20 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

The West is at fault for the Russian invasion of Crimea and the Ukraine?

Again, let's agree to disagree on that.

 

100%, the war in Ukraine need never have happened. After 1989 there was a golden chance to integrate Russia into the new security framework. A chance that was missed and instead followed by encircling Russia with a hostile military alliance.

 

 

15 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

For once we agree on something: You do have to look at the bigger picture.

 

Since Putin assumed power in 2000, he has continual/ continuously interfered in the affairs of Ukraine (and other neighbouring states).

 

I doubt that scenario formed part of any NATO/ Russia agreements discussed in the '90s.

 

The whole analysis is flawed for that reason alone.

 

On 4 April 2008 at the NATO Bucharest summit, invitee Putin told George W. Bush and other conference delegates: "We view the appearance of a powerful military bloc on our border as a direct threat to the security of our nation. The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice. National security is not based on promises."

 

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

 

We've been through this Ray, it was only after 2008 that Putin started to target Georgia and Ukraine. AFTER NATO said they would include Ukraine and Georgia as members.

 

The analysis is not flawed, it shows precisely how Russia was forced into the Ukraine war by the West.

 

Even Angela Merkel understood that the 2008 NATO summit risked Russia ire.

 

"Zelenskyy's accusations resulted in Merkel breaking the silence that she had maintained since leaving office in December 2021. She issued a statement saying that she stands by her "decisions relating to the NATO summit in 2008." A short time later, she expanded on that statement, saying that, at the time, Ukraine had been divided on the issue of joining NATO and that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have just quietly stood aside and allowed the country to be accepted into the alliance. "I didn't want to provoke that," she said."

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/ukraine-how-merkel-prevented-ukraine-s-nato-membership-a-der-spiegel-reconstruction-a-c7f03472-2a21-4e4e-b905-8e45f1fad542

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

The analysis is not flawed, it shows precisely how Russia was forced into the Ukraine war by the West.

 

Don't forget one of the goals of the regime change was to have the Soviets evicted from Sevastopol, and have the naval base repurposed for NATO control of the Black Sea.

Just now, NoDisplayName said:

 

Don't forget one of the goals of the regime change was to have the Soviets evicted from Sevastopol, and have the naval base repurposed for NATO control of the Black Sea.

 

This is where RFK Jr's analysis is particularly strong, it also mentions Russia's concern that with the loss of Ukraine Russia could lose its naval bases in the Crimean. It really was a matter of life and death and national security for Russia.

21 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

100%, the war in Ukraine need never have happened. After 1989 there was a golden chance to integrate Russia into the new security framework. A chance that was missed and instead followed by encircling Russia with a hostile military alliance.

 

 

The hostile alliance that's been behind how many invasions and wars?

Just now, Inderpland said:

The hostile alliance that's been behind how many invasions and wars?

 

Including or excluding Ukraine?

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

This is where RFK Jr's analysis is particularly strong, it also mentions Russia's concern that with the loss of Ukraine Russia could lose its naval bases in the Crimean. It really was a matter of life and death and national security for Russia.

Russia has in fairly recent history invaded and occupied nearly ever nation it shares a border with so forgive me for not sharing your empathy towards them.

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Including or excluding Ukraine?

I'm gonna out on a limb here and predict you will claim NATO is behind Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

This is where RFK Jr's analysis is particularly strong, it also mentions Russia's concern that with the loss of Ukraine Russia could lose its naval bases in the Crimean. It really was a matter of life and death and national security for Russia.

..."the loss of Ukraine..."

 

Are you saying Ukraine belonged to Russia. 

21 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

Russia has in fairly recent history invaded and occupied nearly ever nation it shares a border with so forgive me for not sharing your empathy towards them.

 

Actually, in fairly recent history Russia has been the victim of invasions by Poland, Germany, and before that was invaded by many other nations. So it is very understandable that Russia seeks a buffer between itself and other nations.

 

I understand the antipathy towards Russia, before I went to Russia I was the same, and even then, more happened to make  you anti-Russian than pro Russian, however, Russians are decent people, and they do not wish for war with the West as it turned out.

19 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

..."the loss of Ukraine..."

 

Are you saying Ukraine belonged to Russia. 

 

Of course, Ukraine was a  part of the USSR, hence Russia had Russian naval bases and nuclear weapons in Ukraine. 

 

Even before the USSR Russia defeated the Ottomans in the 18th century to take the Crimean, which has an amazing history btw.

1 hour ago, Inderpland said:

Putin can be hit in places it really hurts. The sooner the better.

I guess you have your nuclear bunker fully stocked up gleefully egging on the Armageddon ?

What a clown!

 

Gorbachev had to withdraw 450,000 Soviet troops from East Germany because the Soviet Union was bankrupt and had no means to sustain them.

Not only Soviet troops were withdrawn from East Germany: they were withdrawn from all the provinces of the empire, and financial support for all puppets governments (starting with Cuba and North Korea) was erased.

 

NATO enlargement has been strongly demanded by the public opinions of former Warsaw pact countries, out of despise of Soviet Union after 50 years of subjugation, but also to attract Western investments, needed to resurrect their ailing economies, left in ruins by the disastrous Russian imposed communist management.

 

Enlarging NATO has been the greatest humanitarian act implemented in Europe, after the Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) enacted in 1948. It contributed to the economic revival of the entire Eastern Europe.

 

Hungary, one of the worst performing countries in the former eastern bloc, recorded a per capita GDP in constant LCU (source worldbank.org) growth from 2,467,680 in 1989 to 4,549,421 in 2023, an increase of "only" 84% in real terms. Poland recorded a 186% increase in the same period. Romania 178%, Slovakia 130%, Bulgaria 104%, Estonia 120%, Lithuania 118%, Latvia 109%, etc.

 

Russia, during its millenary history, has exported nothing, to its neighboring countries, but hunger, misery and death. The issue with Russia is that the country culture does not value economic and personal freedom or human life.

 

Russia has always had an economy based agricultural and mining activities. An economy that values "land possession" over entrepreneurship, cheap brute labor over skilled workforce. Nothing besides commodities and raw materials ever came out from Russia (exception shall be made for weapons of mass destruction, only real Russian contribution to human progress).

 

Russian autocrats, from the Mongols who ruled the country for more than two centuries, to the tzars, from the Soviet leaders to nowadays Putin, have been constantly obsessed by two things only, which make the Russian economy rolling: Land possession and cheap slave labour.

 

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Actually, in fairly recent history Russia has been the victim of invasions by Poland, Germany, and before that was invaded by many other nations. So it is very understandable that Russia seeks a buffer between itself and other nations.

 

I understand the antipathy towards Russia, before I went to Russia I was the same, and even then, more happened to make  you anti-Russian than pro Russian, however, Russians are decent people, and they do not wish for war with the West as it turned out.

I've been to Russia myself, but that was during the Cold War so interactions with Russians were 'guarded'. I have, however, worked with many Russians (and Ukrainians) during the last 25 years and found them to be mostly good people, just like people from most other nations.

I too don't believe that most Russians want a war so it really is a shame they don't have much of a say in what their president/strongman does.

You say Russia wants a buffer (as they surely do). The only problem is that no country actually wants to be that buffer, hence Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

The only way for Russia (Putin) to achieve his goals is to subjugate the people of neighboring countries and this is where you and I disagree. I want the West to strongly oppose this, you don't.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Of course, Ukraine was a  part of the USSR, hence Russia had Russian naval bases and nuclear weapons in Ukraine. 

 

Even before the USSR Russia defeated the Ottomans in the 18th century to take the Crimean, which has an amazing history btw.

I'm asking you if Ukraine belong/belonged to Russia post USSR disintegration?

1 hour ago, johng said:

I guess you have your nuclear bunker fully stocked up gleefully egging on the Armageddon ?

I don't. I also don't believe in dropping my pants and bending over if the bad guy comes waving his stick. Do you?

11 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

I've been to Russia myself, but that was during the Cold War so interactions with Russians were 'guarded'. I have, however, worked with many Russians (and Ukrainians) during the last 25 years and found them to be mostly good people, just like people from most other nations.

I too don't believe that most Russians want a war so it really is a shame they don't have much of a say in what their president/strongman does.

You say Russia wants a buffer (as they surely do). The only problem is that no country actually wants to be that buffer, hence Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

The only way for Russia (Putin) to achieve his goals is to subjugate the people of neighboring countries and this is where you and I disagree. I want the West to strongly oppose this, you don't.

 

It's a horrible place isn't it? And the people. But once you get to know them, you realise they're more decent than most.

 

It's not that I want the subjugation of the Ukrainians. I love Ukrainians as much as the next person. However, there are certain realities that affect the situation. Firstly, the military might and size of Russia and its economy, and the Ukrainian equivalent. Secondly, the history of American and British involvement, which has been highly detrimental and caused this situation in the first place, or made it a lot worse than it had to be. Thirdly, all over the planet smaller neighbour countries have to take into account the security concerns of their larger neighbours, as Panama found out. Fourthly, a hot war with Russia can mean certain nuclear annihilation for the planet.

 

Now, you can pour billions of missiles and tanks into Ukraine, but ultimately it iis the Ukrainian people who will suffer. And ultimately it is impossible that Russia will be defeated. Even the staunch Ukraine supporter President Pavel of Czechia says so.

 

Now given the realities of the situation, it would be far preferable to end the war and negotiate a peace, even if it means the Crimean goes back to Russia, the Donbas stays Russian and so on.  Ukraine has had shifting borders before, this wouldn't be the first time.

 

The cost is not worth it. Like President Pavel said, if you kill half the Ukrainian population and defeat Russia, that is not a victory.

2 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Is it? 

 

Gosh, I 'member standing in a crowd in East Berlin as Gorbachev arrived, and one brave eastern "jelly donut" yelled out "Gorby, hilf uns!"  Amazingly, he was not arrested by the Stasi inserted throughout the crowd.

 

Also 'member walking out of Clay Headquarters and getting the news that the Soviets had agreed to German reunification and removing their troops, while Nato had agreed to "not one inch to the East."

 

Not long after that I drove up to Rostock to watch the Soviet tanks being prepped for loading onto boats.  They kept their promises.

 

 

And you consider this post to be evidence in support of what exactly?

20 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It's a horrible place isn't it? And the people. But once you get to know them, you realise they're more decent than most.

 

It's not that I want the subjugation of the Ukrainians. I love Ukrainians as much as the next person. However, there are certain realities that affect the situation. Firstly, the military might and size of Russia and its economy, and the Ukrainian equivalent. Secondly, the history of American and British involvement, which has been highly detrimental and caused this situation in the first place, or made it a lot worse than it had to be. Thirdly, all over the planet smaller neighbour countries have to take into account the security concerns of their larger neighbours, as Panama found out. Fourthly, a hot war with Russia can mean certain nuclear annihilation for the planet.

 

Now, you can pour billions of missiles and tanks into Ukraine, but ultimately it iis the Ukrainian people who will suffer. And ultimately it is impossible that Russia will be defeated. Even the staunch Ukraine supporter President Pavel of Czechia says so.

 

Now given the realities of the situation, it would be far preferable to end the war and negotiate a peace, even if it means the Crimean goes back to Russia, the Donbas stays Russian and so on.  Ukraine has had shifting borders before, this wouldn't be the first time.

 

The cost is not worth it. Like President Pavel said, if you kill half the Ukrainian population and defeat Russia, that is not a victory.

The Ukrainians themselves must decide what price they're willing to pay for their country. In the end it's gonna be high no matter what they do. And the infuriating thing is that it's down to one man's actions - Putin - that hundreds of thousands of people have died, mostly his own countrymen.

It is my hope the he one day soon goes flying out of a window or meets a Mussolini-like fate, but karma is rarely the b*** she should be. 

8 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

The Ukrainians themselves must decide what price they're willing to pay for their country. In the end it's gonna be high no matter what they do. And the infuriating thing it that it's down to one man's actions - Putin - that hundreds of thousands of people have died, and mostly his own countrymen.

It is my hope the he one day soon goes flying out of a window or meets a Mussolini-like fate, but karma is rarely the b*** she should be. 

 

They will have to anyway, and it looks very certain that Ukraine will negotiate soon.

 

As for wishing death on the greate statesman Putin, tsk, tsk, tsk....how childish.

39 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

And you consider this post to be evidence in support of what exactly?

 

Just that not everyone limits themself to the party-approved narrative.  There is more information out there than what you get from a small number of favored "infotainment" websites.

 

Some folks actually remember living through these events, so today's approved talking points can become irritating.

 

I miss the parties at the Soviet embassy myself.

 

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

On 4 April 2008 at the NATO Bucharest summit, invitee Putin told George W. Bush and other conference delegates: "We view the appearance of a powerful military bloc on our border as a direct threat to the security of our nation. The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice. National security is not based on promises."

 

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

 

We've been through this Ray, it was only after 2008 that Putin started to target Georgia and Ukraine. AFTER NATO said they would include Ukraine and Georgia as members.

 

The analysis is not flawed, it shows precisely how Russia was forced into the Ukraine war by the West.

 

Even Angela Merkel understood that the 2008 NATO summit risked Russia ire.

 

"Zelenskyy's accusations resulted in Merkel breaking the silence that she had maintained since leaving office in December 2021. She issued a statement saying that she stands by her "decisions relating to the NATO summit in 2008." A short time later, she expanded on that statement, saying that, at the time, Ukraine had been divided on the issue of joining NATO and that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have just quietly stood aside and allowed the country to be accepted into the alliance. "I didn't want to provoke that," she said."

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/ukraine-how-merkel-prevented-ukraine-s-nato-membership-a-der-spiegel-reconstruction-a-c7f03472-2a21-4e4e-b905-8e45f1fad542

 

Again, we agree: We 

5 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

On 4 April 2008 at the NATO Bucharest summit, invitee Putin told George W. Bush and other conference delegates: "We view the appearance of a powerful military bloc on our border as a direct threat to the security of our nation. The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice. National security is not based on promises."

 

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

 

We've been through this Ray, it was only after 2008 that Putin started to target Georgia and Ukraine. AFTER NATO said they would include Ukraine and Georgia as members.

 

The analysis is not flawed, it shows precisely how Russia was forced into the Ukraine war by the West.

 

Even Angela Merkel understood that the 2008 NATO summit risked Russia ire.

 

"Zelenskyy's accusations resulted in Merkel breaking the silence that she had maintained since leaving office in December 2021. She issued a statement saying that she stands by her "decisions relating to the NATO summit in 2008." A short time later, she expanded on that statement, saying that, at the time, Ukraine had been divided on the issue of joining NATO and that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have just quietly stood aside and allowed the country to be accepted into the alliance. "I didn't want to provoke that," she said."

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/ukraine-how-merkel-prevented-ukraine-s-nato-membership-a-der-spiegel-reconstruction-a-c7f03472-2a21-4e4e-b905-8e45f1fad542

 

Yes, we have been through this before and no, it was not until after 2008 that Putin began to target Ukraine. 

 

While the attached link offers a very condensed timeline, it makes clear that Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs started before 2008.

 

Also note Putin's remark to Bush at the NATO summit in 2008, "Ukraine is not even a nation-state".

 

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/ukraines-struggle-independence-russias-shadow

54 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Again, we agree: We 

 

Yes, we have been through this before and no, it was not until after 2008 that Putin began to target Ukraine. 

 

While the attached link offers a very condensed timeline, it makes clear that Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs started before 2008.

 

Also note Putin's remark to Bush at the NATO summit in 2008, "Ukraine is not even a nation-state".

 

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/ukraines-struggle-independence-russias-shadow

 

Nice summary, but there is no evidence of "Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs" before 2008 in that list. 

 

Russia ensuring it has its nuclear weapons and a gas dispute aren't exactly "interference in internal affairs".

 

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Nice summary, but there is no evidence of "Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs" before 2008 in that list. 

 

Russia ensuring it has its nuclear weapons and a gas dispute aren't exactly "interference in internal affairs".

 

 

 

There you go. 

https://www.e-ir.info/2018/06/26/russia-west-ukraine-triangle-of-competition-1991-2013/

41 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

There you go. 

https://www.e-ir.info/2018/06/26/russia-west-ukraine-triangle-of-competition-1991-2013/

 

The article starts poorly drawing the usual false equivalence between Putin's historical views, which are shared by every Russian, and actual Russian foreign policy, which is a bit ludicrous. Of course the dissolution of the USSR has its issues and no state will just welcome a vote of independence. However, there is preciously little "interference" there, when you deduct the legitimate sorting out of nuclear and naval assets.

 

However, this article too admits the actions of the West played a crucial role::

 

"From the Friendship Treaty in 1997 until the Orange Revolution in 2004, several important developments paved the way for the disruption that was to follow. First, NATO added three new members (Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland) in 1999, over Russia’s objections. Second, at almost the exact same time, NATO engaged in a bombing campaign to force the government of Serbia to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. This intervention, which was repeatedly cited later by Putin, caused anger within the Russian leadership and nearly spurred a military confrontation between NATO and Russian forces in Kosovo. Third, Putin replaced Yeltsin as president, and initially had very constructive relations with the West, even as he methodically reduced pluralism in Russia by gaining control over the press, the oligarchs and the regions."

9 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Don't forget one of the goals of the regime change was to have the Soviets evicted from Sevastopol, and have the naval base repurposed for NATO control of the Black Sea.

 

As Turkey has demonstrated with its use of the Montreux Convention, it closed ingress and egress to the Black Sea to the Russian fleet. There is no need for NATO to control Sevastopol for it to control the Black Sea.

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

The article starts poorly drawing the usual false equivalence between Putin's historical views, which are shared by every Russian, and actual Russian foreign policy, which is a bit ludicrous. Of course the dissolution of the USSR has its issues and no state will just welcome a vote of independence. However, there is preciously little "interference" there, when you deduct the legitimate sorting out of nuclear and naval assets.

 

However, this article too admits the actions of the West played a crucial role::

 

"From the Friendship Treaty in 1997 until the Orange Revolution in 2004, several important developments paved the way for the disruption that was to follow. First, NATO added three new members (Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland) in 1999, over Russia’s objections. Second, at almost the exact same time, NATO engaged in a bombing campaign to force the government of Serbia to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. This intervention, which was repeatedly cited later by Putin, caused anger within the Russian leadership and nearly spurred a military confrontation between NATO and Russian forces in Kosovo. Third, Putin replaced Yeltsin as president, and initially had very constructive relations with the West, even as he methodically reduced pluralism in Russia by gaining control over the press, the oligarchs and the regions."

 

What is ludicrous is the casual manner in which you imply that Russia's historical attitude to Ukraine has no bearing on Russian foreign policy when, in fact, the exact opposite is the case.

 

The article is extremely balanced. It acknowledges "The West's" involvement in Ukraine, however what it doesn't do - as you imply in the section which you quote - is that the current conflict is the fault of "The West". 

 

The following paragraph is more relevant of the overall tone of the article:

 

"There can be little doubt that NATO expansion irritated Russia and that Putin’s approach to democracy, to Ukraine and to the West did not help, but they cannot have been the root causes of the tension that was present from the moment of Ukraine’s independence. This was rooted more fundamentally in Russia’s conception of its national identity, its borders, and its role in the region."

 

Based on the evidence presented throughout the article, the authors logically conclude that:

 

" .... Russia’s desire to limit Ukraine’s independence and to retake control of at least some part of Crimea did not emerge during the Putin era. Rather they were there from the very beginning. Second, the example set by the Orange Revolution was seen as threatening to Russia because such a revolution might be replicated in Russia. Democracy in Ukraine would undermine the claim that democracy could not work in Russia and would undermine Russia’s geopolitical position.

 

The first point is significant because it undermines two arguments about the source of the 2014 conflict that are made both by critics of the West and by critics of Putin. Critics of the West assert that Russia’s annexation of Crimea was the West’s fault. The central support for this is that NATO enlargement (beginning in 1997) and NATO support for Ukrainian membership (enunciated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit) left Russia little choice but to respond. There is room for considerable debate concerning the wisdom of US, European and NATO policy after 1991, but it cannot be the source of Russia’s designs on Ukraine, which very clearly predated any of the policies that critics point to." 

52 minutes ago, RayC said:

The article is extremely balanced. It acknowledges "The West's" involvement in Ukraine, however what it doesn't do - as you imply in the section which you quote - is that the current conflict is the fault of "The West". 

 

The following paragraph is more relevant of the overall tone of the article:

 

"There can be little doubt that NATO expansion irritated Russia and that Putin’s approach to democracy, to Ukraine and to the West did not help, but they cannot have been the root causes of the tension that was present from the moment of Ukraine’s independence. This was rooted more fundamentally in Russia’s conception of its national identity, its borders, and its role in the region."

No, the fact that the article starts by quoting almost verbatim NATO website propaganda actually made me suspicious about the source. 

 

But it's clear why the article is playing up the history angle, they want to make the argument that there is a grand Russian conspiracy to revive ancient Greater Russia and therefore it was not the West's fault. In this the  article fails miserably. 

 

Contrary to your claim it does not explore the Western lies and deception regarding NATO expansion. Nor does it explain Russia's legitimate concerns about Seavastopol and the fleet. Because of course it's not a balanced article. It seeks to impute a historical basis for Russian foreign policy which the evidence does not support. Clearly Putin was guided by very modern developments in real life. 

 

The article actually repeatedly claims explicitly, but falsely, that Russia wanted all of Ukraine. Which, again the evidence does not support. 

13 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Details, details.

 

You have to look at the bigger picture. He was right that Iraq was not a theocracy, it was a secular state and in that sense progressive for the region.

 

The wall did come down in 1989, but it does not affect the point he was making, the negotiations went on long after regarding German unification. That was just setting the scene.

 

Yes, Blair is involved later, but the whole analysis is brillliant and spot on.

The Americans loved Saddam when he was attacking Iran. They didn't mind that he was a ruthless dictator back then.

Again, an US American, who is to lazy, to stupid and to ignorant to read the real details. Does he know, Europe is to the East of the USA ?