• 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

Finney Is Back said:
Join NATO = don’t get invaded by Russia because Russia know they would get pulverized in the ensuing conflict.
Don’t join NATO = get invaded by Russia as they’ll probably win the ensuing conflict.
Click to expand...

I'm not making an argument for saying russia is right in what they are doing.

Just their thinking of why they are doing it.

You might disagree 100%. That's fine, nothing to do with me.

I think it's important to try and see things from both perspectives to get a better understanding of a situation. Rather than pick a side and think everything one side does is right and the other wrong.
 
Lets reverse it. Say scotland declared independence next year. They then announced an alliance with russia. Then russia wanted to put a military base outside edinburgh.

You really think the british or american governments would allow that?
 
Lilbaz said:
Lets reverse it. Say scotland declared independence next year. They then announced an alliance with russia. Then russia wanted to put a military base outside edinburgh.

You really think the british or american governments would allow that?
Click to expand...
Why would democratic Scotland, choose to form an alliance with a dictatorship? Seems somewhat far fetched?…. Especially as the Scotts want to rejoin the EU. Can you come up with a scenario that actually has at least a 1% likelihood please?
 
Finney Is Back said:
Why would democratic Scotland, choose to form an alliance with a dictatorship? Seems somewhat far fetched?…. Especially as the Scotts want to rejoin the EU. Can you come up with a scenario that actually has at least a 1% likelihood please?
Click to expand...
Whether it has a 1% likelihood is irrelevant to the point being made, trying to recreate an exact historical example is impossible.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Why would democratic Scotland, choose to form an alliance with a dictatorship? Seems somewhat far fetched?…. Especially as the Scotts want to rejoin the EU. Can you come up with a scenario that actually has at least a 1% likelihood please?
Click to expand...

You don't want to understand russias thinking. Fine.

Chalk it down to putin being a madman, why things are happening.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Equally weird that @DubaiSpur is the most plausible armchair general on here, apparently knowledgeable about all sorts of military kit, and not (so far) demanding air strikes on ENIC.
Click to expand...

Ha - military kit used to be my bread and butter, and I'm certainly no general. Just someone who doesn't want to see imperialism, murder and bullying upend the fragile global consensus against forceful coercion like this that we've so painstakingly established in the post-Cold War era.

As for ENIC, certainly not. But if they somehow found themselves up at the Hague facing a tribunal...well, I wouldn't complain. ;)
 
Lilbaz said:
Lets reverse it. Say scotland declared independence next year. They then announced an alliance with russia. Then russia wanted to put a military base outside edinburgh.

You really think the british or american governments would allow that?
Click to expand...

I don't think they would invade Scotland because of it.
Russia already shares borders with NATO members - the attack on Ukraine isn't really about NATO, that is a useful addition to the narrative.
Ukraine is such a symbolic part of Russian history that Putin wants it back. The problem is, Ukraine wants to go west, and understandably so when you see how well many of their close neighbors have done over the past 30-35 years by distancing themselves from Russia
 
Lilbaz said:
What is nato though and why was it set up? To combat the ussr and now russia. Every new member is basically an invading force (in the eyes of russians). Taking over new territory. Encroaching on their borders.

Now i'm not saying that perspective is right or excuses anything. I'm just saying that is their perspective. Which you can't ignore.
Click to expand...
NATO is a protection racket. The weak states cozy up to the biggest guy on the block to protect them from the biggest arsehole in the neighborhood.

Framing NATO as an invading force, or even a force is really a mistake. NATO is not invading anyone.
 
Lilbaz said:
Lets reverse it. Say scotland declared independence next year. They then announced an alliance with russia. Then russia wanted to put a military base outside edinburgh.

You really think the british or american governments would allow that?
Click to expand...

See, either way, it doesn't matter. From a humanistic perspective, Russia butchering Ukraine and Ukrainians for daring to dream of a future unshackled to a crumbling oligarchy is wrong, evil, and worth countering. But, even taking your point about it being no different to the US or the UK not allowing Russian military bases in Cuba or Scotland (for example), that presupposes that the world runs purely on geopolitics.

And here's the cold hard truth for Russia if it believes in that dictum - geopolitics is a game played by those who can afford it. Spheres of influence are maintained by those who can afford to maintain them and back themselves up with enough social, economic and military power to dissuade nations even attempting to break free.The US is such a nation. Russia is not.

If Russia's logic is 'The US and the UK have spheres of influence, why can't we, there's no morals in geopolitics', they can't whine when the US attempts to undermine their sphere of influence, nor when NATO advances right up to their border, nor when every single European country on their Western border with the exception of their pathetic puppet Belarus ends up implacably opposed to them. As is happening now. Their only persuasive power is military, and they can't afford even to modernize that properly. And yet they try to maintain their spheres of influence against powers far more appealing to their neighbors and satellites - culturally, economically, socially, politically.

It's ass-backwards even if they are believers in the dictum of there being no morals on the world stage. Even China learned to keep their mouths shut and their intentions hidden until they were wealthy enough to pursue them. One oligarchic Potemkin state with a flailing military trying desperately to enforce their will by bombing their neighbors, playing at being the USSR with 1/100th of the power, is just pathetic, and needs stopping for that alone.
 
monkeybarry said:
I don't think they would invade Scotland because of it.
Russia already shares borders with NATO members - the attack on Ukraine isn't really about NATO, that is a useful addition to the narrative.
Ukraine is such a symbolic part of Russian history that Putin wants it back. The problem is, Ukraine wants to go west, and understandably so when you see how well many of their close neighbors have done over the past 30-35 years by distancing themselves from Russia
Click to expand...
Spot on. This was never really about NATO. It is about democracy and the 'Europeanisation' of Ukraine
 
monkeybarry said:
I don't think they would invade Scotland because of it.
Russia already shares borders with NATO members - the attack on Ukraine isn't really about NATO, that is a useful addition to the narrative.
Ukraine is such a symbolic part of Russian history that Putin wants it back. The problem is, Ukraine wants to go west, and understandably so when you see how well many of their close neighbors have done over the past 30-35 years by distancing themselves from Russia
Click to expand...

Where are the wonderful EU in all this bar protecting sales of Gucci and Diamonds? I thought they were the beacon we all look up to?
 
Lilbaz said:
The way america has done since the second world war. Do what we say or you will be punished. We will over throw your government and get one in we like. That will support us military and economic interests. Usually ends badly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

They overthrew lula. The most popular leader this centuary. Replaced him with bolsonaro.

https://www.brasilwire.com/white-house-admits-cia-involvement-in-latin-americas-war-on-corruption/

It was the us (and the uk) that created the oligarchs in russia in the first place. Supporting them financially as they didn't want russia to go back to communism.
Click to expand...

The US, with other countries, not NATO as such. Fine line, but a line.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Where are the wonderful EU in all this bar protecting sales of Gucci and Diamonds? I thought they were the beacon we all look up to?
Click to expand...

This is very challenging for many countries in the EU as some of them are heavily dependent on Russian fuels.

So are we. I have read but have not confirmed supermarkets and BP supply fuel comes from Russia.
 
Trixster said:
We can all play word games, and I think you're just trolling now.
(Seeing as if you perceive something means you notice something when it is not obvious)
Hard to imagine you are devoid of the capacity to understand just why Russia sees the alliance as a threat and would not want US military bases and hardware on the entirety of its Western borders.

You, and others, believe that an invasion of Russia by NATO is inconceivable. However, you are not Russian, and Russians can very much conceive it from their history. Factor in their viewpoint that NATO lied to them about the expansions and voila, instability, suspicions and lack of trust.

Funnily enough, understanding of these concerns might have meant we didn't end up in this tragic situation. But NATO, the US etc. etc. never gave these fears any credence and thought it was a stupid narrative - now look where we're at.
Click to expand...

While I have in the past heard and repeated the point about NATO/NATO countries lying to Russia about not expanding after the fall of the Soviet Union was there ever anything official on that? Signed agreements, official ratified declarations?
 
Rorschach said:
  1. You are right that Russians do not understand that NATO is not an invading force, but rather an agreement to defend members, and that should be seen as a failure. But you would have to admit the constant stream of anti-NATO sentiment may have some part to play in this misunderstanding.

  2. I would add that the fact that NATO agreed to not admit east European countries is a hotly contested point, by Gorbachev no less (who you think would know).
Click to expand...

  1. The anti-NATO / West rhetoric has been on-going for decades, Yugoslavia enhanced the thought of NATO willing to go to war (despite Russia's concerns.) Funnily enough, not long after that NATO expanded with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - so it isn't difficult to understand why. The newer generations do bring more understanding, but they are still a mix of that and firm old school Russian beliefs.

  2. I never said it wasn't :)
    However, there have been several mooted points over the years that documents around the requests show patterns of promises made by the US to Russia, as well as internal policy discussions opposing NATO expansion eastwards. Obviously none of these ever become official policy nor made it into any binding documents with Russia.
 
Trixster said:
We can all play word games, and I think you're just trolling now.
(Seeing as if you perceive something means you notice something when it is not obvious)
Hard to imagine you are devoid of the capacity to understand just why Russia sees the alliance as a threat and would not want US military bases and hardware on the entirety of its Western borders.

You, and others, believe that an invasion of Russia by NATO is inconceivable. However, you are not Russian, and Russians can very much conceive it from their history. Factor in their viewpoint that NATO lied to them about the expansions and voila, instability, suspicions and lack of trust.

Funnily enough, understanding of these concerns might have meant we didn't end up in this tragic situation. But NATO, the US etc. etc. never gave these fears any credence and thought it was a stupid narrative - now look where we're at.
Click to expand...
So NATO has to act against the wishes of those who wish to join because Russia believes something that isn't true?

This is getting beyond ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back