2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You may hate all wars but you like to talk about US ones and deliberately ignore those started by Russia

 

You quote a Ukrainian propaganda site called "Russia's crimes"?  LOL  dude you really need to research more

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

You quote a Ukrainian propaganda site called "Russia's crimes"?  LOL  dude you really need to research more

Are you denying the wars happened? Do you want me to go through each one for you?

4 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 China is a sovereign state - Taiwan is not.

This is the core of your argument - can't you see the double talk?

 

No.

 

The core of my argument is that NATO tries to preserve peace and nations join it on a voluntary basis.

 

Ukraine, to the best of my knowledge, has not volunteered to become part of Putin's Russia.

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Are you denying the wars happened? Do you want me to go through each one for you?

Deflection and off-topic and those minor wars were insignificant compared to the USA. OFF TOPIC my thread is about NATOs expansion east and the broken promise.

3 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Load of rubbish talked here...

 

NATO a defence organisation to try and ensure peace

 

Putin an aggressive war monger looking to leave his mark on history by attacking a sovereign nation

Coudn't agree more.  All this talk of 'provoking' Putin fails to appreciate that Ukraine is a sovereign country and has every right to decide on its alliances. As you say. NATO is a defensive organisation - it has never threatened offensive action on anyone.

 

Putin is an imperialist and uses the 'threat' of NATO to justify his actions and gain support from the Russian people. Where its possible, he either wants to control neighbouring countries through 'puppets' as with Belarus or invade them as he has done in Ukraine and tried in Georgia. Putin's past and sometimes present statements (when he slips up) make it clear that he sees Ukraine as part of Russia. 

 

Its clear from some of the posts here that some people have no knowledge of Ukraine's recent history.  I'm not refering to what has gone on over the centuries, maps and alliances have changed all over the world for centuries and there have been 2 world wars.  The more recent period, since the break up of the Soviet Union is the only relevant time in the current context.

 

The Ukranian people made it clear where they wanted their future to lie through the Maidan Uprising in 2013-2014 and they had every right to do so. People here should perhaps read through the details of that uprising, why it came about and what the people were seeking.

 

NATO and the EU are not and never will be a 'threat' to Russia, they are only a threat to Putin's ambitions. Putin just doesn't want a disobedient true democracy on his border - his own people might get similar ideas.

 

All his claims that his invasion of Ukraine were a response to NATO expansion are complete claptrap.  The response to his invasion by Sweden and Finland was entirely predictable and its almost certain that his advisers will have made that clear.  He has actually created NATO expansion, not stopped it.

6 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

No.

 

The core of my argument is that NATO tries to preserve peace and nations join it on a voluntary basis.

 

Ukraine, to the best of my knowledge, has not volunteered to become part of Putin's Russia.

 
"Putin is an aggressive war monger looking to leave his mark on history by attacking a sovereign nation"     That was you, was it not?

You seem to like highlighting the sovereign nation part when it suits you but not when it is about the NON-sovereign nation Taiwan. Why's that?

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Deflection and off-topic and those minor wars were insignificant compared to the USA. OFF TOPIC my thread is about NATOs expansion east and the broken promise.

Whats off topic? You were very happy to highlight wars involving the US and ignore Russia's. You started it...lol

 

Here's a few more and your remark that they were insignificant compared to the US is nonsense.

 

Russian Federation (1991–present)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 
"Putin is an aggressive war monger looking to leave his mark on history by attacking a sovereign nation"     That was you, was it not?

You seem to like highlighting the sovereign nation part when it suits you but not when it is about the NON-sovereign nation Taiwan. Why's that?

 

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

What the hell has China and Taiwan got to do with anything???????

7 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Deflection and off-topic.....

 

That made me laugh.....China and Taiwan....555

5 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

What the hell has China and Taiwan got to do with anything???????

 If you cannot understand the example of a 'sovereign nation' and its context, then you are not used to debates, and I am wasting my time.

5 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

That made me laugh.....China and Taiwan....555

 I see it went waaaaaaaay over your head. Have a nice day.

8 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 
"Putin is an aggressive war monger looking to leave his mark on history by attacking a sovereign nation"     That was you, was it not?

You seem to like highlighting the sovereign nation part when it suits you but not when it is about the NON-sovereign nation Taiwan. Why's that?

Your thread is not about commie China and Taiwan. ...🤔

 

I find it strange you do not accept that your chum Putin is a murdering dictator, an invader of a neighbour for land grab, but you Reds are all the same, though like the comfort of the West, oh, and Thailand............😉 

 

P.S. Your thread isn't going to well, is it..........😂

 

4 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 I see it went waaaaaaaay over your head. Have a nice day.

Says a commie living in a none commie country...........

10 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

What the hell has China and Taiwan got to do with anything???????

Taiwan is not considered as a sovereign nation. So if China invade Taiwan, it is in theory an internal matter. 

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Taiwan is not considered as a sovereign nation. So if China invade Taiwan, it is in theory an internal matter. 

....and that is relevant to the discussion of NATO 'expansion'...?

8 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Taiwan is not considered as a sovereign nation. So if China invade Taiwan, it is in theory an internal matter. 

 Thank you - how he could not understand the logic escapes me - but it is TVF!

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

 Thank you - how he could not understand the logic escapes me - but it is TVF!

Isn't that off topic?

13 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 If you cannot understand the example of a 'sovereign nation' and its context, then you are not used to debates, and I am wasting my time.

Can anyone....not you BKK Bob....explain how China and Taiwan have any relevance to Putin using countries voluntarily joining NATO as an excuse for attacking Ukraine?

10 minutes ago, transam said:

Says a commie living in a none commie country...........

 
Commie? Did you mean Homie? That's a nice endearment Trans thanks bro

11 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Taiwan is not considered as a sovereign nation. So if China invade Taiwan, it is in theory an internal matter. 

So Ukraine can be attacked by Russia as it is part of Russia.....that's your argument????

6 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

....and that is relevant to the discussion of NATO 'expansion'...?

It's problematic when Usa Threatening China with war, when technically Taiwan is Chinese. 

 

Maybe the reason for his reasoning 

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

So Ukraine can be attacked by Russia as it is part of Russia.....that's your argument????

 No, the argument is that you cannot use 'sovereign nation' like you did in your earlier post.

Russia attacked Ukraine as it did not follow the USA's 1990 agreement and the Minsk Accord of 2014 and was slaughtering Russians in the Donbas. What is it you don't understand?

2 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

So Ukraine can be attacked by Russia as it is part of Russia.....that's your argument????

Not my arguments, but historically countries have a tendency to control their backyards and their interests. Usa have a long history of interventions world wide when it does not go their way. And as part of trading alliance and Nato, we follow up their policies and backing them with necessary resources. 

 

That how it is, and thats what we benefit from, 

 

That's why you and me can waste time here

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

It's problematic when Usa Threatening China with war, when technically Taiwan is Chinese. 

 

Maybe the reason for his reasoning 

 I was showing the obvious hypocrisy in the argument.   

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

So, are we never to trust treaties, promises, and agreements? Your suggestion is chaos, lying, and betrayal everywhere—a world based on deceit and subterfuge.

This is what humanity has come to?  I hate to say it, but the USA is behind all this evil because it has a saviour complex - it thinks everywhere should be like America the Beautiful. Instead of cooperation we have domination.

When it comes to evil ex-KGB and now Leader of Russia leads the pack.  Not only invade Ukraine but shell civilian targets daily plus infrastructure.  Ukraine would be smart to go ahead and give up the "occupied" territory now but only if Russia restores any other infrastructure or pays for its restoration.  This is my opinion anyway as I ws born and still am anti-communist.

36 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 
Commie? Did you mean Homie? That's a nice endearment Trans thanks bro

No, I don't make spelling mistakes very often........🤔

 

I don't think anybody so far in this discussion has noticed what seems to me to be the obvious point:

 

All these proposals were conditional. They all begin with "If.." There's no evidence that any negotations actually settled this question. In fact...

 

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”

Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR).

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

 

The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia

The documents from all sides fully bear out Zelikow’s argument and undermine the notion that the United States or other Western countries ever pledged not to expand NATO beyond Germany. The British, French, U.S., and West German governments did make certain commitments in 1990 about NATO’s role in eastern Germany, commitments that are all laid out in the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, but no Western leader ever offered any ‘‘pledge’’ or ‘‘commitment’’ or ‘‘categorical assurances’’ about NATO’s role vis-a`-vis the rest of the Warsaw Pact countries. Indeed, the issue never came up during the negotiations on German reunification, and Soviet leaders at the time never claimed that it did. 

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/twq09aprilkramer.pdf

 

30 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't think anybody so far in this discussion has noticed what seems to me to be the obvious point:

 

All these proposals were conditional. They all begin with "If.." There's no evidence that any negotations actually settled this question. In fact...

 

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”

Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR).

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

 

The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia

The documents from all sides fully bear out Zelikow’s argument and undermine the notion that the United States or other Western countries ever pledged not to expand NATO beyond Germany. The British, French, U.S., and West German governments did make certain commitments in 1990 about NATO’s role in eastern Germany, commitments that are all laid out in the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, but no Western leader ever offered any ‘‘pledge’’ or ‘‘commitment’’ or ‘‘categorical assurances’’ about NATO’s role vis-a`-vis the rest of the Warsaw Pact countries. Indeed, the issue never came up during the negotiations on German reunification, and Soviet leaders at the time never claimed that it did. 

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/twq09aprilkramer.pdf

 

 "a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990" case closed even though you and the article very carefully do not mention Gorbachov was in his 80s when he gave that interview and under some manipulation by the West. He was broke and  even made an advert for Pizza Hut. He ran for President in 1996 and got 0.5% of the vote. 

He commented "On 24 December 2021, Gorbachev said that the United States "grew arrogant and self-confident" after the collapse of the Soviet Union, resulting in "a new empire. Hence the idea of NATO expansion" - he was right there!

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

 "a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990" case closed even though you and the article very carefully do not mention Gorbachov was in his 80s when he gave that interview and under some manipulation by the West. He was broke and  even made an advert for Pizza Hut. He ran for President in 1996 and got 0.5% of the vote. 

He commented "On 24 December 2021, Gorbachev said that the United States "grew arrogant and self-confident" after the collapse of the Soviet Union, resulting in "a new empire. Hence the idea of NATO expansion" - he was right there!

It's not just about Gorbachev. As the second article pointed out, there was nothing in the documentation of that time that pointed to any kind of promise not to expand NATO. The allegations that such promises were made were offered years later. 

Such claims as "a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990" are impossible to prove or disprove given that they are based on emotion.

2 hours ago, transam said:

I find it strange you do not accept that your chum Putin is a murdering dictator, an invader of a neighbour for land grab, but you Reds are all the same, though like the comfort of the West, oh, and Thailand............😉 

Quite, putting political differences aside - anyone supporting Putin is supporting the deaths of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civillians!

 

That's what this comes down to - the leaders, politicians and the military can say what they like, make any excuses they so wish. At the end of the day its soldiers and civillians that pay with their lives - not the leaders.  In this case, pay for what? Whether you accept Putin's excuses or not, the fact is that Ukraine showed no aggression. The only ongoing conflict at the time was within Ukraine's borders and that was stirred up by Russia in the first place.

 

Those of you who support Putin must always remember that you are supporting death. I doubt any of you would have the same feelings if that death was closer to home.