Jump to content

Russia


Sentience
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, opusManx said:

Doubtful...Nato vs Russian jets risks drawing Nato into larger conflict...nuclear exchange risk unacceptable. Nato Sec-General Stoltenberg said this on PBS Newshour interview yesterday. "We wish to avoid being drawn into a conflict worse than what we already have" (paraphrased)

Unfortunately Putin might have other ideas re the nuclear issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

 

Nothing philosophical about what I am saying.  I am only talking about the hypocrisy.

I can see why you think western countries should have done more if you truly think that Russia has designs on conquering all of Europe. But I don't know why you have that idea.  This conflict is not about conquering Europe and extending influence. What provocations are you referring to?

I don't know why you think Putin is a maniac.

I don't think any of this would have happened if Minsk II went ahead and if the Ukraine remained neutral.

This propaganda from the American government and western media where this conflict is seen only through the lens of the self determination of the Ukrainian people is just double standards.

Yes, one does get a 'different' i.e. Russian perspective from RT or Fox News or Trump (on Crimea, Georgia, Chechnya, Baltics, etc). But their views are cr*p, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, opusManx said:

There are a variety of perspectives in Western media as well, often within the same publication or platform. Not necessarily all from propagandists or right-wing sources.

I had no idea. Thanks for letting me know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, code99 said:

I had no idea. Thanks for letting me know.

De nada. Never too late to learn and acknowledge La_Dolce_Vita's point not necessarily based on a "Russian perspective". Kudos for your humility and open-mindedness.

Edited by opusManx
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2022 at 9:32 AM, manxman1980 said:

NATO is an alliance of sovereign countries.  Belarus is a puppet state to Russia which is not comparable to the relationship between the USA and other NATO members.

Non NATO countries such as Afghanistan have been used for decades by Russia and the USA to fight proxy wars.  That isn't right but it was not NATO who posed the threat. 

Arguably the continued expansion of NATO could be seen as a breach of previous agreements, however, Russia have also been increasing their sphere of influence including taking control of regions such as the Crimea, murdering people in NATO countries and various cyber attacks.  That is also ignoring the alleged interference in western democratic elections.

Have you notice that the report into Russian interference in the Brexit referendum and elections has been buried?

I wasn't referring to NATO states being puppets and I wasn't making a comparison of Belarus and Russia compared with the NATO alliance. I was talking about nations in the Americas that the US ensured were friendly and aligned with American military and political interests.

We don't really need to look at any agreements about expanding NATO. Expansion is only ever going to be provocative to Russia.

Controlling the Crimea is not so much an expansion of Russia's sphere of influence but rather ensuring that it can still control the sea ports.

I'm not defending Russia. But this conflict has been provoked by the United States and I don't think Russia's actions are peculiar. 


If you have a nation state on your border wanting to join an alliance against you then it's a question of whether you have the power to put a stop to it and Russia can. Diplomacy was tried but the Americans have dragged their feet on Minsk II by doing nothing to sort out this Ukrainian problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, code99 said:

Yes, one does get a 'different' i.e. Russian perspective from RT or Fox News or Trump (on Crimea, Georgia, Chechnya, Baltics, etc). But their views are cr*p, IMHO.

I am not aware of them (i.e. American conservative and Trump views). Is it isolationism?

Edited by La_Dolce_Vita
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

 

Controlling the Crimea is not so much an expansion of Russia's sphere of influence but rather ensuring that it can still control the sea ports.

 

The UK didn't seem to feel the same way about the Falkland Islands did it?  

I know its an over simplification but Russia just took territory from another sovereign nation and the Western world barely batted an eyelid.  It showed to Putin that invading the Ukraine was not going to bring any real ramifications for Russia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin sits on a golden throne dishing out cash to stooges and quislings at home and abroad. He runs a country that covers 10% of the earth and is massively rich in resources - yet thanks to autocratic kleptomaniac governance has an economy the size of Italy and horrific poverty outside St. Petersburg & Moscow.  Putin is a paranoid lunatic running a failed state by fear. Look what he has done to his critics and political opponents. He doesn't check on your EU or NATO credentials before he slips you a polonium sandwich - anymore than he checks for collateral damage. He is a narcissistic psychopath. He couldn't stand to have a free, slavic democracy on his doorstep that he couldn't intimidate and control - so he started a war there in 2014, kicking off with shooting down civilian aircraft MH17. Of course Ukraine has been wanting closer ties to Europe and NATO. I have friends in both Russia and Ukraine by the way - they all agree with this assessment, it is almost unbelievable to them that this Kissenger style realpolitik / balance-of-power / great game view that La Dolce Vita has is being put forth and digested by intelligent people in the West. Sorry to say it, but Putin is a bad man, with no shades of grey, he despises us and everything decent we stand for and we are not to blame for doing everything we can to protect ourselves and others from him. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

Occupation...

Wonder why they seem similar?

The circumstances are very different though.

The Crimea has a long history of being under Russian rule or even being seen as just another region of Russia. Sebastopol has been the main port for the Black Seas Fleet for over a century. And shared Ukrainian control of the Crimea and Sebastopol has been a problem. 

The Falklands had never been Argentinian.  There was no Argentina military presence or civilian presence on the islands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

The Falklands had never been Argentinian.  There was no Argentina military presence or civilian presence on the islands.

Sure about that?

In 1820 the Buenos Aires government, which had declared its independence from Spain in 1816, proclaimed its sovereignty over the Falklands. In 1831 the U.S. warship Lexington destroyed the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area. In early 1833 a British force expelled the few remaining Argentine officials from the island without firing a shot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...