When you say that he switched at the right moment, does that mean that you feel like Putin is losing his control over Russia and it makes sense to not be on his side any longer?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
The same defensive organisation that attacked and bombed Serbia, Bosnia and invaded Afghanistan and whose members invaded Iraq. Self defensive organisations set up to prevent Soviet expansion do not invade sovereign nations in the Middle East. To think that Russia would sit there and do nothing is naive. NATO was formed to deal with the perceived threat from the Soviet Union following WW2 or rather to guarantee a US military presence in Europe. The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. There is no reason for NATO to even exist other than to facilitate a US military presence in Europe.
The fact is that NATO gave an undertaking not to expand into Europe. NATO were well aware of Russias concerns even if you are not.
With regard to your claim that NATO is a group of friends with no hostile intentions here's part of a report from Human Rights Watch regarding NATOs intervention in the former Yugoslavia.
conducted air attacks using cluster bombs near populated areas;
· attacked targets of questionable military legitimacy, including Serb Radio and Television, heating plants, and bridges;
· did not take adequate precautions in warning civilians of attacks;
· took insufficient precautions identifying the presence of civilians when attacking convoys and mobile targets; and
· caused excessive civilian casualties by not taking sufficient measures to verify that military targets did not have concentrations of civilians (such as at Korisa).
It concluded that while there was no evidence of war crimes the investigation did conclude that NATO violated international humanitarian law.
And then there is the bombing of Syria and NATO involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq. In fact most of NATOs combat activity has been centred in the Middle East.
NATO are not the squeaky clean, defensive organisation you claim them to be. Independent thought is not about spouting propaganda from CCN it's about looking at both sides and certainly being sceptical of any reporting from the mainstream Western press and politicians. Neither have a particularly good record for reporting facts. I don't believe the bullshit being put out by the Russians either.
It's not a question of who's to blame but rather understanding why this has happened in the first place, something you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.
I give you Serbia and Afghanistan, but all the other missions were not NATO missions, especially not from a German perspective were public and government absolutely were opposing the Iraq war for example and didn't participate. For us Germans most of the middle east adventures aren't related to NATO, just to US imperialism. I don't know if the perception is different in countries that happily followed the US into these adventures, I guess it is?
He switched around 2014 after the Crimea annexation, having voted against it, so it was certainly not the case of him noticing the foundations of Putin's regime crumbling (it was stronger than ever actually). To be fair to him he was never fully on board with everything that Putin was doing but he was always closer to the institutionalised opposition (when it was still a thing) rather than to the real one.
What I meant is that he had found the right moment to switch to be able to keep his reputation (outside of Russia) relatively intact — standing up for Ukraine at the time gave him a lot of social capital both in Ukraine and in the West in general & it's not surprising that Ukraine didn't care much about his involvement in, say, the development of all-encompassing government control over the Russian internet.
Do you honestly believe Putin was afraid NATO could invade Russia? That would be cute if it wasn't so sad that so many Western folks are buying into his red herrings. Putin didn't even expect the response he is getting now for invading a soveign European country. But of course he's afraid that NATO would invade a nuclear power without provocation. I'm aware that many people see the US and NATO very cynically but this is definitely not within the spectrum of tenable opinions, it's just delusional.
And by the way, in my opinion the comparisons you're making are triviliazing Russian war crimes and are effectively disprespectful to the victims of them. No conflict of the US or NATO in the last 50 years was comparable to what Russia is doing to Ukraine. The motives weren't as despicable and the acts weren't as cruel.
Last edited:
Oh I see. Anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion as you has got to be mentally ill, and to conclude a nice topping of racism. Why don't you save your juvenile comments for the nursery playground.
Thankfully.
The NATO treaty isn't specific to Soviet Russia.
Blows my mind anybody can put these words together in a sentence in that order.
NATO has absolutely never given such an undertaking. It is written into the NATO charter that any European country can apply to join and would be accepted with unanimous consent. Such an undertaking would of resulted in an amendment to the charter, which I don't think has ever even been discussed, it is that much of a made up story.
NATO has had very little involvement in the Middle East, in the scheme of things. Not sure they've been involved in Syria at all, its a shame that the Syrian people were not members... Iraq was a training mission, not combat. Afghan is the only real military action NATO has been involved in after Serbia. The Sep 11 attack trigglered
It seems to be to me, surprisingly.
Where have I ever trivialised Russian war crimes. I haven't. But don't let that stop you misrepresenting my position. Not a single war crime has been independently verified and before you jump in. Im not suggesting there hasn't been any. The only one that has been verified is the invasion itself. Are you seriously suggesting the NATO invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq ( a war crime in of itself) are the civilians killed any less dead than the civilian dead in Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq. Around 200, 000 civilian deaths following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The use of cluster bombs in heavily built up civilian areas in Yugoslavia. Aren't you doing the same thing that you're accusing me of trivialising civilian deaths. Or are the lives of white Europeans more valuable than the lives of Middle Eastern civilians.
I don't agree with what NATO are doing, therefore I must be supporting Russia or being taken in by Russian propaganda. This is a classic use of a logical fallacy. You roll the same fallacy out with your conclusion, that any questioning of NATOs motives cannot be tenable are must be delusional.
Of course NATO would not invade Russia to suggest that I believe that is utterly ridiculous. It doesn't matter a jot what I think. What matters is what the Russians, a country with a long bitter history of invasion think.
See, the thing is that you think this means you're an independent thinker who has managed to avoid being fooled by Russian propaganda. But in fact, "both sides are equally bad" is the very goal of Russian propaganda. It's not trying to convince you Russian media isn't a sham, it's trying to convince you Western media is also a sham, so you might as well not care.
Their propaganda also does the same thing when it comes to democracy. It hasn't fooled Russians into believing that Russian democracy is genuine, but it has fooled Russians into believing that Western democracy isn't genuine either. And then Russians go around thinking they've seen through the propaganda, because they know Russia isn't a democracy, but actually they've been had.
I won't even dignify the majority these comments with a response, apart from your mind being blown. If your brain was made out of TNT there wouldn't be enough to blow your wig off.
Bizarre how anyone thinks that Afghanistan wasn't a defensive operation.
NATO wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan without the US first having been attacked.
The Taliban offered safe harbour and had deep financial links with a terrorist organisation that had just attacked the US for a second time and this time killed thousands of people. They permitted terrorist training camps in their country. It was to all intensive purposes state sponsored terrorism. If action wasn't taken on Al Qaeda and those protecting them, clearly a number of NATO states would have been attacked again.
If responding to an attack on a NATO country (9/11) doesn't fall under self-defence, I'm not sure what does.
NATO wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan without the US first having been attacked.
The Taliban offered safe harbour and had deep financial links with a terrorist organisation that had just attacked the US for a second time and this time killed thousands of people. They permitted terrorist training camps in their country. It was to all intensive purposes state sponsored terrorism. If action wasn't taken on Al Qaeda and those protecting them, clearly a number of NATO states would have been attacked again.
If responding to an attack on a NATO country (9/11) doesn't fall under self-defence, I'm not sure what does.
True, even if it became a cluster feck of a war.
???????? You are aware of whats happening in Ukraine right?
Take Nato away and you think Russia sits idly by peacefully? That's an opinion...
Russias war in Ukraine has nothing to do with Nato.
I might be wrong, but it looks like you've twice claimed that there was an agreement between Russia and NATO that it would not expand, and you've twice been told that no such agreement exists. But in neither case have you responded to that absolutely crucial issue. Do you fancy answering?
It's such a deliberately obtuse argument. Nato exists to dissuade countries from invading them. The fact that a Nato member has not been invaded by Russia (whereas multiple non-nato countries have) surely points to the fact that Nato works, and is therefore necessary and justified.
@Roger just seems like a troll.
Boy you love your logical fallacies don't you? I am critical of NATO therefore I must have fallen victim to Russian propaganda. I don't need the Russian state or anyone else for that matter to convince me that the mainstream media are full of shit. I came to that conclusion well over 40 years ago. I am perfectly capable of caring about what happens in the world without choosing who's propaganda to swallow. Why? because it directly affects me and those around me. This war the weapons and funding being invested by the west is crippling the western economies of Europe. Food and energy shortages. Heat or eat is going to be the choice for millions of people in the UK.
I must admit to being impressed by your ability to see inside the heads of the majority of Russian people. Does this work with all people or just Eastern Europeans.
If not being NATOs biggest fan is being a troll then I'm a troll.
What is the alternative? Do nothing?
I wonder which organisations count as independent, because it takes 1 minute to find detailed descriptions of war crimes in Ukraine.
I was wondering the same.
There’s actual video evidence of some of them being carried out, ffs
Indeed
And the alternative? Let the Ukrainian genocide occur? Oh wait lemme guess you don't think it's genocide either.
The government have capacity to do more to support the people, though thats the tories for you. Instead of trying to support the people, they're busy being 'ANTI WOKE' for votes.
Because what the NATO has done in those countries isn't as bad as what Russia is currently doing in Ukraine, that's why. Unless you can point me towards NATO commiting crimes similar to Bucha or turning Mariupol into rubble. Most civilian deaths in these conflicts stem from collateral damage. As despicable and relentless as the US has been, they were never targeting civilians and they try to pursue war crimes instead of honoring the soldiers committing them. And that aside, the Russian motives for invading Ukraine are much more sinister than those NATO had for invading Iraq or Afghanistan, like it or not. Even worse, you're mindlessly repeating the stupid excuses Putin has made up for people like you to feel smarter and on higher morale high ground than they are.
So yes, you're absolutely triviliazing the Russian war crimes in Ukraine because you're so desperately trying to point out hyprocrisy that you yourself became a hypocrite.
Don't feed the trolls
It's sage advice, I think the problem is that posters, me included, come into the conversation without realising all the previous trolling that has occured. It would be easy to give him a description thingy under his name though!
Beyond that, all of his points are easily debunked and were done so earlier in the thread. Much better to discuss the day to day aspect of the war itself.
OK, Rumsfeld.
Its also odd to call it a NATO operation given that it was the US that invaded and deposed the Taliban. NATO came in afterwards because article 5 had been triggered following 9/11.
To continue this little exposé on Ponomarev, here's Bellingcat's investigation from 2018 about a fake American expert (that had never existed), Ponomarev was one of those who vouched for him.
So, in your opinion, is the NRA an actual entity?
e - completely missed your earlier reply to me!
I'm not going to confidently state that they don't exist but going by the information that we have so far (and also judging by the reaction that Ponomarev's words met with experts that I trust), I'd be inclined not to trust him. At least until any further evidence comes up.
I believe that kind of action against the Dugins would not have been possible without the involvement of disgruntled people in high places, very probably in the FSB. That bears the trademark of other assassination attempts made by secret services in the past.
"Jewberg"?
Quite unexpected from Erdogan.
Jeez, just reading through the first 10 or so pages of this thread, from January. So many arguments and predictions made, with such authoritative certainty - almost all of which have been completely wrong. There's definitely a lesson in there about people overstating their own understanding of a complex situation. I haven't seen any of my posts so far, but i'd bet that when i do I'll also be in that group!
I'm a good 250 posts into this thread and this is by FAR the most accurate prediction, well played sir!