[Politics_Observer]

@Heisenberg

OK, so you got me . So you know then that the reason why NATO expansion pissed Russia off was because Russia had designs and plans on those countries before they joined NATO. I know you can't be naive to believe otherwise. So, when they joined NATO it foiled the plans and designs that Russia had on those countries which pissed Russia off. Russia was pissed because they felt their sense of entitlement to control and subjugate those countries was violated. They could no longer do what they planned to do to those countries because then they were part of NATO and NATO is an effective deterrent in preventing the Russians from subjugating them. Anytime somebody's sense of entitlement is violated they get angry. Russia was angry because they felt entitled to control and subjugate those countries and when they joined NATO they could no longer do it.

[B0ycey]

I think it's safe to say that @Heisenberg is not an objective or impartial observer here given he doesn't follow the facts and the logical conclusions from the facts.

Actually Heisenberg is being more objective than you given he is referencing similarities in the Western and Russian geopolitics narrative and not just spouting the Western narrative all the time. Although perhaps the better comparison would have been Cuba and not Versallies in any case.

Your argument would suggest that Cuba would be fully in its rights to pack their Island with nuclear missiles as that is what you believe Ukraine should do and do I also need to reference the 'Bay of Pigs' in your direction as well given you have a problem with Russia training at their border.

The fact is that Russia could never allow the West to control Crimea and that is what the West was trying to do by pushing EU membership and trade deals in Ukraines direction. Heisenberg even published a source that gave you some insight in what was occurring before the revolution took place and how the West was playing their hand - which ultimately they over stepped. So if by having friendly relations you mean bend over and let the West control Russian Western border than I think you are missing the Russian narrative to why they behave the way they do. I would say Russia are more than happy to be friends with the West and even supported the US when they were attacked in 2001. They even offered a Russian base to the US when Iran was suppose to be a threat to Europe rather than have defensive missiles stationed in Poland which could have been aimed towards Russia. The West has basically been poking at the Russian bear since the fall of the Berlin Wall and we shouldn't be surprised that they are acting against our interests now. Why should they trust us when we haven't been trustworthy and pushing their red lines all the time and then complain about their actions when we have been doing the same thing for the past 60 years at least?

[Heisenberg]

OK, so you got me . So you know then that the reason why NATO expansion pissed Russia off was because Russia had designs and plans on those countries before they joined NATO. So, when they joined NATO it foiled the plans and designs that Russia had on those countries which pissed Russia off. Russia was pissed because they felt their sense of entitlement to control and subjugate those countries was violated. Anytime somebody's sense of entitlement is violated they get angry.

The reason NATO expansion pissed Russia off is because Russia, quite understandably, does not want American soldiers within a few miles of its own borders.

NATO's entire purpose during the Cold War was a defensive alliance founded in response to the Warsaw Pact. Once the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist, its own purpose as a defensive alliance ceased to exist. So it's hardly surprising that Russia interprets NATO's continued expansion towards its own borders as aggressive. Especially when NATO has engaged in transparently aggressive military operations since 1991 - first in Yugoslavia, then in Afghanistan, and most recently in Libya (to say nothing of the war on Iraq and the proxy war in Syria, which, while not explicitly NATO actions, featured the same cast of characters).

To claim that Russia has no reason other than "entitlement" to be wary of NATO expansion is utterly asinine. You come from a country that has been in a state of national hysteria since 2016 because some Russians posted some memes on Facebook. Imagine America's reaction if, instead, they had stationed soldiers in Mexico and British Columbia.

[Politics_Observer]

@B0ycey @Heisenberg

I hate to break it to you, but there is no dark conspiracy here in the U.S. to invade Russia via NATO. The US and NATO just don't have the manpower to invade Russia. I mean you and Heisenburg kinda remind me of Alex Joines here in the U.S. with his crazy conspiracy theories. Nobody is interested in invading Russia or fighting Russia. But I do see where Russia is interested in invading others and fighting others though, but they carefully select non NATO countries to do it.

NATO is not the ones invading other countries and all the authortative sources in the world back my assertions but not yours or Neisenburg. And these are European sources too that are regarded as authortative in Europe too that I have posted in either this thread or another related thread. You and @Heisenberg don't have a leg to stand on because the facts and the logical conclusions from the facts just don't back your assertions. But please do keep living in denial.

[Rugoz]

Why would NATO expansion piss Russia off when it clearly did not present a threat to Russia? There was no troops or offensive weapons that appeared in NATO countries at the time of NATO's expansion close by Russia's borders. So what would it be about NATO that would piss Russia off?

Russia has always been an empire and it just lost a large part of its territory. It also fought a bloody war in Chechnya against separatists. NATO expansion doesn't exactly help to maintain internal cohesion in that context.

Besides that, it was easy for Putin to exploit domestically.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey @Heisenberg

I hate to break it to you, but there is no dark conspiracy here in the U.S. to invade Russia via NATO. The US and NATO just don't have the manpower to invade Russia. I mean you and Heisenburg kinda remind me of Alex Joines here in the U.S. with his crazy conspiracy theories. Nobody is interested in invading Russia or fighting Russia. But I do see where Russia is interested in invading others and fighting others though, but they carefully select non NATO countries to do it.

Russia never planned on firing nukes at America but they still wanted them on Cuba - same argument different country so you're biased. Read between the fucking lines rather than spout your BS. The whole reason for having NATO at the border is not to attack but to be able to attack if Russia became a threat. That isn't in Russias interest but ours. So why would they allow that given their history?

NATO is not the ones invading other countries and all the authortative sources in the world back my assertions but not yours or Neisenburg.

NATO has been impotent since Bosnia. It is merely a relic and and insurance policy now. The US though has been invading countries illegally left right and centre. Sorry, did Assad invite you in Syria or are you there illegally... asking for a friend.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rugoz

Whose territory was lost? Did Russia have to give up a piece of Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed? Now, when you say, that Russia lost an empire, I agree, they did lose an empire. But losing an empire is not the same thing as losing territory that legitimately belongs to you. And you hit the nail on the head, Russia had designs on those countries when they joined NATO which pissed Russia off. Those designs entailed rebuilding a Russian empire that was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. That wasn't Russian territory that was lost. That was Russian empire that was lost. Those are two different things. Russian empire and Russian territory are not the same thing and are exclusive from one another.

[Politics_Observer]

@B0ycey

If NATO is so impotent, then why has Russia not attacked a NATO country yet? You claim that NATO is a threat. But if NATO is a threat AND is impotent, they why doesn't Russia just attack a nearby NATO country and eliminate this supposed threat?

[Rugoz]

That wasn't Russian territory that was lost. That was Russian empire that was lost. Those are two different things. Russian empire and Russian territory are not the same thing and are exclusive from one another.

Actually it is the same thing.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rugoz

So let me get this straight, you are saying that Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine and all those former Soviet republics were and still are, Russian "territory?"

[Politics_Observer]

I wonder what @JohnRawls thinks of this. Get this John! @Rugoz thinks Estonia has always been Russian territory. How do you feel about this John? He thinks Russia owns Estonia and is entitled to Estonia .

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey

If NATO is so impotent, then why has Russia not attacked a NATO country yet? You claim that NATO is a threat. But if NATO is a threat AND is impotent, they why doesn't Russia just attack a nearby NATO country and eliminate this supposed threat?

Because they would have to go to war that is why they don't attack NATO nations clearly which should be all the evidence you need to know that Russian strategy is defensive rather than aggressive. But that doesn't mean they should just roll over and allow NATO at their border in any case. As long as there is a buffer of some form they are happy with how things are I would suggest. So why is the West pushing towards their Western border? Ask yourself that before claiming the West is just being innocent here.

And when I say impotent I mean in the sense it doesn't cause any conflict but is defensive alliance that means it has no purpose as long as we stop poking Russia into attacking us.

[B0ycey]

@Rugoz

So let me get this straight, you are saying that Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine and all those former Soviet republics were and still are, Russian "territory?"

No he is saying it was part of the SU and so was Russia. Although the Kremlin was the authoritarian ruler. So when the SU broke up the Kremlin didn't rule those nations due to self determination and as such the SU broke up, which again is another contradiction on your part as you claim that shouldn't be relevant in regards to Ukraine.

[noemon]

Naturally, this went completely unacknowledged in the west

The idea that the US is supporting human rights in the Ukraine has not gone unacknowledged in the west, in fact your pro-Russian stuff have been the rule and not the exception in here for several years.

KOMMERSANT: You mean the termination of the agreement of February 21, or the entire Maidan?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The whole thing. After all, the United States openly supported human rights groups in Ukraine, including financially. Meanwhile, Russia's special services completely missed these trends. They didn't understand what was taking place, but when they did realize what was going on they were unable to take action to stabilize the situation, and then they misjudged the mood in East Ukraine.

and I expect it will continue to fall on deaf ears (or perhaps trigger furious denials) within this thread.

The idea that the Ukrainians signed the trade agreement with the EU just to provoke Putin on America's behalf is beyond ridiculous and not true.

You have tried all methods in the book to argue and sustain this nonsense in here but dehumanizing the Ukrainian people as mere puppets just for wanting to trade with the EU is total propaganda and factually not what a Stratfor journalist said.

It would not become true even if some journo did say nonsense like that.

The EU-Ukraine trade agreement predates several events and was announced back in 2008.

The fact is that the Ukrainian people have been on route to an EU-Ukraine association agreement for several years and this is a positive thing in all imaginable ways for everyone concerned.

During that time, NATO membership was not discussed and in 2014, Yanukovych, a pro-Russian government was running the country on this route of the EU agreement, but then he reneged on it at the very last minute just a couple of days before the signing ceremony. Clearly he did that, under Russian instructions, and he set off the Euromaidan as the EU agreement had been in the works for years and it was something the Ukrainian people wanted so that they can start working and trading with the rest of Europe on more accessible terms.

Then, to make matters even worse, Russia outright invaded the Ukraine and is occupying parts of it while threatening for more. The Ukrainian people instead of getting the ability to travel, work and trade with the rest of the Europe, they got trenches, death and a never-ending war.

Let's be reminded that with Yanukovych, Russia had a pro-Russian government that was about to join with the EU, Yanukovych would be even more secure after such a triumph and Russia would still have a pro-Russian government in the Ukraine, the Ukrainians would be trading with the EU and everyone would be happy, but this was not an option for Putin as Ukranians and Russians in the Ukraine would slowly become more self-aware.

Trying to insert the US as a scapegoat somewhere in all this is the easy and trendy(just add 'Ukraine' to Syria and Libya and voila you have "washed all sins") thing to do, for being a promoter of human rights and open societies which is a truism, it is also true that Americans will jump on any opportunity to bring themselves to the center of attention because that is what they do as a people and we see it with our own posters in here and because on some level it is a bit true as well but not in any way that white-washes Russian crimes as you would prefer.

The facts on the ground do not change by simply using the American scapegoat for convenience; because it is not real.

The mess in the Ukraine was not created by the US, it was not the US who forced Yanukovych to spit on an agreement 2 days before its official signature and while it being in the making for several years with him while he was in government.

It was not the US who made Russia invade the Ukraine because the Russian puppet had been called out by the Ukrainian people, nor was it the US that operated the Ukrainian protesters like remote-controlled pawns, who were merely hoping for the EU agreement.

You are reducing everything to nothing just so you can obscure Russian imperialism and aggression.

Because they would have to go to war that is why they don't attack NATO nations clearly which should be all the evidence you need to know that Russian strategy is defensive rather than aggressive.

This is objectively false. Aggression is not measured only against NATO, Russia nvading other countries is still being aggressive and NATO did not invade Warsaw pact countries either, that does not mean that the US was never aggressive.

But that doesn't mean they should just roll over and allow NATO at their border in any case. As long as there is a buffer of some form they are happy with how things are I would suggest. So why is the West pushing towards their Western border? Ask yourself that before claiming the West is just being innocent here.

You need to snap out of this broken record nonsense.

Ukraine-EU association agreement is a good thing for people, not an insidious western plan to make war on Russia's borders.

This coming out of a British supposedly pro-EU person who allegedly voted Remain is quite astonishing frankly.

[Rugoz]

So let me get this straight, you are saying that Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine and all those former Soviet republics were and still are, Russian "territory?"

I certainly don't think so, however it's not surprising that some Russian nationalists see it that way. This has been posted before:

[Politics_Observer]

@B0ycey

Ok so you ADMIT that NATO is NOT impotent, given that it's purpose is to deter, NOT to attack. NATO has served it's purpose in actually preventing war with Russia who would have otherwise have been undeterred in the absence of NATO and would have likely just invaded some of the former Soviet republics that are now part of NATO and put them BACK UNDER Russian subjugation once they had recovered from the dark economic times of the 1990s. And given this is the case, I think it is actually the opposite. NATO IS a defensive alliance and countries wanting to join NATO is actually a defensive response in reaction to the designs that Russia has on them to re-incorporate them back under Russian subjugation and control and to reconstitute a Russian empire.

[Juin]

@Rugoz

Why would NATO expansion piss Russia off when it clearly did not present a threat to Russia? There was no troops or offensive weapons that appeared in NATO countries at the time of NATO's expansion close by Russia's borders. So what would it be about NATO that would piss Russia off?

Any military power, or military alliance one is not part of, or to which one does not chose to belong, or which one has no control over, expanding close to one's periphery is always a threat. It is not enough that the approaching military alliance professes good intentions. Its intentions that today may be none hostile, may easily turn hostile tomorrow with a simple change of regime. So you say Russia should allow Nato to creep as close as it can to the Kremlin, because in your estimation Nato is non threatening. Can you guarantee that tomorrow Nato will not be threatening?

And there is something of a disconnect when one talks of a non threatening military alliance. Implicit in the setting up of any military alliance is a threat. A threat to whoever may chose to differ with the members of the military alliance.

Finally, how is Putin pursuing a policy any different from James Monroe?

[Politics_Observer]

Finally, how is Putin pursuing a policy any different from James Monroe?

That would be a fair argument except that we are not practicing the Monroe doctrine today. Monroe doctrine was a long time ago but we are talking about today.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey

Ok so you ADMIT that NATO is NOT impotent, given that it's purpose is to deter, NOT to attack. NATO has served it's purpose in actually preventing war with Russia who would have otherwise have been undeterred in the absence of NATO and would have likely just invaded some of the former Soviet republics that are now part of NATO and put them BACK UNDER Russian subjugation once they had recovered from the dark economic times of the 1990s. And given this is the case, I think it is actually the opposite. NATO IS a defensive alliance and countries wanting to join NATO is actually a defensive response in reaction to the designs that Russia has on them to re-incorporate them back under Russian subjugation and control and to reconstitute a Russian empire.

When I said impotent, it was in regards to your reply asking who NATO has attacked. Sometimes context is important. And you seem to be oblivious of your nations illegal activities and wars anyway which means you are a hypocrite. Besides, if you want to discuss NATO as a defensive alliance which I support given I am willing to sacrifice Trident for this membership, where do you sit on Ukraine membership? I only ask because that would certainly cause WW3 and force your troops into Europe to fight for Donbass which you seem invested in Ukraine to cause suicide over. So are you going to give Zelensky what he keeps asking you for or what?

[wat0n]

That would be a fair argument except that we are not practicing the Monroe doctrine today. Monroe doctrine was a long time ago but we are talking about today.

The Monroe doctrine still informs American policy as far as I'm aware. It's just not as necessary or prominent as it was at the time, when it actually wasn't all about advancing economic interests but also about US national security, and when it also helped Latin American countries keep 19th century European scheming in check. But that doesn't mean the core US interests that motivated it are gone, at all.