Jump to content

Understanding Putin’s Motivations Behind the Ukraine Invasion


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

I think Tuckers an idiot but have you ever met Tucker to have that opinion because according to your initial post that would be essential.

Sigh… you really lack mental acuity if you can’t see the difference between the two.

 

I said what I said about Tucker Carlson because I heard the words he said from his own mouth. I will feed your addiction for links by including one that supports my view. There are hundreds of other such links, just google it.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/03/media/tucker-carlson-text-message-analysis/index.html

 

Horowitz on the other hand is conjecturing, drawing his own, erroneous I should add, conclusions about Putin’s motives. I have not seen any credible supporting evidence for his ridiculous claims.

  • Confused 2
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gweiloman said:

Sigh… you really lack mental acuity if you can’t see the difference between the two.

 

I said what I said about Tucker Carlson because I heard the words he said from his own mouth. I will feed your addiction for links by including one that supports my view. There are hundreds of other such links, just google it.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/03/media/tucker-carlson-text-message-analysis/index.html

 

Horowitz on the other hand is conjecturing, drawing his own, erroneous I should add, conclusions about Putin’s motives. I have not seen any credible supporting evidence for his ridiculous claims.

Sigh… you really lack mental acuity if you can’t see the difference between the two.

 

Oh the irony............:cheesy:

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

NATO does not "expand" into another country the way Russia has expanded into Ukraine!

NATO does not "expand" into another country as countries ask to join NATO and IF all NATO countries agree then they are able to join!

Do you really believe this? Or are you just posting for likes?

 

Maybe these might enlighten you 

https://www.npr.org/2008/04/02/89300373/bush-calls-for-nato-expansion-at-his-last-summit#:~:text=Speaking in an ornate bank,gains and cement their independence.

 

https://time.com/6294499/nato-summit-vilnius-asia/

 

For your sake, I will put the question another way. Is Ukraine joining NATO a threat to Russia? Yes or no?

 

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Sigh… you really lack mental acuity if you can’t see the difference between the two.

 

Oh the irony............:cheesy:

You prove once again you don’t have the intellectual capacity to be taken seriously.

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Insults are not required in a proper discussion but if you are going to make them I assume that you are describing yourself!

Assume away..:coffee1:

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

The word "expansion" in the link is not mentioned in the article!

Dis you bother to read it
 

This is the main thrust of the article;

""NATO should welcome Georgia and Ukraine into the membership action plan, and NATO membership must remain open to all of Europe's democracies that seek it," the president said."

Note the last four words "democracies that seek it"!

Title of article:

Bush Calls for NATO Expansion at His Last Summit

Is English your first language? It isn’t mine but I understand it enough to know the meaning of an article.

 

  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

As for your second link did you bother to read that in any detail?

Obviously not as you missed this little gem from it;

 

"Courtesy of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine, NATO has re-discovered its original purpose: the collective defense of its member states on the European continent. NATO approved new defense plans this week for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Enhancing deterrence against a near-peer rival in Russia is now NATO’s first, second, and third priority."

It seems like English isn’t your first language. Or maybe it’s your comprehension that is the issue.

 

We were (or I was, at any rate) talking about NATO expansion and not why they were expanding.

 

If you still want to hold on to the fallacy that Nato merely considers applications without seeking new members, be my guest. 

  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, transam said:

At least you didn't write that in Russian BIG letters................🤔

You remind me of some blue collared workers I encountered back in ol’ Blighty. Didn’t give them the time of day. Good policy then, reinstated as of now.

  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gweiloman said:

You remind me of some blue collared workers I encountered back in ol’ Blighty. Didn’t give them the time of day. Good policy then, reinstated as of now.

Was that working for the Morning Star......?  😒

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Without Russia there wouldn't be NATO, it is not difficult for most to understand! 

Totally clueless. 
 

NATO’s new Asia-Pacific mission is remarkable for several reasons. When the alliance was formed in 1949 amid the looming post-war threat posed by the Soviet Union, it had a clear-cut purpose: protect Western Europe from the threat of Soviet expansionism. Once the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, NATO lost its raison d’être. Expanding to Central and Eastern Europe was no longer an obstacle, and the alliance has nearly doubled in size from its Cold War peak. With its geopolitical adversary dead and buried, NATO increasingly looked outside of Europe, in places like Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to maintain relevance.

https://time.com/6294499/nato-summit-vilnius-asia/

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, transam said:

Weeeeeell, he has the right credentials.........🤗

He  has already proved that with his self descriptive insults but not necessarily the understanding of topics and that when "in a whole stop digging"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

He  has already proved that with his self descriptive insults but not necessarily the understanding of topics and that when "in a whole stop digging"!

It’s hole, not whole. Guess English isn’t your first language after all.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

Because the US was pumping the lions share of wonga into the NATO kitty.

Again you don't have a clue what you're talking about, could have been stopped in April 22, of course it could if Ukraine had agreed to surrender the territory that the Russians had already stolen, and then the lying Russians would have returned at a later date to take the rest of Ukraine.

Keep pumping Putin propaganda, it's all you understand!

so,  i don't know what i'm talking about, but then you proceed to and invent a version of something that never happened?🤡
 

lying Russians? humm, now.... wasn't there an agreement back in 97 to not expand nato Eastward?,  who went back on that? lets take a guess. 

other countries are wising up and seeing the US for what it is, they are making firmer ties elsewhere for themselves. good on them

didn't Saudi make huge deals with China rather than the US?
 

 

 

Edited by frank83628
  • Confused 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...