Joe Biden greenlights Russian 'incursion' into the Ukraine - Page 7 - 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

#15209229
Politics_Observer wrote:@JohnRawls

I agree with you John. Russia wants it's empire back. Once it got stronger after the Soviet collapse, it wanted to reoccupy all it's former Soviet republics. But, some of the former Soviet republics were smart enough to get into NATO before it was too late. And it seems these Soviet republics are doing much better economically. You would think that the Russians would want to build a strong economy like the former Soviet republics. What's with the Russians on this? Aren't they smart enough to want the same thing and build a strong economy? Or they just interested in military conquest even if means having a shitty economy?


Current problem is the regime, it wants to rule forever and its crony capitalist corrupt system is not working like any other system of the sort. You can't have prosperity when there is basically no rule of law and so on. The main reason why Liberal Democracies are so rich in a very general sense is because we value people and invest in to them while other systems don't care that much about the people and just want to extract resources, produce something and so on. You don't get rich by using your people as disposable garbage. You do get rich by investing in your people so they will find ways to make money themselves.
#15209233
Politics_Observer wrote:What's with the Russians on this? Aren't they smart enough to want the same thing and build a strong economy? Or they just interested in military conquest even if means having a shitty economy?


When there are enough thugs to make a negative difference there is no use asking this question. You effectively are going to do what you should do regarding thugs -- beat the crap out of them.
#15209243
Beren wrote:The point is that he was absolutely open to the idea of the West and Russia joining forces somehow, which would be rather useful today if it had materialised.


NATO is an alliance between liberal democratic countries who have Western values with the only exception being Turkey which was accepted at the time for Cold War reasons. Turkey in general moved in a more positive liberal democratic dimension before Erdogan but now we are suffering the consequences for accepting stupid Turkey.

Long story short, if Russia chooses to be a liberal democratic state or something close to that then there is no problem with Russia joining NATO and the EU. Otherwise it is not something that Putin can wish for while being an aggressive crony capitalist corrupt anti-Liberal regime. Same goes for the Soviet Union.

The main purpose of NATO is defence against such regimes which NATO has fulfilled 100% since no NATO nation has ever had a war on its territory since NATO was created. The only bad side to this right now is that we are offering the same protection to fucking Turkey while it is not a Liberal Democracy and doesn't even deserve this protection.
#15209245
Beren wrote:The point is that he was absolutely open to the idea of the West and Russia joining forces somehow, which would be rather useful today if it had materialised.


That's your interpretation. My interpretation is that he wanted to secure Russia's influence in Europe, at a time when Russia was in a pitiable condition. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that Putin is an ex-KGB man who's primary goal was/is to secure his clique's power in Russia (no doubt he might also believe this to be good for the country).
#15209247
Rugoz wrote:That's your interpretation. My interpretation is that he wanted to secure Russia's influence in Europe, at a time when Russia was in a pitiable condition. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that Putin is an ex-KGB man who's primary goal was/is to secure his clique's power in Russia (no doubt he might also believe this to be good for the country).

The point is if it'd be rather useful to the West today or not.

So what should the primary concerns of the West be? Should it be dealing with Russia and China together (the US seems more belligerent to Russia than China actually), or should China be the primary concern instead while Russia should rather be made neutral at least? In my opinion the US government has wrong priorities for now and seems to prefer taking revenge on Putin to real strategic concerns. We shouldn't support that just because we have visceral antipathies towards Putin and his regime, which won't collapse under such pressure anyway, it will rather tighten up actually.
#15209248
Beren wrote:The point is if it'd be rather useful to the West today or not.

So what should the primary concerns of the West be? Should it be dealing with Russia and China together (the US seems more belligerent to Russia than China actually), or should China be the primary concern instead while Russia should rather be made neutral at least? In my opinion the US government has wrong priorities for now and seems to prefer taking revenge on Putin to real strategic concerns. We shouldn't support that just because we have visceral antipathies towards Putin and his regime, which won't collapse under such pressure anyway, it will rather tighten up actually.


Again, I don't share your premise. Namely that the West could establish a lasting alliance with Russia by granting it a buffer of puppet states. That's not how this works. Putin would exploit such weakness.
#15209249
Rugoz wrote:Again, I don't share your premise. Namely that the West could establish a lasting alliance with Russia by granting it a buffer of puppet states. That's not how this works. Putin would exploit such weakness.

Sure, you don't, although Putin would be very happy with his little post-Soviet sphere of influence and a cordial relationship with the West for sure, but who likes getting cornered? He's a lot more aware of the limits of his possibilities than you'd think.
#15209255
Rancid wrote:Well, it's not really that entirely. This guy thinks Putin should be allowed in just because he asked. When you join any group/club whatever, the idea is, you all share common principles (mostly). This is what precludes the current Putinist regime from joining. It's not that NATO has decided to eternally say no to Russia just because. Basically, the condition that would make Russia joining NATO (or at least being friendly with NATO) a possibility is for Putin's shit regime to collapse and be replaced with something that's actually more democratic, or rather, more in principle/value & practice as what you see in the rest of western Europe. The laws of the universe do not state that this is impossible for Russia to do. However, it is impossible so long as you have a Putinist style regime there.

So he can cry "but but but putin asked..." all he wants, but he doesn't understand how this really works. A NATO with a Putinist Russia would basically invalidate the alliance, hence why Putin the fuck face would bother to ask, it's a nice propaganda political tool to get people like Beren.

Again, all this guy does is bad faith.


Hmmm on the other hand this hasn't led to kicking Erdogan out of NATO...

I think NATO doesn't let Russia in because it would throw a wrench into the intra alliance relations, one much worse than e.g. Greece and Turkey's own conflicts. The whole point of NATO was to keep the Soviets out, after all.
#15209257
wat0n wrote:
Hmmm on the other hand this hasn't led to kicking Erdogan out of NATO...

I think NATO doesn't let Russia in because it would throw a wrench into the intra alliance relations, one much worse than e.g. Greece and Turkey's own conflicts. The whole point of NATO was to keep the Soviets out, after all.


Yea, there are degrees of what is acceptable and what is not. The level of "wrench" Turkey represents perhaps is still bearable. Also, kicking them out would probably cause a lot more trouble.

As for NATO's purpose, well, that can always change. Just because it was original made to keep the soviets at bay. It doesn't mean it's purpose MUST be to keep Russia out. The world is too dynamic to extrapolate like that. The world is dynamic, shit changes, alliances change, etc etc.

You shouldn't look at the past ideas/concepts/actions, and expect that to carry forward statically. We should never think of geopolitics as "this is the way it has to be." Which is what is implied when people suggest that just because NATO was originally made to push back the Soviets, that in then means it must be used to push back Russia.
Last edited by Rancid on 28 Jan 2022 15:49, edited 1 time in total.
#15209258
Rancid wrote:
Yea, there are degrees of what is acceptable and what is not. The level of "wrench" Turkey represents perhaps is still bearable. Also, kicking them out would probably cause a lot more trouble.

As for NATO's purpose, well, that can always change. Just because it was original made to keep the soviets at bay. It doesn't mean it's purpose MUST be to keep Russia out. The world is too dynamic to extrapolate like that. The world is dynamic, shit changes, alliances change, etc etc.

You shouldn't look at the past ideas/concepts/actions, and expect that to carry forward statically. We should never think of geopolitics as "this is the way is has to be." Which is what is implied when people suggest that just because NATO was originally made to push back the Soviets, that in then means it must be used to push back Russia.



For all practical purposes, Europe has told Turkey to piss off. That's a dead letter, has been for years.

Things can change, but Russia is still Russia..

I think it was the other guy that talked about including Russia in NATO. You have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get into the EU or NATO. No way in hell Russia would, or would want to.
#15209259
late wrote:For all practical purposes, Europe has told Turkey to piss off. That's a dead letter, has been for years.

Things can change, but Russia is still Russia..

I think it was the other guy that talked about including Russia in NATO. You have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get into the EU or NATO. No way in hell Russia would, or would want to.


Putins opposition like Navalny and others want to join the EU at least because it aligns with their idea of transitioning the country to a liberal democratic regime with a less centralised system, parliamentary federative state with broad region rights. Basically US minus the president + stronger Duma.
#15209263
Beren wrote:The point is that he was absolutely open to the idea of the West and Russia joining forces somehow, which would be rather useful today if it had materialised.

Exactly. Putin expressed many times his desire for Russia to have friendly relations (including visa free travelling for Russian nationals across Europe and America) with the West in 2000s.

JohnRawls wrote:NATO is an alliance between liberal democratic countries who have Western values with the only exception being Turkey which was accepted at the time for Cold War reasons. Turkey in general moved in a more positive liberal democratic dimension before Erdogan but now we are suffering the consequences for accepting stupid Turkey.

Long story short, if Russia chooses to be a liberal democratic state or something close to that then there is no problem with Russia joining NATO and the EU. Otherwise it is not something that Putin can wish for while being an aggressive crony capitalist corrupt anti-Liberal regime. Same goes for the Soviet Union.

The main purpose of NATO is defence against such regimes which NATO has fulfilled 100% since no NATO nation has ever had a war on its territory since NATO was created. The only bad side to this right now is that we are offering the same protection to fucking Turkey while it is not a Liberal Democracy and doesn't even deserve this protection.

Your definition of NATO never existed. NATO is just a defence pact. It guaranteed peace between member states for decades. It enabled member states develop militarily. For instance Turkey built NATO's second largest army from scratch.

Turkey in general moved in a more positive liberal democratic dimension before Erdogan but now we are suffering the consequences for accepting stupid Turkey.

Your portray of "before Erdoğan" Turkey never existed either. Turkey was a military dictatorship before Erdoğan. :lol: Do you know that Erdoğan was imprisoned by themilitary junta in 1998? He was arrested for just reading a poem.

The only bad side to this right now is that we are offering the same protection to fucking Turkey while it is not a Liberal Democracy and doesn't even deserve this protection.

Again, nonsense. Turkey joined NATO just 3 years after its formation. Turkey's first democratically elected leader choose NATO over Soviets, with America's initiation. And since then, began with Cuban missle crisis, Turkey's importance grew rapidly.
#15209267
JohnRawls wrote:
Putins opposition like Navalny and others want to join the EU at least because it aligns with their idea of transitioning the country to a liberal democratic regime with a less centralised system, parliamentary federative state with broad region rights. Basically US minus the president + stronger Duma.



Sure, if Russia plays nice, why not.

But Russian history and culture seem determined to keep that from happening.
#15209269
Istanbuller wrote:Exactly. Putin expressed many times his desire for Russia to have friendly relations (including visa free travelling for Russian nationals across Europe and America) with the West in 2000s.


Your definition of NATO never existed. NATO is just a defence pact. It guaranteed peace between member states for decades. It enabled member states develop militarily. For instance Turkey built NATO's second largest army from scratch.


Your portray of "before Erdoğan" Turkey never existed either. Turkey was a military dictatorship before Erdoğan. :lol: Do you know that Erdoğan was imprisoned by themilitary junta in 1998? He was arrested for just reading a poem.


Again, nonsense. Turkey joined NATO just 3 years after its formation. Turkey's first democratically elected leader choose NATO over Soviets, with America's initiation. And since then, began with Cuban missle crisis, Turkey's importance grew rapidly.


It doesn't change the fact that Turkey doesn't fully fit in with other NATO members in the regime values sense. As you say yourself, you are a member because you are strategically important basically instead of being a member of the club in a sense. And this has been a problem for both NATO unity, relationships between members within NATO, understanding why Erdogan does what he does and so on.

I have said this before, the next important country that will be joining European Union will be either Russia or Turkey, depending on who fixes their autocratic problem first.

@late

Liberal democracies almost never fights wars between each other, there is literally no use for that because it can be solved via democratic or diplomatic means.
#15209275
JohnRawls wrote:It doesn't change the fact that Turkey doesn't fully fit in with other NATO members in the regime values sense. As you say yourself, you are a member because you are strategically important basically instead of being a member of the club in a sense. And this has been a problem for both NATO unity, relationships between members within NATO, understanding why Erdogan does what he does and so on.

I have said this before, the next important country that will be joining European Union will be either Russia or Turkey, depending on who fixes their autocratic problem first.

Turkey doesn't fit into the position which was given to him. It is no longer "the tiny nation seeks protection". Because, unlike other member states, Turkey grows to be bigger each day. Turkey need to play more imoortant roles in NATO. It deserves to be a decision maker country alongside the US.

We have already around 100 million population (including illegal aliens).One day it will be bigger than Russia, too.
#15209277
Istanbuller wrote:Turkey doesn't fit into the position which was given to him. It is no longer "the tiny nation seeks protection". Because, unlike other member states, Turkey grows to be bigger each day. Turkey need to play more imoortant roles in NATO. It deserves to be a decision maker country alongside the US.


Your inferiority complex is cute. It also explains Erdowahn perfectly.
#15209279
Istanbuller wrote:Turkey doesn't fit into the position which was given to him. It is no longer "the tiny nation seeks protection". Because, unlike other member states, Turkey grows to be bigger each day. Turkey need to play more imoortant roles in NATO. It deserves to be a decision maker country alongside the US.

We have already around 100 million population (including illegal aliens).One day it will be bigger than Russia, too.


Population means literally jack shit nowadays. China had hundreds of millions and billions of people for a long time but it didn't become relevant in any major sense for modern times until it opened up its economy and started growing economy. Considering Turkish population, it is economically tiny and irrelevant. Especially with the new Lira things happening.

Your nominal GDP just dropped by 30%-50% because of last year meaning that you went to a total GDP less than Poland while having folds more people. Greece also went to having 4x less to having 2x less compared to Turkey.
#15209287
Istanbuller wrote:We have already around 100 million population (including illegal aliens).One day it will be bigger than Russia, too.

And what will you do with so many poor people? Because illegal aliens are poor and it's the poor multiplying that much as well, I guess. Will you blackmail the EU with them as potential refugees perhaps? Because that's all they'll be good for.
#15209299
JohnRawls wrote:It doesn't change the fact that Turkey doesn't fully fit in with other NATO members in the regime values sense. As you say yourself, you are a member because you are strategically important basically instead of being a member of the club in a sense. And this has been a problem for both NATO unity, relationships between members within NATO, understanding why Erdogan does what he does and so on.

I have said this before, the next important country that will be joining European Union will be either Russia or Turkey, depending on who fixes their autocratic problem first.

@late

Liberal democracies almost never fights wars between each other, there is literally no use for that because it can be solved via democratic or diplomatic means.


@Istanbuller is right though, not so much about Turkey being a dictatorship in the '90s but it's been a dictatorship before while being in NATO. And has had military tensions with other members.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

That’s alright then (!) Putting security measures[…]

Poland is getting Abrams tanks now. Which suggests[…]

Wait, so guys subscribe to the idea of taking o[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I watched a live report from the Donbas on Sky Ne[…]