• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Putin & Russia

SpurMeUp said:
As though everything is so simple and black and white? As though a Pole doesn’t have their own tacit bias and position. History is never one perspective or one account. His rendition of history can be completely truthful but still only be one narrative. For example, it negates the history where US and European interests funded and undermined a democratically elected Ukrainian President. The elections weren’t rigged. Neutral observers were happy with them being free and fair. But Yanocovick (who wasn’t just working with Russia he was far more nuanced trying to bargain the best he could for his country but eventually took up a stronger deal from Russian over the debt and stringent conditions from the west) was deposed and replaced by an unelected pro-western president. Maybe you can read some of this article for a slightly different history and “agree or disagree” with it: https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

I completely agree with the Pole. I am not pro-Russian. I simply present a different view point to the dominant narrative and give an idea of the other sides perspective.

And for all the sanctimony, who is going to take the bullets? The Polish politician, or his kids? You? Or we should commit other peoples sons to help our moral crusade, rather than pursue peace? I don’t buy that we are stopping the next hitler who’ll maraud into Europe. Even if it were so, you’re using Ukraine as a buffer and sponge to protect Europe. Using their lives and destroying their country.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, it's an interesting article and I can see how murky this all is.
I feel that 20 years ago there was zero chance of Ukraine becoming aggressive and invading Russia or Moldova or Belarus as they were just trying to be a "normal placid country" but then they got squeezed hard between Russia and The West... for me the huge difference between these 2 actors is that Russia fired rockets and phosphorous weapons into civilian areas, raped women, stole children, shot innocent people in the back, and deserve to be punished for that and thrown out; this is a normal response from me. You can't let Russia get away with that behaviour. So of course I am pro-western-style-Ukraine.

Putin is an animal; he wants to kill all Ukrainians, take the whole country and keep expanding.

PS I asked if you agree or disagree with the Pole and you gave me/him a thumbs down disagree... then said in your post that you completely agree with the Pole.
 
Bullet said:
Thanks for the link, it's an interesting article and I can see how murky this all is.
I feel that 20 years ago there was zero chance of Ukraine becoming aggressive and invading Russia or Moldova or Belarus as they were just trying to be a "normal placid country" but then they got squeezed hard between Russia and The West... for me the huge difference between these 2 actors is that Russia fired rockets and phosphorous weapons into civilian areas, raped women, stole children, shot innocent people in the back, and deserve to be punished for that and thrown out; this is a normal response from me. You can't let Russia get away with that behaviour. So of course I am pro-western-style-Ukraine.

Putin is an animal; he wants to kill all Ukrainians, take the whole country and keep expanding.

PS I asked if you agree or disagree with the Pole and you gave me/him a thumbs down disagree... then said in your post that you completely agree with the Pole.
Click to expand...
The thumbs down was reciprocal - tit for tat - and for the naivety of presenting history as black and white.

Why is tit for tat relevant? Because every war has a history of gentle tit for tat escalation. Is Russia a brutal, empire building dictatorship? Yes. Has it been ‘nudged’ toward this position? Probably yes. Who wins? Arms companies, those who exploit natural resources. With the people in Ukraine losing the most. The formula is well worked, and I don’t think you can name me a foreign
Intervention by NATO that has helped the indigenous population, maybe with the exception of Bosnia.

The UK had its post colonial transition. And it maintained a strong connection with its former empire, both economically and politically. The US didn’t barge in and fund ‘democracy campaigns’ which undermined democracy ironically with the aim of pulling these nations away from our sphere of influence. Such actions are what caused the tit for tat - you can see why Russia then said fuk it we’ll meddle in Brexit, and elections of nato members just as they are in ours. And what success they have had! The US started it. Russia smashed it.

The US funding of war in Ukraine is another tit for tat in the great game. Having lost to Russia in Syria (at the time) the US wasn’t going to let Russia walk in and ‘win’ Ukraine. But the US doesn’t care deeply for this distant place beyond this base one upmanship. Trump just has the pomp to be candid and show that getting a return for americas input is the point.

What reaction would you have had to Russia funding the IRA to fight the British army in Ireland? Or to Russia funding sadam hussein prepping him to fight nato when invading Iraq?
 
SpurMeUp said:
I don’t think you can name me a foreign
Intervention by NATO that has helped the indigenous population, maybe with the exception of Bosnia.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand what nato is. Not sure how you do, but you do. Nato doesn’t often do foreign intervention it being a defensive pact.

It has overseen no fly zones and trained defensive forces, and assisted with border security, and security ops after natural disasters - all of which are to protect civilians.

So please be careful in future when you talk about who is doing what. History is indeed black and white it is only peoples stupidity that blends facts.
 
johnola said:
I think you misunderstand what nato is. Not sure how you do, but you do. Nato doesn’t often do foreign intervention it being a defensive pact.

It has overseen no fly zones and trained defensive forces, and assisted with border security, and security ops after natural disasters - all of which are to protect civilians.

So please be careful in future when you talk about who is doing what. History is indeed black and white it is only peoples stupidity that blends facts.
Click to expand...

Well let start with Ukraine. Is this a nato intervention?
 
What is fascinating from a historical analysis perspective, is that geopolitical patterns from over a century ago, are still playing out and persist today. Colonial history and Marxist history very much shaped our world. And to some extent we still have large colonial-like powers.

Some see NATO itself as imperialist. One for discussion. It is not like former empires, but it often mimics empire-like actions. Debatable.

Are China the most benign of empires? Using Belt and Road and economic activity, rather than arms, to take over?
 
Nato is effectively dead since Trump has verbally said he won't come to the aid of any threatened country under Article 5. Some might say that is Trump being Trump but that doesn't matter. His words have a real-world effect and now you can see European leaders scrambling now, talking about a European defence force. Many have said it is past time this happened and I would agree wholeheartedly now, though maybe not that long ago I would not have.

How it plays out in Ukraine I don't know. Does this mineral deal (which is a bit of a nothing burger) mean US aid will still flow?
 
SpurMeUp said:
What is fascinating from a historical analysis perspective, is that geopolitical patterns from over a century ago, are still playing out and persist today. Colonial history and Marxist history very much shaped our world. And to some extent we still have large colonial-like powers.

Some see NATO itself as imperialist. One for discussion. It is not like former empires, but it often mimics empire-like actions. Debatable.

Are China the most benign of empires? Using Belt and Road and economic activity, rather than arms, to take over?
Click to expand...
There's a lot of history with China and expansion. Basically they don't have territorial ambitions (beyond Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan) because their whole history is a repeated cycle of internal collapse as they've attempted to expand. So they instead concentrate all their aggression on internal suppression, while using economic imperialism to also manage that domestic situation.

I'd recommend this book (or the accompanying tv series): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Story-China-Pa-Michael-Wood/dp/1471175987
 
Rorschach said:
Nato is effectively dead since Trump has verbally said he won't come to the aid of any threatened country under Article 5. Some might say that is Trump being Trump but that doesn't matter. His words have a real-world effect and now you can see European leaders scrambling now, talking about a European defence force. Many have said it is past time this happened and I would agree wholeheartedly now, though maybe not that long ago I would not have.

How it plays out in Ukraine I don't know. Does this mineral deal (which is a bit of a nothing burger) mean US aid will still flow?
Click to expand...

What happened to that EU army we were all supposed to be afraid of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back