America would lose face.

---

That's what happens in wars of attrition - people being sent into battle as cannon fodder.

And yes, we are doing it to help Ukraine. That it also helps us does not mean it does not help Ukraine. The Ukrainians are willing to die to save their country. As long as they are willing to do so, we should send ammo. Because their survival as a country is a good thing for us. because their victory over Russia is a good thing for us.

---

That's what happens in a war of attrition when you're losing. Their survival as a country is precisely why they should be negotiating an end to the war, even if it means giving up some land.

---

They are killing 1k Russians a day. They understand that the more Russians they kill, the more Russian tanks they kill, the longer it will take for Russia to attack them again.

---

I think you mean Ukraine is losing a thousand soldiers a day. Russia is closer to a thousand a week.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions restoring stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

---

A good point.

While its a pure hypothetical now...because NATO has expanded into 15+ new countries since 1996

But even if we returned to 1990s it would not really effect the USA

We would still be protected...our allies in Western Europe rich...and NATO still functioning and preventing any attack on its enrolled allies.

The idea that NATO has to endless expand to provide us protection is goofy...we could go back to the borders of 1998 and see no real effect on our overall security.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

They also like to gloss over that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turks, Japanese, and others were historically far more expansionist than the Germans (Germany was late to the game)...and every bit as much as the Russians.

(And lets not discuss how the USA came to dominate the entire continent and hold possessions in the far off Pacific)

---

thank you for that conclusive proof that America is not, nor never has been an expansionist power.

---

Are we talking this Century?

I guess we have to shrink the US to Manhattan Island? Since that was bought from an indigenous people. Did they have the right to sell it?

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

They also like to gloss over that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turks, Japanese, and others were historically far more expansionist than the Germans (Germany was late to the game)...and every bit as much as the Russians.

(And lets not discuss how the USA came to dominate the entire continent and hold possessions in the far off Pacific)

---

thank you for that conclusive proof that America is not, nor never has been an expansionist power.

---

Are we talking this Century?

I guess we have to shrink the US to Manhattan Island?

---

He talking about Russian being (in his view) and inherently expansionist power.

While of course denying that the USA has historically also been a expansionist power...one of the great ones at it actually.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

They also like to gloss over that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turks, Japanese, and others were historically far more expansionist than the Germans (Germany was late to the game)...and every bit as much as the Russians.

(And lets not discuss how the USA came to dominate the entire continent and hold possessions in the far off Pacific)

---

thank you for that conclusive proof that America is not, nor never has been an expansionist power.

---

Are we talking this Century?

I guess we have to shrink the US to Manhattan Island?

---

He talking about Russian being (in his view) and inherently expansionist power.

While of course denying that the USA has historically also been a expansionist power...one of the great ones at it actually.

---

I know, so we need to shrink back to Manhattan Island to get on the right side of "being expansionist"... Since everything else is conquering. I guess we need to get back to clans that wander. Basically, Hunter/Gather is the only way to go and not be an "expansionist *******".

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions restoring stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

---

A good point.

While its a pure hypothetical now...because NATO has expanded into 15+ new countries since 1996

But even if we returned to 1990s it would not really effect the USA

We would still be protected...our allies in Western Europe rich...and NATO still functioning and preventing any attack on its enrolled allies.

The idea that NATO has to endless expand to provide us protection is goofy...we could go back to the borders of 1998 and see no real effect on our overall security.

---

Now, to talk modern.

You do realize that NATO is a voluntary coalition? Nations have to apply and be accepted by the whole group. No one from NATO goes and rolls tanks saying you are now NATO.

So, my question is how can a voluntary organization that other nations HAVE to apply be expansionist in the terms you are using.

This is not like Russia invading Crimea and Ukraine saying you are now Russia... Nations have to apply and can leave when they wish. So, I fail to see how NATO is an expansionist conqueror...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

They also like to gloss over that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turks, Japanese, and others were historically far more expansionist than the Germans (Germany was late to the game)...and every bit as much as the Russians.

(And lets not discuss how the USA came to dominate the entire continent and hold possessions in the far off Pacific)

---

thank you for that conclusive proof that America is not, nor never has been an expansionist power.

---

Are we talking this Century?

I guess we have to shrink the US to Manhattan Island?

---

He talking about Russian being (in his view) and inherently expansionist power.

While of course denying that the USA has historically also been a expansionist power...one of the great ones at it actually.

---

I know, so we need to shrink back to Manhattan Island to get on the right side of "being expansionist"... Since everything else is conquering. I guess we need to get back to clans that wander. Basically, Hunter/Gather is the only way to go and not be an "expansionist *******".

---

Don't be ridiculous! Only Russia should held accountable for its history…not the US.

You're kind of making Redbrick's point for him.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions restoring stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

---

A good point.

While its a pure hypothetical now...because NATO has expanded into 15+ new countries since 1996

But even if we returned to 1990s it would not really effect the USA

We would still be protected...our allies in Western Europe rich...and NATO still functioning and preventing any attack on its enrolled allies.

The idea that NATO has to endless expand to provide us protection is goofy...we could go back to the borders of 1998 and see no real effect on our overall security.

---

Now, to talk modern.

You do realize that NATO is a voluntary coalition? Nations have to apply and be accepted by the whole group. No one from NATO goes and rolls tanks saying you are now NATO.

So, my question is how can a voluntary organization that other nations HAVE to apply be expansionist in the terms you are using.

This is not like Russia invading Crimea and Ukraine saying you are now Russia... Nations have to apply and can leave when they wish. So, I fail to see how NATO is an expansionist conqueror...

---

Whether it's voluntary is almost completely irrelevant from Russia's point of view. It's still an expansion.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions restoring stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

---

A good point.

While its a pure hypothetical now...because NATO has expanded into 15+ new countries since 1996

But even if we returned to 1990s it would not really effect the USA

We would still be protected...our allies in Western Europe rich...and NATO still functioning and preventing any attack on its enrolled allies.

The idea that NATO has to endless expand to provide us protection is goofy...we could go back to the borders of 1998 and see no real effect on our overall security.

---

Now, to talk modern.

You do realize that NATO is a voluntary coalition? Nations have to apply and be accepted by the whole group.

---

Opening up a question of why the NATO alliance keeps taking on new members (often poor, weak, and corrupt ones at that)

Especially when those members might spark off conflict with Moscow (Ukraine, Georgia)

After all US policy planners long said the United States had NO strategic interests east of the Bug river (Poland) and that no expansion of NATO should take place.


[Kennan, had called the expansion of NATO into Central Europe "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era." Kennan, the architect of America's post-World War II strategy of containment of the Soviet Union believed, as did most other Russia experts in the United States, that expanding NATO would damage beyond repair U.S. efforts to transform Russia from enemy to partner."]

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-u-s-decision-to-enlarge-nato-how-when-why-and-what-next/#:~:text=Kennan%2C%20had%20called%20the%20expansion,United%20States%2C%20that%20expanding%20NATO

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

They also like to gloss over that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turks, Japanese, and others were historically far more expansionist than the Germans (Germany was late to the game)...and every bit as much as the Russians.

(And lets not discuss how the USA came to dominate the entire continent and hold possessions in the far off Pacific)

---

thank you for that conclusive proof that America is not, nor never has been an expansionist power.

---

Are we talking this Century?

I guess we have to shrink the US to Manhattan Island?

---

He talking about Russian being (in his view) and inherently expansionist power.

While of course denying that the USA has historically also been a expansionist power...one of the great ones at it actually.

---

I know, so we need to shrink back to Manhattan Island to get on the right side of "being expansionist"...

---

Literally no one said that.

But your side on this forum has been trying to deny that the USA was an expansionist State...of course it was.

No one said give it all back to the Indians....but lets just not pretend its only the Russians that have expanded their territory when it was possible.

UK, USA, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Japan, China, even little Denmark have expanded with they could.

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

false dilemma nonsense.

No one here is advocating that Nato should go to war with Russia. Rather, we are assessing the obvious = Russia is fully mobilized and senses weakness in the west (thanks in no small part due to blather like yours) and trying to send enough ammo to Ukraine to stop Russia in Ukraine (rather than letting Russia roll right up to Nato borders).

Our generals are telling field and company grade officers "We are going to war! Get ready for it. NOW!" Best way to stop that from happening is to send ammo to Ukraine.

---

NATO would love to go to war with Russia. The current administration would love it as well.

WW3 benefits everything about the current neoliberal establishment and all the pieces are coming together to make it a reality.

---

then why hasn't Nato invaded already? It's +30 years since the collapse of the USSR. What are we waiting for?

Nato assessing (correctly) that war is coming with Russia and starting to prepare for it is not evidence that Nato wants war with Russia. It is evidence that Nato is wise and cautious.

---

Every land invasion of Russia (Napoleon and HitIer) went thru Ukraine and Belarus. That is why Russia cannot allow NATO in Ukraine. It is a hard red line.

NATO declaring this is a declaration that NATO intends to launch WW3 against Russia.

pic.twitter.com/iCtacseJHc

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) February 26, 2024

Is this recent? He should know that Ukraine will never join NATO as a state bordering Russia. As a landlocked rump state west of the Dnieper, maybe.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Is this recent? He should know that Ukraine will never join NATO as a state bordering Russia. As a landlocked rump state west of the Dnieper, maybe.

---

February

In other news, Russians are now approaching Konstantinivka, a crucial supply hub for Vuhledar, which in turn is one of the last Ukrainian strongholds in the Donbas along with Chasiv Yar. Once Russia gets through the Donbas, it's relatively smooth sailing through the rest of eastern Ukraine because of the flat terrain and lack of prepared defenses.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

They also like to gloss over that the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turks, Japanese, and others were historically far more expansionist than the Germans (Germany was late to the game)...and every bit as much as the Russians.

(And lets not discuss how the USA came to dominate the entire continent and hold possessions in the far off Pacific)

---

thank you for that conclusive proof that America is not, nor never has been an expansionist power.

---

Are we talking this Century?

I guess we have to shrink the US to Manhattan Island?

---

He talking about Russian being (in his view) and inherently expansionist power.

While of course denying that the USA has historically also been a expansionist power...one of the great ones at it actually.

---

I know, so we need to shrink back to Manhattan Island to get on the right side of "being expansionist"...

---

Literally no one said that.

But your side on this forum has been trying to deny that the USA was an expansionist State...of course it was.

No one said give it all back to the Indians....but lets just not pretend its only the Russians that have expanded their territory when it was possible.

UK, USA, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Japan, China, even little Denmark have expanded with they could.

---

Since the Spanish American War where has the US expanded? The US has passed up opportunities that Russia never would, Cuba for one.

In addition, US expansion was mostly sale and treaty.

To compare 1850 to today is really a stretch.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions restoring stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

---

A good point.

While its a pure hypothetical now...because NATO has expanded into 15+ new countries since 1996

But even if we returned to 1990s it would not really effect the USA

We would still be protected...our allies in Western Europe rich...and NATO still functioning and preventing any attack on its enrolled allies.

The idea that NATO has to endless expand to provide us protection is goofy...we could go back to the borders of 1998 and see no real effect on our overall security.

---

Now, to talk modern.

You do realize that NATO is a voluntary coalition? Nations have to apply and be accepted by the whole group.

---

Opening up a question of why the NATO alliance keeps taking on new members (often poor, weak, and corrupt ones at that)

Especially when those members might spark off conflict with Moscow (Ukraine, Georgia)

After all US policy planners long said the United States had NO strategic interests east of the Bug river (Poland) and that no expansion of NATO should take place.


[Kennan, had called the expansion of NATO into Central Europe "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era." Kennan, the architect of America's post-World War II strategy of containment of the Soviet Union believed, as did most other Russia experts in the United States, that expanding NATO would damage beyond repair U.S. efforts to transform Russia from enemy to partner."]

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-u-s-decision-to-enlarge-nato-how-when-why-and-what-next/#:~:text=Kennan%2C%20had%20called%20the%20expansion,United%20States%2C%20that%20expanding%20NATO

---

To prevent them from needing to spark off a conflict with Russia or Belarus.

You'd think we'd have been lobbing bombs at each other for 30 years. Only one country decided to make the fight a military one.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions restoring stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

---

A good point.

While its a pure hypothetical now...because NATO has expanded into 15+ new countries since 1996

But even if we returned to 1990s it would not really effect the USA

We would still be protected...our allies in Western Europe rich...and NATO still functioning and preventing any attack on its enrolled allies.

The idea that NATO has to endless expand to provide us protection is goofy...we could go back to the borders of 1998 and see no real effect on our overall security.

---

Now, to talk modern.

You do realize that NATO is a voluntary coalition? Nations have to apply and be accepted by the whole group. No one from NATO goes and rolls tanks saying you are now NATO.

So, my question is how can a voluntary organization that other nations HAVE to apply be expansionist in the terms you are using.

This is not like Russia invading Crimea and Ukraine saying you are now Russia... Nations have to apply and can leave when they wish. So, I fail to see how NATO is an expansionist conqueror...

---

Whether it's voluntary is almost completely irrelevant from Russia's point of view. It's still an expansion.

---

Then be a better voluntary option.

---

That's not our decision.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Jeffrey Sachs with probably the smartest and most accurate assessment of the Ukraine war, and American foreign policy more broadly, ever caught on tape.

(20:17) Why did America push for Ukraine to Join NATO?
(58:34) What is a Neocon?
(1:25:28) Regime Change Never Works
(1:36:27)… pic.twitter.com/uNzzDDzn1L

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) May 28, 2024

---

Oh, well if Tucker Carlson says it... We all know that he is a bastion of truth.

---

The fact that Jeffrey Sachs is getting propped up as some voice of analytical reason is proof how desperate some are getting to bolster their position.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions restoring stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

---

A good point.

While its a pure hypothetical now...because NATO has expanded into 15+ new countries since 1996

But even if we returned to 1990s it would not really effect the USA

We would still be protected...our allies in Western Europe rich...and NATO still functioning and preventing any attack on its enrolled allies.

The idea that NATO has to endless expand to provide us protection is goofy...we could go back to the borders of 1998 and see no real effect on our overall security.

---

Now, to talk modern.

You do realize that NATO is a voluntary coalition? Nations have to apply and be accepted by the whole group. No one from NATO goes and rolls tanks saying you are now NATO.

So, my question is how can a voluntary organization that other nations HAVE to apply be expansionist in the terms you are using.

This is not like Russia invading Crimea and Ukraine saying you are now Russia... Nations have to apply and can leave when they wish. So, I fail to see how NATO is an expansionist conqueror...

---

Whether it's voluntary is almost completely irrelevant from Russia's point of view. It's still an expansion.

---

Then be a better voluntary option.

---

That's not our decision.

---

It's not Russia's either on behalf of their neighbors.

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Jeffrey Sachs with probably the smartest and most accurate assessment of the Ukraine war, and American foreign policy more broadly, ever caught on tape.

(20:17) Why did America push for Ukraine to Join NATO?
(58:34) What is a Neocon?
(1:25:28) Regime Change Never Works
(1:36:27)… pic.twitter.com/uNzzDDzn1L

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) May 28, 2024

---

Oh, well if Tucker Carlson says it... We all know that he is a bastion of truth.

---

The fact that Jeffrey Sachs is getting propped up as some voice of analytical reason is proof how desperate some are getting to bolster their position.

---

It's better than listening to the pyscho harpy sisters of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Victoria Nuland

Imagine being a global superpower and letting these 3 mental midgets be in charge of your foreign policy

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

---

A good example of what I'm talking about. Germany was every bit as expansionist, but only the Russians are condemned to repeat the so-called cycle of history...because you say so.

---

who has Germany invaded since it joined Nato?
how many countries has Russia invaded since it joined Nato?

I hope you are better at your day job than at foreign policy issues.

---

I hope I don't have to walk you through every post, but here goes. You said Russia was invading countries during WW2. I pointed out that Germany was doing the same. Germany no longer invades its neighbors, and that's the point. Their actions aren't altogether determined by their military history (which of course is long and illustrious).

More to the original point, unless you're arguing that NATO was always an offensive alliance, its purpose could not have been to keep Russia out of countries that Russia already controlled. Even if Russia were to seize those countries again, the West wouldn't necessarily be in any more danger than it was at the height of NATO's power during the Cold War. That Russia has any intention of doing so is doubtful at best. The idea that they would push all the way to the Atlantic is just plain absurd.

So once you drop the false history and fear-mongering, your case against Russia basically comes down to a few police actions restoring stability to the Russian-speaking diaspora in the near aftermath of the Soviet collapse. At worst it might indicate an ambition to bring them back under Russian control. But that's a vanishingly thin argument for to us risk a conventional war, much less escalation to nuclear war.

---

A good point.

While its a pure hypothetical now...because NATO has expanded into 15+ new countries since 1996

But even if we returned to 1990s it would not really effect the USA

We would still be protected...our allies in Western Europe rich...and NATO still functioning and preventing any attack on its enrolled allies.

The idea that NATO has to endless expand to provide us protection is goofy...we could go back to the borders of 1998 and see no real effect on our overall security.

---

Now, to talk modern.

You do realize that NATO is a voluntary coalition? Nations have to apply and be accepted by the whole group. No one from NATO goes and rolls tanks saying you are now NATO.

So, my question is how can a voluntary organization that other nations HAVE to apply be expansionist in the terms you are using.

This is not like Russia invading Crimea and Ukraine saying you are now Russia... Nations have to apply and can leave when they wish. So, I fail to see how NATO is an expansionist conqueror...

---

Whether it's voluntary is almost completely irrelevant from Russia's point of view. It's still an expansion.

---

Then be a better voluntary option.

---

That's not our decision.

---

It's not Russia's either on behalf of their neighbors.

---

If you want to fight Russia over their borderlands (areas they have held sway over for 400+ years) be my guest

You presumably know how to buy a gun and get a plane ticket to Kyiv right?

You are welcome to go volunteer yourself.

But stop volunteering up American tax payer money and advocating for policies that might get us directly involved in bloody war in Eastern Europe.