What's predictably terrible?
I wonder what his superior, yet much less wise, brother would've made of it all?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
What's predictably terrible?
I wonder what his superior, yet much less wise, brother would've made of it all?
He's really not saying much beyond "I once lived in Moscow" and "the establishment needs a villain so it uses Russia", then using bizarre analogies of what would the US do if a hostile force were in Mexico. He's completely omitting the reality that Putin is a corrupt authoritarian dictator who is using the existence of NATO as a pretext to invade his neighbors as a tool to reestablish the old Soviet sphere and avoid democracy reaching Russia. A predictably shallow argument from Peter.
I think the talk or speech was more about trying to provide a fuller and more nuanced understanding of Russia itself than anything else, and he did say that Putin is a sinister tyrant.
And forgive the tangent but democracy means nothing if the culture and conditions in a given country aren't there to support it.
absolutely as some here are saying the same thing in opposite. In reality you can say NATO is using Putin to expand itself. Very conveniently forgetting that Russia wanted to join NATO and was willing to be a partner and the Americans kicked them while they were down. Yeltsin did everything to accommodate the Americans yet it was all for nothing. No need to be someone's lapdog. As for the claim that Russia is getting closer to NATO's borders it is the most ridiculous thing ever mentioned. Russia has not moved at all. NATO has expanded to Russian borders.
Yes Putin is a very authoritarian leader but more so are all the Gulf countries.
No one is forcing nations to join NATO. Its each nation's right to determine its own path, which is what Putin objects to. He wants nations he doesn't rule to do as he wants or else he will invade them. That's what Putin apologists are justifying by arguing in his favor.
That's true but it reads as a summary of US foreign policy since World War Two, as well. If the shoe were on the other foot, America would be doing the same. We know this because America did the same in Chile, Cuba, and South America more broadly.
That's true, although in the present context Ukraine is a democracy with legitimately elected leaders, so if they want to join NATO, Putin doesn't get to have any say in the matter. That is fundamentally what all of this is about - the jilted ex-lover attempting to coerce his ex into not dating anyone they don't approve of - or else face violent consequences.
Oh please. There's no way Russia's getting in. NATO requires the following as a condition of membership:
"A functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully; an ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutions". Source.
There's your answer.
The fact is, now Russia wouldn't join NATO even if we wanted it to, NATO is far more useful these days to Russian nationalists, cast in the role of an enemy.
This idea that Russia is hurt because it really, really wanted to subordinate itself to a US-led military command structure, and was rejected, is laughable.
Last edited:
Nobody sensible listens to Peter Hitchens on anything, everyone knows that.
I disagree,
Most people who have had a say in who and how they are governed don't like it being taken away from them. Democracy isn't an end point which can only be reached when everything is milk and honey.
Some democracy is better than none. A flawed democracy is better than autocracy. Democracies develop the culture and conditions to support it over time and become complacent about them eventually.
Its a flawed system of government but it is better than all the other systems so far.
If the Russians invade their soldiers will be there because they are paid to be there and told to be there by Putin. The Ukrainians will be fighting for their existence and freedoms they only recently gained and which Russia would deny their children and grand children. If the war goes on longer than Putin thinks and it very well might then he will be in real trouble.
Last edited:
Obviously NATO had expanded a bit more over the past 30 years but Russia did literally move its borders what, 7 years ago? I’m not even talking about its military presence in neighboring countries & contested territories like Donetsk, Lugansk, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria etc.
Good point, well argued.
When Russia wanted (apparently) to join in it was late Yeltsin/early Putin era, which was very different to today’s Russia (or Putin himself). He actually had great relationships with US, UK & Germany and it seemed like he was moving towards wider integration into Europe (as a partner, not as a dominant force though). And Russia was even a democracy at that point (a widely flawed one, but a democracy nonetheless). It’s scary to think how the things have changed over the last 2 decades.
I don’t think the idea of Russia joining NATO ever had legs (I suspect the two sides had incompatible worldviews), but, to be honest, there is a NATO member just to the south of Russia which would struggle to meet some of the criteria you cite.
NATO was never about democracy, although today it might be more important than ever.
What are we making of the 6 battleships making their way to Crimea and the Black Sea? Attack from land and sea.
sure is getting tenser by the day
sure is getting tenser by the day
@Raoul you keep posting Russia’s GDP but you cannot calculate how it would translate to a warfare. If that were the case then all the wars would be calculated by numbers and US would have won in Vietnam and USSR would have won in Ghanners.
Hypothetically, though, US would absolutely bankrupt itself if it decided to have a an all out war with Russia.
Hypothetically, though, US would absolutely bankrupt itself if it decided to have a an all out war with Russia.
Wasn't it an oligarcy back then?
The sentiment of WWII has not left Russian psyche and I’m absolutely convinced, if Russians have enough supposed pretext, then they’ll defend their motherland like a motherfecker. I’ll just say it now - the west haven’t got the stomach for it.
I don't know what Putin is willing to do, but any invasion plan holds the same risks of failure as if the US pushed forward with either a stronger plan for the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961 or a potential follow-up to that fiasco. Just as someone mentioned earlier, Ukrainians will be fighting for their very own existence just like Afghans, Vietnamese and Cubans did before. Putin may have gotten away with a number of things in Chechnya because it didn't gather enough support and sympathy around the world to be recognized as a full-fledged nation, but Ukraine has been fully sovereign since 1991.
And for people saying that Russia is defending itself, they better ask Russia to look at itself in a mirror because many countries that used to not give a shit have grown worried about belligerence from the Kremlin, including Swedes and Finns having zero thing to do with NATO.
And for people saying that Russia is defending itself, they better ask Russia to look at itself in a mirror because many countries that used to not give a shit have grown worried about belligerence from the Kremlin, including Swedes and Finns having zero thing to do with NATO.
I wouldn’t call it oligarchy, but it was a flawed democracy with a lot of power & influence held by oligarchs. But I wouldn’t say that oligarchs were synonymous with government & politicians at that point.
Defend from who? What are you even talking about?
Weirdly enough, he’s kind of on point as Putin has developed this idea of a constant harassment from a foreign force (USA & the West in general), so every offensive action so far had been labeled as a defensive one. The current military presence in Eastern Ukraine is, for example, justified as a defense of Russian people that live in the region — and a surprising amount of people bought that.
Whenever it will be enough to justify a full-blown invasion into Ukraine (instead of supporting a local proxy force) in the eyes of general public, I’m not sure. I hope not. But Putin is “reacting at NATO’s aggression”, at least this is how he tries to frame it.
I'm sure the 24hrs news stations are eady and their impeded reporters on both sides and chomping at the bit...
You don't seem to understand that NATO's expansion is not done with tanks and threats but with the express will of said countries and votes, referendums etc. Those countries want NATO precisely because of Russias behaviour towards it's neighbors. We don't live in the 30s anymore where central and eastern countries are treated as non entities to be shared by Hitler and Stalin. Countries have the right to self determination and more often then not, that means they chose the west and as much protection as possible from a Russia that still has governments living in the past.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are we back to Russia in the cycle of foreign bogeymen then?
Every year is the same thing, almost like it benefits some.
Every year is the same thing, almost like it benefits some.
It seems Russia plays along the boogeyman role quite convincingly.
Don't be coy, who specifically?
*cough*georgesoros*/cough*
Russian militia..
US Militia..
This is funny and all, but unfortunately there are a lot of genuinely dangerous people in the American militia movement. They undoubtedly have a more dangeorus militia movement than Russia.
Yeah those thousands of dead in eastern ukraine really need to stop with this propaganda.
They have the same boss tbf!
You mean like 1000’s of civilians indiscriminately killed by Ukrainian far right/nazi loving azov battalion?
Let's all relax and go watch Threads
I see you’re one of those…Putin loving and propaganda spreader but living in the west? Why don’t you go back to motherland free of nazis?
What the feck are you talking about? I don’t love Putin at all. I think it’s a great tragedy that innocent people have gotten caught up in this. The rebels have to take the blame by staying close to populated areas but I can absolutely say that Ukrainian forces shelled plenty of populated areas when they didn’t need to.
I don’t love Putin, in fact like a lot of Russians my support for him waned a long, long time a ago.
Pretty bizarre of you think I need to go back to Russia if I have any sympathy for people of Donbas and Lugansk. Having sympathy for those people and supporting Putin is far from mutually exclusive. Brain dead comment.