Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NATO vs Russia

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NATO vs Russia

    https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=Iwy_20EAx90

    Watch the video to here someone talking sense here. The Democracts need to cool it on the Russia file, putting troops on Russia's border is a really bad idea.

    I didn't miss the first cold war we don't need a repeat because the Democracts are pissed Putin exposed their dirty laundry.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
    The Democracts need to cool it on the Russia file, putting troops on Russia's border is a really bad idea.

    I didn't miss the first cold war we don't need a repeat because the Democracts are pissed Putin exposed their dirty laundry.
    We've been trying to halt Russia's attempts to expand to the west for years, as it looks as if they're attempting to regain states lost when the USSR fell apart, or earlier, and they started with the Ukraine and have been amassing troops and weapons on the borders of other Eastern Bloc countries who have asked for America's help.

    You may not want a cold war, but the people of Lithuania likely don't want to be under the Soviet bootheel again, and we assured them way back in 1998 we would help them defend their independence. Plus they joined NATO a while back and deserve the organization's aid.

    This video you share is incredibly lopsided. I'm not sure who the man is but in his haste to insult this Maddow, he seems to not be aware of existing partnerships with these countries, or that Russia is the aggressor in this situation. His example of Russia putting troops on Mexico's border would only count if America was, before that, putting troops on Mexico's border right after annexing Cuba.
    Last edited by nofather; 01-23-2017, 01:43 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Russia already launched an invasion of Ukraine and started hacking our systems to manipulate our political process (I don't give a fuck who the Russians were hacking, the fact that they were hacking our political parties is B.A.D.) We need to make a very strong show of force to send them a clear reminder them that they can't just fuck around with our country and our allies like that and not expect consequences.

      Obama seriously dropped the ball in both situations - in fact, I dare say his failure to help Ukraine out is probably his biggest failing as president. Sadly however, I expect Trump is far more likely to fellate Putin's dick than take him to task, so you have no need to worry about any kind of cold war between Russia and the US Omega. The last thing that will happen with Trump in charge of the US is any kind of aggressive maneuvers against Russia. If anything Trump is more likely to disband NATO and let Russia swallow up all of their old countries.

      *EDIT* I do find it immensely funny though to hear Republicans talking about how we need to play nice with Russia and we can't get too aggressive with them. What happened to all the neocons? I generally didn't like those guys in a lot of ways, but the one thing I did trust them on was that they weren't going to just bend over and kiss Russia's feet.
      Last edited by AnubisXy; 01-23-2017, 02:27 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Fuck Russia and the bear Putin rode in on.

        Comment


        • #5
          1) Never directly trust a video where someone directly cuts out 3 minutes of a broadcast without any explanation or acknowledgement of doing so. Seriously, the clip this guy plays jumps three minutes (you can tell by the clock ticker on the show), which eliminates whatever bridge Maddow put between the two topics. Usually that's done for the sole purpose of readjusting the narrative. Without the original broadcast at hand to compare it to, my inner skeptic says that guy probably didn't like a segue between the two points that would have blunted his outrage and called his interpretation of Maddow's segments into question (though all the ranting does plenty of that).

          2) That video doesn't, in the slightest, establish any sort of grounds to blame the Democrats as a whole as responsible for a potential escalation. Admission into NATO isn't a solo US decision in the first place, and both parties oversaw agreements to expand NATO into former Warsaw Pact nations. Both parties today (even members of Trumps cabinet) support Obama's decision to increase troop deployments to NATO allies bordering Russia. Also... it's now in Republican hands. With control over the Congress and the Presidency, there's very little the Democrats can do to control the decision to escalate military power in Eastern Europe, or reduce it. They couldn't even effectively filibuster the decision in the Senate.

          3) In the comparisons of what happened in Ukraine to what's worrying former Soviet states also generally skips an important factor: we don't have a general defense pact with Ukraine. Unless nuclear weapons are threatened or used against Ukraine, the US has no legal obligation to aid Ukraine in a military conflict. We have a standing pact via NATO to join in protecting them from armed aggression. If what happened in Ukraine happened to, say, Estonia we have to intervene unless we exit NATO first. Russia knows this. any armed attack by Russia on any NATO member nation is effectively declaring war on all the NATO nations (which is the whole point of NATO). You can't compare it to the Cuban Missile crisis. You can't compare it to Russia sending troops to Mexico's northern border.

          4) Simplifying this to the Dems being pissy about the hacks is inane on multiple levels. First, that hacks should piss off everyone. Nothing's going to be good if next election some liberal hacker group spams the media with RNC/etc. emails and then the Republicans start calling foul. It's in everybody's best interest if foreign nations aren't trying to fuck with other nation's election outcomes (the US should stop doing that too...). Second, we responded to the hacks with... sanctions and diplomatic expulsions. The NATO troop increase is in response to our allies being nervous about military expansions by Russia and a very pro-Russia sounding US President. Third, if a bit repetitive, this is not actually a partisan move. Plenty of Republicans don't like Trump's soft talk on NATO obligations, and want more shows of force that we're not going to do what Obama did in Syria and Ukraine when it comes to nations that are our overt military allies.

          Comment


          • #6
            One of reasons why a lot of Poles are actually happy that Trump won is because they hope that he will have better relationships with Russia. Because if US provokes conflict with Russia, we are people who will suffer from it, not the US. This might be shocking for you, but from Eastern European perspective, US and Russia aren't that much different; two big evil powers. It's just that one is far away and willing to use us as their pawns, and other is closer and thus more threatening, so we ally with the first one.
            Last edited by WHW; 01-23-2017, 12:27 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by WHW View Post
              One of reasons why a lot of Poles are actually happy that Trump won is because they hope that he will have better relationships with Russia. Because if US provokes conflict with Russia, we are people who will suffer from it, not the US. This might be shocking for you, but from Eastern European perspective, US and Russia aren't that much different; two big evil powers. It's just that one is far away and willing to use us as their pawns, and other is closer and thus more threatening, so we ally with the first one.
              A wonderful insight and as a Canadian who shares a massive border with the US, one I can sympathize with.

              As for the rest of you guys, you forgot the key part where the West helped overthrow a democratically elected Ukrainian government which happened to be pro Russian, to put in a compliant set of minions, with neo nazi ties.

              And Russia is not planning to invade Lithuania, the actions of Putins have been reactions to American aggression. I hope President Trump will cool things down with Russia, if Americans keep stirring things up, it will be nations like Poland and, Lithuania that will be caught in the middle.

              You guys, also forgot to mention NATOs expansionist behavior that began before Putin.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by WHW View Post
                One of reasons why a lot of Poles are actually happy that Trump won is because they hope that he will have better relationships with Russia. Because if US provokes conflict with Russia, we are people who will suffer from it, not the US. This might be shocking for you, but from Eastern European perspective, US and Russia aren't that much different; two big evil powers. It's just that one is far away and willing to use us as their pawns, and other is closer and thus more threatening, so we ally with the first one.
                Very good post from a different point of view, thank you for the insight. One of the things when we have better relations with Russia is that we are less likely to start shooting at each other. Also just because we do have better relations with Russia does not mean we can't say no.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by WHW View Post
                  One of reasons why a lot of Poles are actually happy that Trump won is because they hope that he will have better relationships with Russia. Because if US provokes conflict with Russia, we are people who will suffer from it, not the US. This might be shocking for you, but from Eastern European perspective, US and Russia aren't that much different; two big evil powers. It's just that one is far away and willing to use us as their pawns, and other is closer and thus more threatening, so we ally with the first one.
                  And which one of them actually did invade Poland, imprison hundreds of thousands of citizens, and then annex the country? Given what's happening in Ukraine now, and Crimea before that, and Chechnya before that, any Pole who thinks that Putin's Russia can be a good neighbor is a fool.

                  I don't want to think of NATO as the only thing standing in the way of USSR 2.0, but that's how it looks to me from here.

                  Originally posted by JBRocky View Post
                  Very good post from a different point of view, thank you for the insight. One of the things when we have better relations with Russia is that we are less likely to start shooting at each other. Also just because we do have better relations with Russia does not mean we can't say no.
                  I'd love to see better relations between the US and Russia, but I also believe that one of three things must happen for that to come true.
                  1. Vladimir Putin and everyone who supports him is removed from power.
                  2. The United States abandons its standards in support of international human rights, allowing Russia to militarily dominate its neighbors.
                  3. The reigning Russian government has a sudden change of heart, stops trying to blame foreigners for their domestic problems, and works to fight the crime, corruption, and crony capitalism that stifles their economy.

                  Sadly, I think the second option is most likely at the moment.
                  Last edited by semicasual; 01-23-2017, 03:35 PM.


                  On the frontier of the Wild South, there's only one woman with the grit to take on its most dangerous outlaws and bring them Back Alive, or Maybe Dead.

                  Avatar by K.S. Brenowitz

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by WHW View Post
                    One of reasons why a lot of Poles are actually happy that Trump won is because they hope that he will have better relationships with Russia.
                    That seems pretty naive. There's a big difference between "less adversarial" and "better" relationships. I'm pretty sure most Palestians would call for "better" relationships between the US and Israel that don't involve the US backing Israel no matter what the Israeli government does, even though that would a more adversarial position towards the current Israeli government.

                    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
                    As for the rest of you guys, you forgot the key part where the West helped overthrow a democratically elected Ukrainian government which happened to be pro Russian, to put in a compliant set of minions, with neo nazi ties.
                    That's... a wonderfully oversimplified and conspiratorial explanation of what happened. Ukraine was a hugely divided nation between those that wanted better relationships with the rest of Europe and those that wanted to maintain stronger ties to Russia. The West didn't overthrow the government of Ukraine, the President fled protesters (we do remember that in a President isn't the government, right?), and this resulted in the government more strongly flipped to parties opposed to the ousted President. Sure, the West enabled in all this - for example the EU (also, you know, not America...) could have flatly rejected a deal with Ukraine before the deal was tanked by pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians - but there wasn't some direct interference with election.

                    And Russia is not planning to invade Lithuania, the actions of Putins have been reactions to American aggression.
                    How exactly was the annexation of Crimea spurned by anything the US did? Why are you treating NATO, the UN, and the EU as apparent US puppets that have no agency of their own?

                    What part of Russia's slaughtering of non-combatants in Syria was the fault of US aggression?

                    Painting Putin as simply seeing to Russia's defense is... basically only what RT is selling.

                    You guys, also forgot to mention NATOs expansionist behavior that began before Putin.
                    What does "before Putin" mean?

                    Before Putin was involved in Soviet/Russian international affairs? Nope. Putin was operating in that sphere for the KGB well before the first NATO expansion into former Warsaw Pact nations discounting the negotiated unification of Germany and Germany's joining of NATO (since the USSR agreed to that one). Before Putin was involved in civilian politics? Also a nope. He moved from the KGB to being a civilian politician working in international affairs right before the NATO expansions. Before he was President? Sure but what exactly is important about that?.

                    Originally posted by JBRocky View Post
                    One of the things when we have better relations with Russia is that we are less likely to start shooting at each other. Also just because we do have better relations with Russia does not mean we can't say no.
                    Again, I think it's important to remember that "better" isn't the same as "permissive."

                    What has so many people worried is because Trump says, "better," but only talks, "permissive." We need to be ready to do more than say no.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by semicasual View Post
                      And which one of them actually did invade Poland, imprison hundreds of thousands of citizens, and then annex the country? Given what's happening in Ukraine now, and Crimea before that, and Chechnya before that, any Pole who thinks that Putin's Russia can be a good neighbor is a fool.
                      .
                      Are you aware that USSR did that with full approval of western allies, including US? And that our government in exile was ignored even before war ended, with our borders being discussed and decided without our consent? Or that western allies ignored our pleas to help Warsaw Uprising, in order to not annoy Uncle Joe who patiently waited for the city and it's people to burn, so they could easily install their own government? All while Allies ignored us because Roosevelt decided that he likes Uncle Joe more? Allied forces literally watched our captial burn - burn to the ground - for two months? Couple this with US's reputation of constantly seeking conflict under pretense of "policing the world" and "protecting human rights" and other things that are commonly believed to just be excuses for war profiteering, and...you can see why we can't really see US as "good guys", right?
                      We are next to your traditional enemy, and you are offering us to allow you to put guns and rockets and bases in our territory for our protection. It's understandable that we agree. It's also understandable that Putin will try to secure as much land as possible, because US can wage war on them by proxy, using nearby countries as landbound versions of carrier airships. Which makes us a strategical target and a threat towards Russia. Which makes them interested in potentially punking us. Which makes us more reliant on outside help and making us even more indebted to that help. So we pray that there won't be a "border incident", no US provocation or Russian aggression, because while US might lose some people and probably end up making dollars and grabbing some influence from such conflict, we are going to pay for it in real damage, as we will be the battlefield.

                      Again, Putin is no saint. US is no saint either. Whatever happens, both of you are players trying to make as much profit as possible; US has better PR and can spin the story better, while Russia is pretty much perceived as Kingdom Of Evil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Poland willingly joined NATO (and in 1999, so this wasn't like some sort of blind situation where the US's current reputation as a world power after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was unknown). Poland said, "yes, please use your military power to help us protect our borders from enemy aggression." Russia was shouting mad about that before it happened citing how it was a threat to them, etc. etc. You personally might not have had any say in this, but Poland as a nation stopped being a bystander when they joined the modern incarnation of the Allies. Poland isn't a neutral nation, it picked a side, choosing to have military allies at the risk of military enemies.

                        Also... increased deployment of active troops to NATO puts those troops under NATO control, not the US's control. If Poland is worried about deployments, they can ask NATO to do something else with them whenever they want and the US can only try to oppose it to NATO (which generally does not like to force member nations to agree to military deployments within their borders as an institution).

                        Whatever the US's reputation is, and however justified that reputation is, Poland allied itself to the US through NATO. Poland doesn't get to play innocent now.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ???
                          I think you are misunderstanding. After we broke free from Soviet control, we pretty much had no choice other than align politically with something to ensure our security. And NATO was the best bet. That's hardly questionable. We just hope that US shoving their guns down Russia's throats won't result in a reflux that will directly hurt us.
                          ...then again, our Minister of Security is a quite controversial person who would probably gladly lead the charge against Russians, but that guy is our own fault.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The Russians hacked both the DNC and the RNC and yet mysteriously did not release the RNC information. Can't imagine why. If you think that it's a political partisan issue well............there's an old Soviet Cold War term for you.


                            “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by WHW View Post
                              ???
                              I think you are misunderstanding. After we broke free from Soviet control, we pretty much had no choice other than align politically with something to ensure our security. And NATO was the best bet. That's hardly questionable. We just hope that US shoving their guns down Russia's throats won't result in a reflux that will directly hurt us.
                              ...then again, our Minister of Security is a quite controversial person who would probably gladly lead the charge against Russians, but that guy is our own fault.
                              As someone who lives in Japan, I know exactly what you mean. Those who supposedly have the benefit of "distance" don't seem to realize that the geopolitics of our reality make it very difficult for us to actually choose an alternative. As if we actually had an alternative. As with Poland, Japan certainly did not have much of a choice.


                              How can I know if what I claim I know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I might not know? How can I know if what I claim I don't know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I do know?
                              -Zhuangzi

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X