Here's one for you Putin fans, . .

[lausten]

@hugo

You have no idea what Russia would have done if NATO had negotiated,

If I can’t have an idea of what Russia would do, how can I proceed with any negotiations with them? If I’m aware they have said one thing and done another, how do I evaluate what they say now? If they (and they being Putin at this point), have consistently been aggressive in moving in to conflicts and attempting to expand their borders, how should I relate to their words about peace and not doing that?

@hugo

many people who’ve worked in this arena for decades,

I’m sure there are some, but you keep saying this as if it’s news that I’m just ignoring or missing. I’m always open to well laid out presentations of history, diplomacy, human rights, sovereignty, or whatever it is that you think is going on in Russia. So, where are these presentations? I don’t accept Putin’s justifications, and I’ve responded to your claims of hypocrisy.

[citizenschallengev4]

@hugo

All too often in these kinds of forums the insults are never far away.

Are you capable of recognizing how much insulting you do?

@hugo

We fully recognize that continuing to expand NATO to the point that it includes states bordering Russia can be seen as a provocation, this was agreed in principle during several rounds of talks after the collapse of the Berlin wall.

What was pledged? Where specifically? Please do share the document.

@morgankane01

You cannot give an objective fact demonstrating that Nato wanted Putin to attack !

Europe is paying an heavy price, with the increase of prices of gaz and petrol. The present war (of aggression against an independent sovereign nation) means an international famine and so.

Using your logic, the West should have blown away Russian right when it had the chance. Since that apparently was the only way their own side of the borders could be protected from their nasty paranoid aggressive neighbors to the East.

Or?

Lausten also does a very nice deconstructing your fallacies - it’ll be interesting to see what kind of response you mount against his words and facts.

[hugo]

@lausten

So, where are these presentations?

Many Predicted NATO Expansion Would Lead to War

Note from that essay:

History will show that Washington’s treatment of Russia in the decades following the demise of the Soviet Union was a policy blunder of epic proportions. It was entirely predictable that Nato expansion would ultimately lead to a tragic, perhaps violent, breach of relations with Moscow. Perceptive analysts warned of the likely consequences, but those warnings went unheeded. We are now paying the price for the US foreign policy establishment’s myopia and arrogance.

Has NATO become a threat to world peace?

Note from that essay:

NATO includes France and Germany. Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine, has been the geographical gateway for some horrific invasions of Russia in European history, including by Napoleon and Hitler. NATO has crept steadily closer to Russia’s borders in violation of the understandings on which post-Soviet Russia had agreed to the peaceful reunification of Germany and to united Germany’s membership of NATO.

NATO is a danger to world peace

Note from that essay:

Destruction and instability have marked NATO’s footprints. NATO’s involvement in Kosovo is well known. Over 500 civilians lost their lives due to NATO’s indiscriminate bombing in that campaign. During the 11-week long bombing, the Chinese Embassy was destroyed causing an international furore. The Afghan war, according to the Costs of War Project led by Brown University, saw 1,76,000 deaths between 2001 and 2019. Over 46,000 of the dead were civilians. Similarly, the US-led intervention in Iraq resulted in over 1.5 lakh deaths from March 2003 to 2010 — 80 per cent of them civilians. NATO’s intervention in Libya to enforce a no-fly zone is estimated to have killed more than 400 civilians. Close to a million people have died in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen etc.

Far from keeping the peace, Nato is a threat to it

Note from that essay:

After the USSR collapsed, the Warsaw Pact was duly dissolved. But Nato was not, despite having lost the ostensible reason for its existence. If peace had been the aim, it could have usefully been turned into a collective security arrangement including Russia, under the auspices of the United Nations.

Instead, it gave itself a new “out of area” mandate to wage unilateral war, from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Libya, as the advance guard of a US-dominated new world order. In Europe it laid the ground for war in Ukraine by breaking a US pledge to Moscow and relentlessly expanding eastwards: first into ex-Warsaw Pact states, then into the former Soviet Union itself.

NATO: Why Russia has a problem with its eastward expansion

Note from that essay

Russia’s sensitivities over NATO’s possible eastward expansion were well known. “No matter how nuanced, if NATO adopts a policy which envisions expansion into Central and Eastern Europe without holding the door open to Russia, it would be universally interpreted in Moscow (not just by Putin) as directed against Russia,” US diplomat James Collins wrote in a State Department cable in 1993.

Many of the above predate this Ukraine conflict, it is likely that many visitors to these forums hardly even heard of NATO until this war erupted.

There are huge numbers of such articles and analyses, many written by people with a good knowledge of the history of all this.

[lausten]

@hugo

There are huge numbers of such articles

Quantity is not the issue. I agreed the argument is out there and available, and not promoted by mainstream American media. I put up a speech a while back, from a guy in the 80’s. He said that “war” implies combatants that are equal enough so one doesn’t dominate the other.

Usually you just have conquerors and conquered, or occupiers and occupied, or the more modern peace treaties that keep things contained. In the East vs West “cold war”, you have the giant military of the US and everyone else just trying to keep up enough so they can defend their borders. Lately it’s not so much borders as having control over what corporations move in, or how Western culture overshadows everything. When Russia or China start getting close to what we have, we tend to clamp down on that. It’s not the most brilliant strategy.

[hugo]

Lord help us:

Bono and The Edge perform surprise concert in Kyiv bomb shelter

[lausten]

It would be great if you decided what to talk about. If you want to pick on Bono, go for it. If you want to say Putin is justified in bombing Ukraine, I might have some comments

[hugo]

Very well - Putin is justified in bombing Ukraine.

[morgankane01]

I am going to try to balance the facts

1. Yes West states committed crimes and crimes are committed nowadays by their allies, but the crimes of one side do not excuse the crimes of the other side.

A crime and a fault, the attack of Bush Jr against Irak, which is the main cause of the present situation in Middle east.

And Ukraine touches us European because it happens at our door, the crimes being committed at the instigation of a dictatorial autocrat who pursues the project of building a Russian empire, rewriting and falsifying History and present facts.

2. Yes Nato was wrong when it did not want to negotiate with Putin and listens to his demands.

But that does not excuse the attack.

Ukraine wanted to join OTAN because it saw Russia as a danger.

A pro European government was elected. When it negotiated an agreement with Europe, Putin used the gas weapon.

When the government accepted the blackmail and negotiated with Russia, the Maidan revolution occurred.

Putin retaliated by occupying Crimea and part of Donbass, violating the agreements concluded when Ukraine gave back its nuclear weapons. At this time, Russia and USA guaranteed Ukraine territorial integrity.

Ukraine had some reasons to fear Russia and to look for a guarantee from Nato membership.

3. When Ukraine separated from Russia after the fall of communism, there was a referendum, and independence was approved by 91 % of the population, Russian speaking people included.

And the truth of the matter is that Putin has never admitted the existence of an Ukrainian People, and the
legitimacy of an Ukrainian state.

To convince its own population, he tells that he wants to denazify Ukraine. and suppress its government.

If Putin wanted to negotiate the neutrality of Ukraine, he would not have tried to conquer and destroy the whole country. He would have taken territorial wages in the east.

Now, neither side wants to negotiate, Putin claiming that he will go until he reaches his objectives, Ukraine and USA wanting to punish Russia.

Honestly, at the present time, i don’t see the possibility of any balanced and reasonable solution.

4. Putin has succeeded

-to strengthen the Ukrainian national feelings

• to strengthen NATO which was seen as dead and useless by most European countries 5 years ago

• to convince the European countries to rebuild armies

• to convince Suede and Finland to break their neutrality

• to show the weaknesses of the Russian army.

And after having set the fire to Europe, he complains that people are not nice with him.

5 The difference between Russia and Nato and Ukraine is that Russia wants to destroy Ukraine, Ukraine and Nato do not want to destroy Russia.

[citizenschallengev4]

@hugo

Very well - Putin is justified in bombing Ukraine.

Why, because Putin hated Ukraine wanting to enjoy freedom and be friends with the west? What kind of justification is that?

I wish you’d care enough to listen to what Zelensky has to say about what’s happened to his nation. Given May 8 in response to Russian’s May9th, victory day 1945 celebrations - (pssst this is 2022, and there are much more important other issues stalking us worth dealing with - rather than self creating even more horrors.)

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky released a video statement on May 8, the UN’s designated “Time of Remembrance and Reconciliation for Those Who Lost Their Lives During the Second World War,” in which he reflected on the phrase “never again”.

Zelensky releases video on day of remembrance: 'We hear "never again" differently'

He adeptly points out, how it’s Putin who’s acting and thinking like a NAZI.

[morgankane01]

I listened to Putin’s speech delivered today as part of the commemoration of the victory against Nazism, broadcast by French television. I synthesize

Putin paid tribute to all the combatants of the Second World War, and to the resistance fighters, of all nationalities.

The West has degenerated by abandoning its moral values.

Then the West prepared an attack on Russia, refusing to negotiate and threatening Russia with a nuclear attack.

Russia was forced to attack in Donbass to protect itself from the Western attack in preparation.

Glory to the Russian fighters.

He multiplied the round trips between the past and the present, without ever mentioning Ukraine which does not exist for him.

Does he believe what he is saying, or is he using double-speak in the Orwellian sense ?

[hugo]

@citizenschallengev4

@hugo

Very well - Putin is justified in bombing Ukraine.

Why, because Putin hated Ukraine wanting to enjoy freedom and be friends with the west? What kind of justification is that?

I wish you’d care enough to listen to what Zelensky has to say about what’s happened to his nation. Given May 8 in response to Russian’s May9th, victory day 1945 celebrations - (pssst this is 2022, and there are much more important other issues stalking us worth dealing with - rather than self creating even more horrors.)

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky released a video statement on May 8, the UN’s designated “Time of Remembrance and Reconciliation for Those Who Lost Their Lives During the Second World War,” in which he reflected on the phrase “never again”.

Zelensky releases video on day of remembrance: ‘We hear “never again” differently’

He adeptly points out, how it’s Putin who’s acting and thinking like a NAZI.

Zelensky more or less taunted Russia by insisting on Ukraine having a “right” to join an ever expanding military force called NATO. As I pointed out countless times already NATO showed its true colors when it bombed Serbia, that is it showed that NATO will act illegally, attack sovereign countries that have not attacked any NATO member.

As one commentator put it, NATO is a hammer looking for a nail.

If NATO attacked and decimated Serbia, its military bases, barracks, bridges, roads and so on causing over 100 billion dollars worth of damage to the country and its economy, on the basis that it thought it was a good idea, despite having no UN authorization, then Russia is surely justified in fearing that NATO might act in such a way again.

Zelensky is a direct contributor to the tension that has surrounded NATO expansion over the past 30 years. He could have agreed that Ukraine would never apply for NATO membership and Ukraine would never become a home to NATO supplied weapons systems. He chose to not do that, escalating the provocation.

Like it or not Russia (it is not just Putin, much of the Kremlin are heavily opposed to NATO encroachment) has considerable justification in attacking Ukraine, yes the assault is illegal but if you are against illegal military assaults on sovereign nations then at least be consistent about it.

[citizenschallengev4]

@hugo

Zelensky more or less taunted Russia by insisting on Ukraine having a “right” to join an ever expanding military force called NATO.

Taunted - Ukraine didn’t belong to Russia, so the f what if Ukraine felt safer aligning itself with the west that a wild eyed dictator. Huge, what’s with your apparent love and concern for dictators?

@hugo

As one commentator put it, NATO is a hammer looking for a nail.

Was that on FOX or TASS ???

@hugo

As I pointed out countless times already NATO showed its true colors when it bombed Serbia, that is it showed that NATO will act illegally, attack sovereign countries that have not attacked any NATO member.

NATO’s intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia’s bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region.
Yugoslavia’s actions had already provoked condemnation by international organisations and agencies such as the UN, NATO, and various INGOs.

[31][32] Yugoslavia’s refusal to sign the Rambouillet Accords was initially offered as justification for NATO’s use of force.[33] NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure.

As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN’s approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.[34]

@hugo

Zelensky is a direct contributor to the tension that has surrounded NATO expansion over the past 30 years.

WTF = In the second round, on 21 April 2019, Zelensky received 73 per cent of the vote to Poroshenko’s 25 per cent, and was elected President of Ukraine.

30 years, so what are you talking about? Do you know of a secret Zelensky Comedy Offense against Russia for the past 30 years? Or what?

@hugo

Like it or not Russia (it is not just Putin, much of the Kremlin are heavily opposed to NATO encroachment)

Aren’t you a precious one. Everyone in the Kremlin who wasn’t a Putin puppy is dead or exiled.

@hugo

but if you are against illegal military assaults on sovereign nations then at least be consistent about it.

I don’t suppose you have any obligation to consistency. Or?

[lausten]

@hugo

NATO is a hammer looking for a nail.

Bill Hicks gives another great analogy. But that doesn’t excuse Putin, he’s just another bully, trying to take over the schoolyard.

Bill Hicks - pick up the gun (türkçe altyazı)

[hugo]

@lausten

But that doesn’t excuse Putin, he’s just another bully, trying to take over the schoolyard.

Great example of hyperbole there.

[lausten]

You’ll just find whatever you can to argue about, won’t you?

[hugo]

@lausten

You’ll just find whatever you can to argue about, won’t you?

Sorry, but you’ll have to pay another five pounds, good evening.

Argument - Monty Python

[lausten]

@hugo

Very well - Putin is justified in bombing Ukraine.

Yeah, we knew you were thinking that all along. You tried dancing around it. You tried to make it about Bono or those who don’t question the media or whomever you felt like bringing up in lieu of answering a direct question. You kept bringing up military actions around the world and in the past and asking if we thought they were justified, but only offered Putin’s narrative in justifying Russia’s actions.

Here are quotes of you, I know you’ll ask for them.

My position is that I am calling out the hypocrisy of those who selectively express outrage, their concern for “worthy” victims and their indifference to “unworthy” victims.

Where did you misread that I said Russia was justified in invading?

Are you suggesting that there is some justification for Saudi bombing whereas there is none for Russia bombing?

Russia can justify what it is doing just as the West justified what it did in say Iraq, Yemen, Serbia, East Timor, Laos, Syria and so on.

Now you’ve admitted that you are John Cleese.

[hugo]

@lausten

Yeah, we knew you were thinking that all along. You tried dancing around it. You tried to make it about Bono or those who don’t question the media or whomever you felt like bringing up in lieu of answering a direct question. You kept bringing up military actions around the world and in the past and asking if we thought they were justified, but only offered Putin’s narrative in justifying Russia’s actions.

Here are quotes of you, I know you’ll ask for them.

It’s noteworthy Lausten that whenever you want to attack a person for daring to not share your opinions, you like to use the term “we” as in “we knew you were thinking that all along” no doubt in an attempt to imply you represent everybody else here, good old uncle Lausten keeping a watchful eye on those naughty dissenting opinions; we all know this is how you see yourself.

If you asked Putin is he justified in doing what he’s doing, how is that any less valid than asking Clinton if he was justified in bombing Serbia in 1999? They’d both say yes I think you’ll find.

So how do you decide if a military assault by one nation upon another is justified? what is the criteria you use? Is it the US is right because its the US and Russia is wrong because its not the US?

No dancing around it now, just honest straight answers please.

[lausten]

@hugo

no doubt in an attempt to imply you represent everybody else here

I simply read the posts. I don’t agree with everyone here, as they will surely tell you. This thread has made many points and used slippery language like “intentions” and guesses about who would do what under different circumstances. Again, you oversimplify, for no apparent purpose. You are not a victim here. You have expressed your opinion and you didn’t change minds. Join the club.

@hugo

So how do you decide if a military assault by one nation upon another is justified?

I’ve responded to this one enough. You answered it by pointing out that I just get one vote, for a representative that is probably not going to run on a platform of ending all war. How about you tell us how the UN is going to enforce international law. How do we put an end to these bloody ground wars while there are still nukes in silos? Should we even honor Westphalian sovereignty?

[hugo]

You spend a great deal of time complaining about other people’s posts Lausten, you always seem to shy away when confronted with questions that go to the core of some issue.

You did not answer my question (at least “I’ve responded to this one enough” - is hardly an answer) and instead, sidestep it and ask me some more questions. Once again how do you decide if a military assault by one nation upon another is justified?

Saying “You answered it by pointing out that I just get one vote, for a representative that is probably not going to run on a platform of ending all war” does not answer the question, I asked you, what YOU personally regard as a means of establishing if such an attack is or is not justified.

Obviously you do not have any criteria yet feel confident to repeatedly tell us all that Putin is not justified, how you establish that when you have no means of establishing it shows your position to be nothing more than Russia is wrong because Russia is wrong - some logic.

If you choose to participate in a discussion about NATO and Russia then be prepared to encounter opinions that differ from your own and be prepared to show a little respect for others who might disagree with you, not descend to petty personal attacks and complaints.

I’m happy to answer any reasonable question you ask me, but I’m old fashioned you see, I think questions should be answered in the same order they are asked.