BREAKING: Moscow announces END to massive troop buildup near Ukraine - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15169671
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

Let's not get started with the "whataboutism" here now Juin. What about the US? What about this? What about that? "Whataboutism." You know, Russia's present course is going to leave them all alone with no real friends in the world. Russia needs to change course, otherwise, it's just not going to have any real friends because nobody trusts them and are too busy trying to protect or defend themselves from any Russian designs or aggressive moves. Russia will be judged by it's actions, not it's words and given this is the case, Russia should take actions that show it is a friend and not a foe. Otherwise, Russia is just going to be all alone and isolated in the world.




You are just not seeing things from the Russian side. What is the upside for Russia allowing a Nato presence in Ukraine in exchange for a possible Ukrainian friendship? Was there ever any friendship on the part of ethnic Ukrainians towards Russians? Ukrainians remember the famines inflicted on them during Stalin's collectivisations; and Russians also recall that Ukrainians cozied up to the Nazis and volunteered for the Waffen SS Galicia. Do you consider the possibility that to Russians it is a lose lose situation? Russia allows Nato to roll up from the borders of Ukraine with Poland to the Donbass, on the approaches to Voronezh and Rostov; supposedly in exchange for a friendly Ukraine that never materialises?

How does it make sense, if I may ask, for a Russian to believe it is a good deal to have Nato only a couple of hundred miles from Voronezh, as opposed to much further away on the other side of the border of Ukraine with Poland? And if Ukraine joined Nato how does that not amount to a free gift from Russia to Nato of the naval base at Sevastopol?

And what in the history of Russia since 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, should reassure Russians that Nato's chokehold will not tighten? You recall that at the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union the gentlemanly understanding between the leaderships at the time was that Nato will not take advantage of the Russian situations.

As to friendship. In politics there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Not everyone is satisfied in Europe/Asia. Greece has its problems with Turkey. If it worsens- and I hope it doesnt- the US may have to chose between one or the other. The one rejected will naturally look towards Moscow.

And it also boils down to how Moscow plays its hand. As long as Moscow can demonstrate that its actions are a line in the sand to Nato approach, and not so much what Ukraine is up to, you can be certain that old Europe of Germany, France, Italy, Greece will not join new Europe of Baltics, Ukraine, ,Georgia to take on Moscow.
#15169673
I am seeing things from Putin's side, and from Putin's side, this is all about power for him. Foreign interventions abroad help him stay in power because it distracts from his leadership failures at home. But it's ultimately just isolating Russia more and more because nobody trusts Russia because they keep threatening everybody and attacking it's neighbors without legitimate cause. They haven't even attempted to extend a hand in friendship.
#15169682
Politics_Observer wrote:I am seeing things from Putin's side, and from Putin's side, this is all about power for him. Foreign interventions abroad help him stay in power because it distracts from his leadership failures at home. But it's ultimately just isolating Russia more and more because nobody trusts Russia because they keep threatening everybody and attacking it's neighbors without legitimate cause. They haven't even attempted to extend a hand in friendship.




There are Russian interests which are independent of whoever is in power in the Kremlin. Foreign policy goals have been remarkably same whether it was Czar, Soviet or Putin. And if you examine US and UK history you will see same permanent interests and concerns that are independent of whoever is in power.

Gorbachev and Yeltsin felt the same way about Nato creep towards Russia; they were simply not in the position, or lacked the will to do anything about it.

If it is solely a Putin obsession how come Gorbachev backed Putin's seizure of Crimea?

Gorbachev backs Putin’s invasion of Crimea

https://nypost.com/2016/05/22/gorbachev ... of-crimea/
#15169691
@Juin

You're wrong and you are giving Russia free pass for invading another sovereign nation's territory. Your assertions don't hold up when examining the facts and the logical conclusions from the facts. The best thing NATO can do right now is continue a policy of deterrence and deterring Russia from attacking a NATO member state. In the meantime, Biden should meet with Putin but I doubt anything productive will come out of any summit with Putin because previous attempts by the U.S. to engage Putin never amounted to anything. This is because Putin legitimately never acted in good faith when engaging with the West. Putin isn't trustworthy.

So, all we can do is keep up a policy of deterrence and being prepared to fight a defensive war should Russia attack a NATO member state. That's all we can do. It will be up to Putin to decide if he wants to act in good faith when dealing with West. But as this continues, Russia becomes more isolated due to Putin's actions and this doesn't serve Russia's interests at all. Maybe it's good for Putin, but it isn't good for Russia. Ultimately, Putin is about power and keeping it and if that means going off on foreign adventures to distract from his failures at home then that is what he will do to stay in power. But he will have to be deterred from attacking a NATO member state in the meantime.
#15169862
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

You're wrong and you are giving Russia free pass for invading another sovereign nation's territory. Your assertions don't hold up when examining the facts and the logical conclusions from the facts. The best thing NATO can do right now is continue a policy of deterrence and deterring Russia from attacking a NATO member state. In the meantime, Biden should meet with Putin but I doubt anything productive will come out of any summit with Putin because previous attempts by the U.S. to engage Putin never amounted to anything. This is because Putin legitimately never acted in good faith when engaging with the West. Putin isn't trustworthy.

So, all we can do is keep up a policy of deterrence and being prepared to fight a defensive war should Russia attack a NATO member state. That's all we can do. It will be up to Putin to decide if he wants to act in good faith when dealing with West. But as this continues, Russia becomes more isolated due to Putin's actions and this doesn't serve Russia's interests at all. Maybe it's good for Putin, but it isn't good for Russia. Ultimately, Putin is about power and keeping it and if that means going off on foreign adventures to distract from his failures at home then that is what he will do to stay in power. But he will have to be deterred from attacking a NATO member state in the meantime.




Free pass? It is not mine to give. And in other posts I have given examples of the US, UK availing themselves of that previledge only major powers can afford to robustly advance their own interests.

"When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers", goes an African proverb. The meaning is obvious.

There have been two elephants in Europe since the end of WWII in 1945; the United States and Russia. They faced off for decades till 1991 when the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union collapsed. One elephant was left standing, the American elephant. The Russian elephant was off the field, comatose or crippled; but not dead.

It seems to me like you will not, or prefer not to see that the US is one of the elephants in the proverb. Her presence in Europe is a challenge to the Russian elephant. Maybe the US is the good elephant, and the Russian the bad elephant, what difference does it make? And even if it was the reverse, with Russia the good elephant and the US the bad elephant, it makes no difference. Each elephant will challenge an encroaching elephant as a matter of course.

Russia is simply challenger an encroacher.

Why do you insist on making an attitude or disposition which is essentially Russian into a uniquely Putin disposition? I did point out to you that Gorbachev- meek and mild as he may have been- as a matter of fact did support Putin's seizure of Kremlin.

This is the way I see it:

The American leadership in 1991 had no intentions of pushing east into formerly Warsaw Pact areas. There was no grand master plan at the time to do that. Everyone was satisfied that that rival hostile alliance had collapsed. And Bush and Gorbachev reached a gentlemanly understanding that Nato will not take advantage of the collapse to push east.

Clinton was not part of that agreement. And did not honour the agreement. And I do not blame him. It was not his fault that Russia in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union was beset by all kinds of problems and was in no position to put up any opposition. So Nato was able to push east at no cost. Should Nato not have done that? I dont think so. The opportunity was there, and it would have been professional malpractive if the west had not taken advantage.

That is where the problem comes in. You, and many others, came to see the expansion of Nato as a product of sovereign nations exercising their rights to alliances of their choice. Furthermore that the right to join a military alliance should be cost free and a sovereign right. What you do not see, and what is the problem is that Nato expanded because the opportunity was there, period. There was a window of opportunity. But that opportunity was good only as long as Russia was crippled and comatose. The moment Russia bestirred itself from that crippled state and took a dislike to that constant advance of an age old, hostile military rival towards its borders then it was tough for any nation that had not managed to climb unto the Nato bandwagon.

Ukraine and Georgia did not quite make it to the station. And as far as both are concerned one can say the Nato train has left the station. They missed the train. Period.

There is a good reason why Nato is never gonna accept Ukraine and Georgia's applications. It would amount to a stand off or a clash with Russia. And Putin knows that as well. And it is not that Nato is necessarily afraid of a clash. It is that the older founding members of Nato like France, Germany, Italy etc understand, and always understood that it was intended to be a defensive, and not offensive military alliance. New Nato like Poland, the Baltic midgets, etc see things a little differently, they will like Nato to be an offensive military alliance, whose eastwards push should only stop only after the hated Russian Federation is crippled for good.

There is something I am not clear from you. Do you consider Ukraine a de facto, if not de jure member? Your arguments leave the impression you see an attack on Ukraine by Russia as tantamount to an attack on Nato
#15170074
Juin wrote:Do you consider Ukraine a de facto, if not de jure member? Your arguments leave the impression you see an attack on Ukraine by Russia as tantamount to an attack on Nato


Since Russia invaded the Ukraine just to prevent it from trading with the EU, westerner's see the Ukraine a lot like they see Israel. A non-Nato country that must be defended from aggression regardless if it is in NATO or not.

For Europeans, the Russian invasion in the Ukraine is a slap(or rather a punch) in the face and for no good reason.

The bottom line is that Europe cannot simply be taking these punches without protest.
#15170104
noemon wrote:Since Russia invaded the Ukraine just to prevent it from trading with the EU, westerner's see the Ukraine a lot like they see Israel. A non-Nato country that must be defended from aggression regardless if it is in NATO or not.

For Europeans, the Russian invasion in the Ukraine is a slap(or rather a punch) in the face and for no good reason.

The bottom line is that Europe cannot simply be taking these punches without protest.





That answers all Putin's questions. It is not necessary that Ukraine actually be signed up as Nato member, since Nato treats it as a de facto Protectorate. To be more accurate, and to be fair to Nato, it is some of its members: primarily new members Poland, Estonia, Latvia and mid size Lithuania pushing for Maximum Nato; a Nato visible from the spires of the Kremlin.

If that be the case I am not sure why Putin should not avail himself of same rationale. Whoever trades with Nato can and should be viewed by the Kremlin as a collaborator and promoter of the interests of a rival and hostile alliance.


*BTW my first thread in the forum was on Israel. It may have left the impression that I have personal ties to Israel. I dont. I am not Jewish either. Never set foot in the Levantine as well.
#15170105
Juin wrote:If that be the case I am not sure why Putin should not avail himself of same rationale. Whoever trades with Nato can and should be viewed by the Kremlin as a collaborator and promoter of the interests of a rival and hostile alliance.


The Ukraine was not going to join NATO until it was invaded by Russia.

Putin has answered all of the questions anyone bothers to ask.

Imprisoning all Russian opposition brutally.
Invading and occupying all neighbors that are not in NATO.
Puppeteering the Ukraine for years through the Yanukovych government.
Setting up the conditions for the Ukrainian invasion through the Yanukovych government and Russian separatists.
#15170150
noemon wrote:
The Ukraine was not going to join NATO until it was invaded by Russia.







The strategic question that interests the Kremlin is different. The Ukraine is nothing but a pawn in the game between the US and Russian behemoths. The question, as far as the Kremlin is concerned, is whether Nato is gonna stay at the Ukraine/Poland border, or if Nato is gonna move hundreds of miles from Ukraine/Poland border to the Ukraine/Russia border?

At the moment the Russian City of Voronezh is hundreds of miles away from the closest Nato formations, at the Poland/Ukraine border. If Putin allows Nato to pick up another pawn in Ukraine that will place Nato formations only something like a hundred miles or so from Voronezh. Why should the Kremlin allow that?

And can the Kremlin place any confidence in the suggestion that Nato will not move into Ukraine if it is cost free? Or that it is to fend off a Russia attack on Ukraine? Of course, not. Nato picked up the Baltics, Poland, Czech, Slovak pawns without the excuse of a Russian attack. As long as it is cost free Nato can be expected to continue picking up pawns.

That leaves Putin one Doctrine, the Monroe Doctrine.
#15170229
Juin wrote:The strategic question that interests the Kremlin is different.


The strategic question that bothers Europe is different.

Will Russia invade every single country that considers trading with the EU?

Since that seems to be the case, then how does Europe protect both itself as well as its prospective members.

Obviously, Europe cannot permit Russia to invade every single country that wants to trade with the EU.

And Europeans cannot permit any dictator from setting up shop inside Europe.

That leaves Europe with only one doctrine, the Monroe doctrine.
#15170345
noemon wrote:
The strategic question that bothers Europe is different.

Will Russia invade every single country that considers trading with the EU?

Since that seems to be the case, then how does Europe protect both itself as well as its prospective members.

Obviously, Europe cannot permit Russia to invade every single country that wants to trade with the EU.

And Europeans cannot permit any dictator from setting up shop inside Europe.

That leaves Europe with only one doctrine, the Monroe doctrine.




You make a good case for the interests of the European Union. And I Must repeat, as I have in the past, I do not object to EU/Nato pursuing its interests. I have even pointed out that it would have been professional malpractice if the west had not picked Russia's pocket while Russia was comatose.

That said I will disagree that it is the Monroe Doctrine that is guiding European policy. It is much closer but to Manifest Destiny. A Europhile cannot but crow: it is the manifest destiny of Europe, democratic, socialist, to expand and bestow beneficience to all between Dunkirk and Vladivostok
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The Settlement program is an example of slow ethn[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]