Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

You need to check out his climate change lectures then.

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.

---

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't change the fact that NATO expansion is a threat to them.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't change the fact that NATO expansion is a threat to them.

---

Nor does it explain why endless NATO expansion is even needed.

Once all of Central Europe and the Baltics was brought into NATO it was already on Russias doorstep and had become an ultra powerful military bloc.

It's not like it needs Ukraine or Georgia

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Your shtick is infantile and tiresome.

---

Tiresome to you because you don't have a good answer to it.

You are like the leftists who want to use other peoples tax money to "help the poor" but not spend their own money.

But instead you want to spend our money on weapons to kill other people…while spending none of your own

And to top it off in a war where Ukraine is begging for volunteers the Rambos on this site won't even get off the couch and go fight.

A position that is not infantile…it's immoral

Doc Holliday said:

---

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

---

Flat wrong. Just plain poppycock reasoning.

Nato "partnership" status is not new Sweden and Finland were Nato "Global Partners" for +30 years before becoming members. Russia accepted that as "neutral status."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_global_partners

On the day Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine had not even applied for membership. There is nothing about Nato diplomatic jabber that justifies invading a neighbor. Note Mongolia is on those lists.....

Look at the nations on the Nato Partners for Peace list:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_84336.htm

Anyone who wants can talk to Nato. Anyone can aspire to Nato. Anyone can ask for a relationship with Nato. Anyone can apply to belong to any tier of Nato relationships. That is not a threat to Russia, or anyone else. No one is forcing anyone to join Nato at any rung. It's completely optional, and not easy. There are standards. Most nations, including Ukraine, do not meet qualifications. More pointedly, Nato members are not invading others. Mostly it's Russia doing that. it's their business model. If that were not so, Nato would not exist.

People who post the Nato jabber as proof of Nato aggression also miss the most important message of all to Russia: if you get what you want in Ukraine, Ukraine will likely become eligible for Nato membership. In other words, If Russia will back off, withdraw, leave the situation UNSETTLED, then Ukraine will not be eligible for membership. i.e. the big hurdle for Ukrainian membership is an ongoing border dispute.

Think it thru.....

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 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.

---

your first paragraph reframed the argument into a strawman. I talked about "since joining Nato," meaning POST WWII. Ironically, the way you reframe it also proves my point = Nato effectively prevents members from invading others.....because Nato can only move in unison and no member wants to "go it alone" and find itself outside Article 5 eligibility.

your second paragraph is simply absurd. The liberation of the former USSR Republics and former WP countries were a benefit to Nato. The idea that Nato should allow that benefit to lapse back to Cold War positions without contest is just plain goofy.

"...false history and fear mongering...." project much?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

That's not our decision.

---

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

---

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't change the fact that NATO expansion is a threat to them.

---

Nor does it explain why endless NATO expansion is even needed.

Once all of Central Europe and the Baltics was brought into NATO it was already on Russias doorstep and had become an ultra powerful military bloc.

It's not like it needs Ukraine or Georgia

---

Ukraine makes Nato more defensible....all of Europe. Georgia has a far more limited justification - it's primarily a benefit to Turkey (not that any one member is more/less important than any other). But there is a pipeline route thru Georgia that could deliver Azeri gas to Europe. Factor that one to the mix and the dynamics involving Georgia are a little more clear.

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.

---

You do realize there is NO WAY you can patch together a Foreign Policy that puts the Russian psyche at ease and alleviates their fear. You will go insane trying to contort to Putin's mind set. The only fact is that Putin only reacts to strength and hates the west. He blames the west for everything that happened to the USSR. He is not going to come to some win-win agreement and he will not be happy with Crimea and Donbas.

Look at Donbas, no mention of it in 2014. It was all Crimea. Then he got Crimea. All of a sudden, Donbas was critical... He will push and take as much as the West let's him.

Look into his history, there are numerous examples. I think the best example of how Putin thinks is his meeting with Merkle, who was afraid of dogs. Putin brought a huge black dog to the meeting. You guys saying that the US not engaging with Ukraine will make the situation better are misreading or pacifying your internal desires.

He and Xi are getting ready and coming. Russia wants the West, especially the US, out of Eastern Europe. And Xi wants the US out of the Pacific. Now is the time to prepare and stock up our defenses, because if the West let's Ukraine and Taiwan fall you are looking at expansion of these conflicts.

One more time: the people who most loudly and continuously claim that they are combatting "disinformation" are the exact people who spread it most aggressively and easily. Just look:https://t.co/Y0ZH32N2Hj

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 5, 2024

whiterock 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 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.

---

your first paragraph reframed the argument into a strawman. I talked about "since joining Nato," meaning POST WWII. Ironically, the way you reframe it also proves my point = Nato effectively prevents members from invading others.....because Nato can only move in unison and no member wants to "go it alone" and find itself outside Article 5 eligibility.

your second paragraph is simply absurd. The liberation of the former USSR Republics and former WP countries were a benefit to Nato. The idea that Nato should allow that benefit to lapse back to Cold War positions without contest is just plain goofy.

"...false history and fear mongering...." project much?

---

I addressed your point (actually my point). Germany hasn't invaded its neighbors since WW2. As for the rest, I don't know what world you're living in, but NATO members invade other countries constantly. They just don't do it in Europe.

I'm not arguing that the liberation of Eastern Europe wasn't a benefit, or at least a potential benefit. I'm simply pointing out that your argument makes no sense. The "real reason" for NATO was not to defend the USSR and the WP against the USSR and the WP.

FLBear5630 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.

---

You do realize there is NO WAY you can patch together a Foreign Policy that puts the Russian psyche at ease and alleviates their fear. You will go insane trying to contort to Putin's mind set. The only fact is that Putin only reacts to strength and hates the west. He blames the west for everything that happened to the USSR. He is not going to come to some win-win agreement and he will not be happy with Crimea and Donbas.

Look at Donbas, no mention of it in 2014. It was all Crimea. Then he got Crimea. All of a sudden, Donbas was critical... He will push and take as much as the West let's him.

Look into his history, there are numerous examples. I think the best example of how Putin thinks is his meeting with Merkle, who was afraid of dogs. Putin brought a huge black dog to the meeting. You guys saying that the US not engaging with Ukraine will make the situation better are misreading or pacifying your internal desires.

He and Xi are getting ready and coming. Russia wants the West, especially the US, out of Eastern Europe. And Xi wants the US out of the Pacific. Now is the time to prepare and stock up our defenses, because if the West let's Ukraine and Taiwan fall you are looking at expansion of these conflicts.

---

I don't think you understand the Russian mind at all. Putin has never hated the West. And far from thinking only in terms of force, if anything there's a better argument that he relies too much on logic.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

---

You do realize there is NO WAY you can patch together a Foreign Policy that puts the Russian psyche at ease and alleviates their fear. You will go insane trying to contort to Putin's mind set. The only fact is that Putin only reacts to strength and hates the west. He blames the west for everything that happened to the USSR. He is not going to come to some win-win agreement and he will not be happy with Crimea and Donbas.

Look at Donbas, no mention of it in 2014. It was all Crimea. Then he got Crimea. All of a sudden, Donbas was critical... He will push and take as much as the West let's him.

Look into his history, there are numerous examples. I think the best example of how Putin thinks is his meeting with Merkle, who was afraid of dogs. Putin brought a huge black dog to the meeting. You guys saying that the US not engaging with Ukraine will make the situation better are misreading or pacifying your internal desires.

He and Xi are getting ready and coming. Russia wants the West, especially the US, out of Eastern Europe. And Xi wants the US out of the Pacific. Now is the time to prepare and stock up our defenses, because if the West let's Ukraine and Taiwan fall you are looking at expansion of these conflicts.

---

I don't think you understand the Russian mind at all. Putin has never hated the West. And far from thinking only in terms of force, if anything there's a better argument that he relies too much on logic.

---

You and one other, I can guess who, are islands in your assessment. Putin never hated the West? Really. I guess all the Cold War training he got he never really sunk in, huh? He basically gave the West a pass for his having to moonlight as a taxi driver as the Soviet Union collapsed.

Putin likes to portray that he is calculating, but look at his actions. Read his comparisons. He is highly sentimental for historic Russia, which the Reagan Cold War race ended. He wants to be Peter the Great... He even said so when they invade Ukraine. He wants Historic Russia back AND the end to US led western dominance. That is not exactly wooing the West...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

---

You do realize there is NO WAY you can patch together a Foreign Policy that puts the Russian psyche at ease and alleviates their fear. You will go insane trying to contort to Putin's mind set. The only fact is that Putin only reacts to strength and hates the west. He blames the west for everything that happened to the USSR. He is not going to come to some win-win agreement and he will not be happy with Crimea and Donbas.

Look at Donbas, no mention of it in 2014. It was all Crimea. Then he got Crimea. All of a sudden, Donbas was critical... He will push and take as much as the West let's him.

Look into his history, there are numerous examples. I think the best example of how Putin thinks is his meeting with Merkle, who was afraid of dogs. Putin brought a huge black dog to the meeting. You guys saying that the US not engaging with Ukraine will make the situation better are misreading or pacifying your internal desires.

He and Xi are getting ready and coming. Russia wants the West, especially the US, out of Eastern Europe. And Xi wants the US out of the Pacific. Now is the time to prepare and stock up our defenses, because if the West let's Ukraine and Taiwan fall you are looking at expansion of these conflicts.

---

I don't think you understand the Russian mind at all. Putin has never hated the West. And far from thinking only in terms of force, if anything there's a better argument that he relies too much on logic.

---

Putin never hated the West? Really. I guess all the Cold War training he got he never really sunk in, huh?

---

Have you thought about what you're saying there? Because he grew up during the Cold War, or because he worked for his government, he must always hate the other side? Is that true of us Americans as well?

GAY PARADE IN UKRAINE SOMEWHAT RUINED BY MOBILIZATION VANS SENT TO RECRUIT GAYS INTO WAR pic.twitter.com/DwZm0CaItQ

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) June 8, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

---

You do realize there is NO WAY you can patch together a Foreign Policy that puts the Russian psyche at ease and alleviates their fear. You will go insane trying to contort to Putin's mind set. The only fact is that Putin only reacts to strength and hates the west. He blames the west for everything that happened to the USSR. He is not going to come to some win-win agreement and he will not be happy with Crimea and Donbas.

Look at Donbas, no mention of it in 2014. It was all Crimea. Then he got Crimea. All of a sudden, Donbas was critical... He will push and take as much as the West let's him.

Look into his history, there are numerous examples. I think the best example of how Putin thinks is his meeting with Merkle, who was afraid of dogs. Putin brought a huge black dog to the meeting. You guys saying that the US not engaging with Ukraine will make the situation better are misreading or pacifying your internal desires.

He and Xi are getting ready and coming. Russia wants the West, especially the US, out of Eastern Europe. And Xi wants the US out of the Pacific. Now is the time to prepare and stock up our defenses, because if the West let's Ukraine and Taiwan fall you are looking at expansion of these conflicts.

---

I don't think you understand the Russian mind at all. Putin has never hated the West. And far from thinking only in terms of force, if anything there's a better argument that he relies too much on logic.

---

Putin never hated the West? Really. I guess all the Cold War training he got he never really sunk in, huh?

---

Have you thought about what you're saying there? Because he grew up during the Cold War, or because he worked for his government, he must always hate the other side? Is that true of us Americans as well?

---

The guy is a trained KGB agent, not exactly known for recruiting open minded globalist. Also, USSR lost. You really think he views the West as good, amiable people that he longs to join and partner ?

Just like we don't trust them and we won, the loser mentality is much more intense. Sorry, you think Putin will all of a sudden get reasonable if we just leave Ukraine to fall? This whole thing is the US fault? He was forced to invade? Really?

The USSR (and modern Russia) is a big country. It is no more monolithic than the United States. There are honorable people and dishonorable people. There are Christians and those who don't believe. You can look at Putin and say "once a KGB agent, always a KGB agent". Or you can look at him and say that his experiences gave him a much better understanding of the failures of the Soviet system and the west than the average Russian.

The guy is undeniably smart. He acts in Russian self interest and is a rational counterparty to deal with. If we start World War 3 now after decades of dealing with Soviet Premiers without blowing up the world...that is on us.

If you listen to his Tucker interview, it is clear that he was disappointed at the degree to which the west rebuffed Russia after the fall of the USSR. He even states that he floated a trial balloon to President Clinton about Russia joining NATO (before Stoltenberg transformed it into GAYTO). Clinton is still alive, ask him if Putin is lying.

Countries change. Look around you if you don't believe me. Don't be that last Japanese soldier hiding in a cave in the South Pacific in 1980 because you insist on interpreting modern geopolitics through the lens of two countries (the USSR AND the USA) that are long gone.

Redbrickbear said:

---

GAY PARADE IN UKRAINE SOMEWHAT RUINED BY MOBILIZATION VANS SENT TO RECRUIT GAYS INTO WAR pic.twitter.com/DwZm0CaItQ

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) June 8, 2024

---

The things that Ukraine's Jewish president finds time to promote in his society on behalf of the rainbow jihad in the middle of this existential war for survival of his nation... At least the ones that get drafted can join the unicorn brigade.

Realitybites said:

---

The USSR (and modern Russia) is a big country. It is no more monolithic than the United States. There are honorable people and dishonorable people. There are Christians and those who don't believe. You can look at Putin and say "once a KGB agent, always a KGB agent". Or you can look at him and say that his experiences gave him a much better understanding of the failures of the Soviet system and the west than the average Russian.
You are making a silly argument here - that there are no differences between the French and the Germans, or the Arabs and the Israelis, that culture is the same everywhere, that Russians and Americans have the exact same worldview. nothing could be further from the truth.
The guy is undeniably smart. He acts in Russian self interest and is a rational counterparty to deal with. If we start World War 3 now after decades of dealing with Soviet Premiers without blowing up the world...that is on us.
Yeah, yeah, it's always our fault. Never the other guy's fault. Got it.
If you listen to his Tucker interview, it is clear that he was disappointed at the degree to which the west rebuffed Russia after the fall of the USSR. He even states that he floated a trial balloon to President Clinton about Russia joining NATO (before Stoltenberg transformed it into GAYTO). Clinton is still alive, ask him if Putin is lying.
He was rebuffed because Russia did not qualify for even partner status. Among the more important disqualifications is that Nato/EU require a genuine democratic political system and no border disputes.
Countries change. Look around you if you don't believe me. Don't be that last Japanese soldier hiding in a cave in the South Pacific in 1980 because you insist on interpreting modern geopolitics through the lens of two countries (the USSR AND the USA) that are long gone.
Russia hasn't changed. It's still invading its neighbors.

---

Until you pull your head out, everything will continue to look brown.

The Speech Military Recruiters Don't Want You To Hear

"Hello, I'm Casey Carlisle. I'm a West Point graduate, and I spent five years in the Army, including 11 months in Afghanistan. Some of you are thinking about serving your country, and most of you are asking yourselves, "Why am I listening to this guy?" I'm glad that both of these groups are here, and I promise that my remarks will cause both groups to think differently about military service.

I was a high-school senior on September 11th, 2001, sitting in class and stunned after hearing the principal announce that our country had just been attacked. Why would someone want to do this to the greatest country on Earth? I was also livid, and I wanted revenge. I wanted to kill the people responsible for this atrocity, and my dilemma then was between enlisting in the military to exact revenge now or first spending years at a military academy before helping to rid the world of terrorists. I chose the latter, so I didn't deploy to Afghanistan until 2009. My time there radically changed my views, which was uncomfortable, but, as with failure, discomfort breeds learning..."

Realitybites said:

---

The USSR (and modern Russia) is a big country. It is no more monolithic than the United States. There are honorable people and dishonorable people. There are Christians and those who don't believe. You can look at Putin and say "once a KGB agent, always a KGB agent". Or you can look at him and say that his experiences gave him a much better understanding of the failures of the Soviet system and the west than the average Russian.

The guy is undeniably smart. He acts in Russian self interest and is a rational counterparty to deal with. If we start World War 3 now after decades of dealing with Soviet Premiers without blowing up the world...that is on us.

If you listen to his Tucker interview, it is clear that he was disappointed at the degree to which the west rebuffed Russia after the fall of the USSR. He even states that he floated a trial balloon to President Clinton about Russia joining NATO (before Stoltenberg transformed it into GAYTO). Clinton is still alive, ask him if Putin is lying.

Countries change. Look around you if you don't believe me. Don't be that last Japanese soldier hiding in a cave in the South Pacific in 1980 because you insist on interpreting modern geopolitics through the lens of two countries (the USSR AND the USA) that are long gone.

---

The USSR (and modern Russia) is a big country. It is no more monolithic than the United States. There are honorable people and dishonorable people. There are Christians and those who don't believe. You can look at Putin and say "once a KGB agent, always a KGB agent". Or you can look at him and say that his experiences gave him a much better understanding of the failures of the Soviet system and the west than the average Russian.

No more monolithic? ALL decisions are made by Putin, that is about as monolithic as you get. Read his writings, he sees himself as Peter the Great and wants to rebuild historic Russia. There is no introspection on how the Soviet system failed and how Russia can integrate with the West, it is they had weak leaders, period.

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance. Look at EVERY piece of diplomacy with Russia, it ends up with the same story - tanks rolling somewhere...

The ONLY way I see Russia aligned with NATO (maybe even joining) is if China turns on Russia and Russia needs NATO help. Sort of like WW2, more things change...


The guy is undeniably smart. He acts in Russian self interest and is a rational counterparty to deal with. If we start World War 3 now after decades of dealing with Soviet Premiers without blowing up the world...that is on us.

Yet once again, Russia is invading another Nation and you are saying that WW3 is on NATO and the US. Read some of the Clinton articles, the West made enormous attempts to work with Russia. Russia chose not to follow through.

If you listen to his Tucker interview, it is clear that he was disappointed at the degree to which the west rebuffed Russia after the fall of the USSR. He even states that he floated a trial balloon to President Clinton about Russia joining NATO (before Stoltenberg transformed it into GAYTO). Clinton is still alive, ask him if Putin is lying.

See above. Carlson got used by Putin and allowed him to push his propaganda. Carlson is interested in money and will push whatever will make him the most. That interview was disgusting, he didn't push Putin on anything. For all Carlson's bluster when he had the opportunity, he rolled over. Need better sources, bud...


Countries change. Look around you if you don't believe me. Don't be that last Japanese soldier hiding in a cave in the South Pacific in 1980 because you insist on interpreting modern geopolitics through the lens of two countries (the USSR AND the USA) that are long gone.

Yet, we have Russia invading a neighbor. China pushing 1China. Sure seems like things remain the same. You sure you are not Chamberlain, praying that you are right and the this time Putin will change? Based on history and what is going on in the world. Odds are you are Chamberlain more than I am the Japanese Solidier in the cave. Can't get around those pesky invasions, Putin sure likes his tanks. Afterall, "A tank is a mighty fine thing"...

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock 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 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.

---

your first paragraph reframed the argument into a strawman. I talked about "since joining Nato," meaning POST WWII. Ironically, the way you reframe it also proves my point = Nato effectively prevents members from invading others.....because Nato can only move in unison and no member wants to "go it alone" and find itself outside Article 5 eligibility.

your second paragraph is simply absurd. The liberation of the former USSR Republics and former WP countries were a benefit to Nato. The idea that Nato should allow that benefit to lapse back to Cold War positions without contest is just plain goofy.

"...false history and fear mongering...." project much?

---

I addressed your point (actually my point). Germany hasn't invaded its neighbors since WW2. As for the rest, I don't know what world you're living in, but NATO members invade other countries constantly. They just don't do it in Europe.

I'm not arguing that the liberation of Eastern Europe wasn't a benefit, or at least a potential benefit. I'm simply pointing out that your argument makes no sense. The "real reason" for NATO was not to defend the USSR and the WP against the USSR and the WP.

---

Nato has not invaded anyone to forcibly expanded its membership.

---

Giving us "a thimble to dance on," in your own eloquent words. And how you do dance...day after day.

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation.

One China has been recognized under US policy since 1972.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation.

One China has been recognized under US policy since 1972.

---

As I said, the more things change the more they stay the same.

He was using an analogy that the environment has changed, I am pointing out it is the same. Russia is still rolling tanks as a response.

When the Soviet Union broke up Chechnya declared itself independent, but lost the war Ukraine is fighting right now... I bet Chechnya and Georgia are very much on the mind of Ukraine.

Funny how people that supposedly wants peace, you don't mind Russia just roll their tanks and missiles wherever.

BREAKING:

Sky News report that Ukrainian fighter jets have fired missiles at a target on Russian soil for the first time in this war pic.twitter.com/u7NKFxhgBT

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 9, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation.

One China has been recognized under US policy since 1972.

---

No it hasn't.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479

First line:

"Taiwan Relations Act - Declares it to be the policy of the United States to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other people of the Western Pacific area."


later:

"Stipulates that the absence of diplomatic relations with or recognition of Taiwan shall not affect U.S. laws relating to Taiwan. "

That is One China policy in the same way North Korea has a democratic republic.

ron.reagan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation.

One China has been recognized under US policy since 1972.

---

No it hasn't.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479

First line:

"Taiwan Relations Act - Declares it to be the policy of the United States to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other people of the Western Pacific area."


later:

"Stipulates that the absence of diplomatic relations with or recognition of Taiwan shall not affect U.S. laws relating to Taiwan. "

That is One China policy in the same way North Korea has a democratic republic.

---

China and Russia only understand one thing, strength. They go about it different ways, but it is the same mentality, they will take as much as you give. They rely on the US and NATO playing the diplomatic, reasonable and want peace game. All the talk is just that talk, until you stop them from invading Nations, making islands in the S China Sea, stealing tech, and so on. This play nice and they will play nice what Putin and Xi are counting on.

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise. Are you practicing arguing cases? Can I defend Putin?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

As fo NATO, Clinton, in his own words, was worried about exactly what we are seeing Russia looking for a new Peter the Great. He wanted to keep them on the path. But, what happened? They never applied AND then rolled tanks into Chechnya. That killed any alliance.

---

Come, you're too smart to be blaming the Russians for the war in Chechnya or to think that had any effect on its relationship with NATO. Islamic militants from Chechnya infiltrated into Russia through Dagestan and conducted multiple bombings killing 300 Russians. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim region where the population has significant Wahabbi symapthies that are suppressed by brutal authoritarianism. There's a 100% correlation between Russia and Chechnya, Israel and Gaza, and the US and Afghanistan and that's not even accounting for Beslan.

---

There is always a reason. You realize that every action Russia has taken you and Redbrick have defended as not really their fault. Almost to the point of an intellectual exercise.

---

"Defended every action of Russia"

Hardly…we have simply been willing to criticize DC and the navel gazing bureaucrats in charge of our forgien policy

Something that has really struck a nerve with some posters on here

---

Sort of hard to take the moral high ground when Russia has 100k troops in Ukraine. That might be what is irking some...

---

And that is the whole point is it not?

No one is defending a Russian invasion of a neighboring country in violation of international law.

At the same time our Media (and posters on this site) want to down play or even deny the involvement of DC in regime change operations around Russia's borders. (something that was always going to spark off conflict)

Ukraine was doing well pre-2014....it was playing both the Western bloc and Moscow off against each other and was at peace and developing its economy. Since Maidan is been a disaster.

And is it not just a little bit hypocritical of DC to complain about violations of international law and invasions when it just invaded Iraq?

---

Somehow in your tiny brain you think something the US does justifies Russia murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

DC did not just invade Iraq. And the invasion happened from a continuous series of threats to attack US interests including our homeland. The invasion was 100% warranted but the occupation was as stupid as you are.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock 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 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.

---

your first paragraph reframed the argument into a strawman. I talked about "since joining Nato," meaning POST WWII. Ironically, the way you reframe it also proves my point = Nato effectively prevents members from invading others.....because Nato can only move in unison and no member wants to "go it alone" and find itself outside Article 5 eligibility.

your second paragraph is simply absurd. The liberation of the former USSR Republics and former WP countries were a benefit to Nato. The idea that Nato should allow that benefit to lapse back to Cold War positions without contest is just plain goofy.

"...false history and fear mongering...." project much?

---

I addressed your point (actually my point). Germany hasn't invaded its neighbors since WW2. As for the rest, I don't know what world you're living in, but NATO members invade other countries constantly. They just don't do it in Europe.

I'm not arguing that the liberation of Eastern Europe wasn't a benefit, or at least a potential benefit. I'm simply pointing out that your argument makes no sense. The "real reason" for NATO was not to defend the USSR and the WP against the USSR and the WP.

---

Nato has not invaded anyone to forcibly expanded its membership. Not a single time. Russia cannot say that.

You are arguing crackpot nonsense = that Nato and American imperial ambitions caused of the Russo-Ukraine War.

---

1. We have all admitted that the dumb guys in Moscow are not as good as the smart kids in DC and Brussels. The US is much much better at using NGO's, think tanks, Grant money, and Big media-Big Tech to woo potential allies and influence events inside of other countries. (its a big part of what our intelligence services do)

Still does not explain why the US needs more members of NATO or why we would even want places like Belarus, Ukraine, or Georgia in the NATO alliance. (especially when its almost guaranteed to spark off conflict with Russia)

They are poor, corrupt, hard to defend, bring nothing in terms of military or economic power, and are far from the population centers of the EU, and mean little to the average American or Western European citizen.

While at the same time they do mean a whole lot to Russia.

2. It takes two to tango so no one is exclusively blaming DC when Moscow is also at fault. But if the US is going to launch color revolutions around Russia's borderlands then Moscow is left with two options.

Accept being surrounded by states that are not allied with them...or launch their own regime change operations.

Either way it insures conflict is going to take place.