Page 2 of 4 [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,342

30 May 2022, 8:09 pm

Tross wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
My first thought that came to mind after seeing the title were the magazine articles titled "Putin pushed Finland to NATO's arms."

...Not even sure if that's relevant here, but that came to mind and I thought I'd share.
Well, that much is true. For a neutral country to drastically alter their stance like that, Putin must have really burnt their bridge.


Actually, historically, Finland was not neutral. Basically what happened with Finland back in the 19-th century is similar to what happened with Soviet satellites (such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) after the collapse of USSR. Finland split off from Russia back in Czarist time, and became its hostile neighbor. Russia unsuccessfully attacked Finland in an attempt to get it back, right before its war with Hitler. The fact that Russia lost that war is what made Hitler decide that Russia is not as strong as he thought, so he attacked it.

I am actually surprised to hear Finland didn't join NATO earlier. I was sort of assuming that it would be one of the first countries to do so.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,037
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 May 2022, 11:51 pm

I remember Pozner from when he still had hair. I also remember how he's always had a chip on his shoulder, as his family had been booted out of the US during the Cold War/Red Scare. So, maybe he isn't the most unbiased sourse.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,413
Location: Poland

31 May 2022, 2:44 am

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
1) A promise by the West not to extend NATO by an inch yet they didn't keep that promise. Now you can argue all you want that countries should be free to join NATO. Fine, but why promise something you aren't going to keep? They should have openly said that NATO will expand, and so that Russia can make an "informed" decision as to what would happen if it ends a cold war.
It was legitimately renegotiated with Russia in 1997.
The newly declared relations between NATO and Russia were signed here:
https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/offi ... _25468.htm
BTW, you can read the document and see how much of it was kept by which side...

The following summit accepting new members had Russian representation.


I didn't know that.

But now that you mentioned it, I vaguely remember Russia itself wanting to join NATO at some point. In don't remember when though. Was it before or after 1997?
It was after 1997, because it was Putin considering joining NATO. However,
Quote:
George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... n-his-rule
They didn't want to be subjected to the same procedures every other member follows. They wanted special treatment and were denied it.


QFT wrote:
It is Wolfowitz doctrine (see 16:45 of the video). And he mentioned not questioning the USA at 17:15 of the video.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
A draft leaked, it was very heavily criticized and substantially rewritten before becoming official - removing all of these.

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
If they meant rebuilding the economy and industry in a demilitarized state, so it flourished in peace like Germany and Japan after WWII, then, well... it's a pity it didn't work.
If you think treating Russia, who won WW2, on the same level as Germany, that lost WW2, is a good thing, then I strongly disagree.

And demilitarization is humiliating. I would never agree with it.
And here we are. That's the real problem. Russia does not want to give up their imperialism because it would be "humiliating" for them.
And Russia has not given up their imperialism, which now we can see with a naked eye. To tragic outcomes.

If you want unification with another but the other party does not want to participate, what do you do?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,413
Location: Poland

31 May 2022, 2:59 am

QFT wrote:
Tross wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
My first thought that came to mind after seeing the title were the magazine articles titled "Putin pushed Finland to NATO's arms."

...Not even sure if that's relevant here, but that came to mind and I thought I'd share.
Well, that much is true. For a neutral country to drastically alter their stance like that, Putin must have really burnt their bridge.
Actually, historically, Finland was not neutral. Basically what happened with Finland back in the 19-th century is similar to what happened with Soviet satellites (such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) after the collapse of USSR. Finland split off from Russia back in Czarist time, and became its hostile neighbor. Russia unsuccessfully attacked Finland in an attempt to get it back, right before its war with Hitler. The fact that Russia lost that war is what made Hitler decide that Russia is not as strong as he thought, so he attacked it.

I am actually surprised to hear Finland didn't join NATO earlier. I was sort of assuming that it would be one of the first countries to do so.
Conveniently ignoring the previous 500 years of Swedish rule :roll:
And have you ever considered why Finland was hostile to Russia after having split from it? Why did this tiny nation fight so fiercely in the Winter War? What did they want and what did they want to avoid, even at really high costs?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,754
Location: Australia

31 May 2022, 3:00 am

QFT wrote:
I am actually surprised to hear Finland didn't join NATO earlier. I was sort of assuming that it would be one of the first countries to do so.


Well, it is applying now.

Pragmatic opportunism.
Finland can see how pootin is struggling in Ukraine.
pootin wouldn't create a two-front war, and after the Ukraine war is settled, one way of another, it will take pootin (assuming he is still alive) many years to build up the military and economy again.
Russia is essentially a toothless tiger, in terms of a conventional war. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,342

31 May 2022, 11:27 am

magz wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
They didn't want to be subjected to the same procedures every other member follows. They wanted special treatment and were denied it.


I didn't know this, but now that I read this, here is my guess:

Being subjected to the same treatment is a reminder that they lost the cold war. The winner of the cold war, USA, was not subjected to the same treatment. So they wanted to have the same priviledge they used to have when they were one of the two superpowers.

Well, I don't know what their actual motives were since I haven't heard of it before. But this would have been my motives if I was in charge.

magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
It is Wolfowitz doctrine (see 16:45 of the video). And he mentioned not questioning the USA at 17:15 of the video.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
A draft leaked, it was very heavily criticized and substantially rewritten before becoming official - removing all of these.


But the fact that it even appeared shows what their motives were. So, after they removed it, they still implimented some of their motives, just more informally rather than formally. For example, like you pointed out, they couldn't stop other countries from criticizing American actions (since the document was removed) but America still acted as a superpower.

Why didn't Canada attack Iraq, why did it have to be America? Because America saw itself as a superpower, thats why.

And, as much as America was criticized for attacking Iraq, it didn't receive the same kind of sanctions as Russia did. Why not? Again because it won the cold war.

And how come America has a lot more military bases abroad than Russia does, yet Russia gets criticized for them more? Same reason.

magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
If they meant rebuilding the economy and industry in a demilitarized state, so it flourished in peace like Germany and Japan after WWII, then, well... it's a pity it didn't work.
If you think treating Russia, who won WW2, on the same level as Germany, that lost WW2, is a good thing, then I strongly disagree.

And demilitarization is humiliating. I would never agree with it.
And here we are. That's the real problem.


So your argument is that if Russia was demilitarized we wouldn't face this problem. My argument is if Russia wasn't humiliated we wouldn't face this problem either. Maybe both statements are true (from factual point of view). So here is a choice: demilitarize it (and humiliate it even more along the way) or let it keep its military and try to avoid humiliating it? If both options would work, I choose the second one.

magz wrote:
Russia does not want to give up their imperialism because it would be "humiliating" for them.


Thats true, especially since America didn't give up its imperialism. A double standard is always humiliating.

If America were to give up its imperialism too, and do so at the same rate as it wanted Russia to do, then it won't be humiliating any more, but thats not what happened.

Russian imperialism is mainly limitted to its satelites -- with one exception being Syria. But American imperialism goes across the globe all the time. Yet American imperialism is being better tolerated than Russian. Don't you see how it is humiliating?



SkinnedWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2022
Age: 23
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,533
Location: China

31 May 2022, 11:41 am

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
Russia does not want to give up their imperialism because it would be "humiliating" for them.


Thats true, especially since America didn't give up its imperialism. A double standard is always humiliating.

If America were to give up its imperialism too, and do so at the same rate as it wanted Russia to do, then it won't be humiliating any more, but thats not what happened.

Russian imperialism is mainly limitted to its satelites -- with one exception being Syria. But American imperialism goes across the globe all the time. Yet American imperialism is being better tolerated than Russian. Don't you see how it is humiliating?

Yes. We have an infinite loop here.
When certain countries are inevitably in competition, giving up their military power first is tantamount to declaring themselves at the mercy of others.
No one depends on trusting the morality of their opponents for their security. Unilateral demands to demilitarize Russia are cruel.

The arms race of these countries will make these countries a major threat to the neighboring countries that have not participated in the arms race, and will eventually involve everyone in it.


_________________
With the help of translation software.

Cover your eyes, if you like. It will serve no purpose.

You might expect to be able to crush them in your hand, into wolf-bone fragments.
Dance with me, funeralxempire. Into night's circle we fly, until the fire enjoys us.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,413
Location: Poland

31 May 2022, 1:38 pm

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
They didn't want to be subjected to the same procedures every other member follows. They wanted special treatment and were denied it.
I didn't know this, but now that I read this, here is my guess:

Being subjected to the same treatment is a reminder that they lost the cold war. The winner of the cold war, USA, was not subjected to the same treatment. So they wanted to have the same priviledge they used to have when they were one of the two superpowers.
How would USA be subjected to the proceddures of applying for NATO membership if it was already a member?
Russia founded CSTO. And?

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
It is Wolfowitz doctrine (see 16:45 of the video). And he mentioned not questioning the USA at 17:15 of the video.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
A draft leaked, it was very heavily criticized and substantially rewritten before becoming official - removing all of these.
But the fact that it even appeared shows what their motives were.
One of the defining differences between democracies and dictatorships is that in democracies, policies are disputed, critiqued and, if the critique is sufficient, changed.
That exactly happened to Wolfowitz doctrine. Some supported it. Others found it unacceptable. So it was reworked.

QFT wrote:
So your argument is that if Russia was demilitarized we wouldn't face this problem. My argument is if Russia wasn't humiliated we wouldn't face this problem either. Maybe both statements are true (from factual point of view). So here is a choice: demilitarize it (and humiliate it even more along the way) or let it keep its military and try to avoid humiliating it? If both options would work, I choose the second one.
Sorry but Russia humiliated itself by losing Cold War.

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
Russia does not want to give up their imperialism because it would be "humiliating" for them.
Thats true, especially since America didn't give up its imperialism. A double standard is always humiliating.

If America were to give up its imperialism too, and do so at the same rate as it wanted Russia to do, then it won't be humiliating any more, but thats not what happened.

Russian imperialism is mainly limitted to its satelites -- with one exception being Syria. But American imperialism goes across the globe all the time. Yet American imperialism is being better tolerated than Russian. Don't you see how it is humiliating?
1. I believe you're not very knowledgeable of what Wagner Group is doing in Africa;
2. Parts of "American imperialism" like NATO expansion are on request of local nations. The current batch is prompted exactly by Russian agression. I'm not defending all the abuses USA has done in its history but right now, it's this case: Ukrainians don't want Russian army on their territory. They are asking for help from the West (and not only). This is the prefered form of Western expansion. And, btw, Chinese expansion, too. Why is it better tolerated? Because it does not involve mass civilian casualties, I guess.

Former Russian satellites know the difference between being part of "The West" and being part of "Russkiy Mir". It's a hell of a difference for anyone who values things like transparency and personal freedoms.
Why don't Russia offer transparency and personal freedoms?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,754
Location: Australia

31 May 2022, 7:49 pm

Leave that "mouse" alone, you feline bully. :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


SkinnedWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2022
Age: 23
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,533
Location: China

31 May 2022, 8:00 pm

America is better than Russia for most Eastern European countries.
(At least the U.S. has no territorial demands on them, and there is no apparent attempt to interfere in internal affairs. Look at Belarus.)

So the Eastern European countries chose to let the United States participate. Otherwise, Russia may forcibly "participate".

Case closed.


_________________
With the help of translation software.

Cover your eyes, if you like. It will serve no purpose.

You might expect to be able to crush them in your hand, into wolf-bone fragments.
Dance with me, funeralxempire. Into night's circle we fly, until the fire enjoys us.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,203
Location: Queens, NYC

31 May 2022, 8:01 pm

^Good analysis.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,342

31 May 2022, 9:47 pm

magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
They didn't want to be subjected to the same procedures every other member follows. They wanted special treatment and were denied it.
I didn't know this, but now that I read this, here is my guess:

Being subjected to the same treatment is a reminder that they lost the cold war. The winner of the cold war, USA, was not subjected to the same treatment. So they wanted to have the same priviledge they used to have when they were one of the two superpowers.
How would USA be subjected to the proceddures of applying for NATO membership if it was already a member?


How did USA become a member?

magz wrote:
Russia founded CSTO. And?


Are yiu saying USA founded NATO? I actually don’t know who founded NATO, so it’s a simple question.

As far as CSTO, I haven’t heard of it either, but when I googled it, I see it consists of former soviet republics.

So do you see a pattern.

—- CSTO are former Soviet republics; NATO is international.

—- Russian military bases are on former soviet republics, with an exception of Syria. USA military bases are across the globe

—- Russia interferes in politics of former Soviet republics, with an exception of Syria. USA interferes in politics of lots of countries across the globe.

magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
It is Wolfowitz doctrine (see 16:45 of the video). And he mentioned not questioning the USA at 17:15 of the video.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
A draft leaked, it was very heavily criticized and substantially rewritten before becoming official - removing all of these.
But the fact that it even appeared shows what their motives were.
One of the defining differences between democracies and dictatorships is that in democracies, policies are disputed, critiqued and, if the critique is sufficient, changed.
That exactly happened to Wolfowitz doctrine. Some supported it. Others found it unacceptable. So it was reworked.


The ones that supported it influence the politics in other ways that leads to the same effect. As evident that it is USA that went to Iraq. Why didn’t Canada or France attack Iraq or any other country? Why is it always USA that does that?

magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
So your argument is that if Russia was demilitarized we wouldn't face this problem. My argument is if Russia wasn't humiliated we wouldn't face this problem either. Maybe both statements are true (from factual point of view). So here is a choice: demilitarize it (and humiliate it even more along the way) or let it keep its military and try to avoid humiliating it? If both options would work, I choose the second one.
Sorry but Russia humiliated itself by losing Cold War.


I agree. So Russia made a mistake when it decided to resign in a Cold War. Now it tries to undo its mistake.

When someone humiliates themselves they should try to undo their self-humiliation.

That, plus it was really Gorbachev and Yeltsin who decided to lose the Cold War. Now Putin is undoing their mistake.

magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
Russia does not want to give up their imperialism because it would be "humiliating" for them.
Thats true, especially since America didn't give up its imperialism. A double standard is always humiliating.

If America were to give up its imperialism too, and do so at the same rate as it wanted Russia to do, then it won't be humiliating any more, but thats not what happened.

Russian imperialism is mainly limitted to its satelites -- with one exception being Syria. But American imperialism goes across the globe all the time. Yet American imperialism is being better tolerated than Russian. Don't you see how it is humiliating?
1. I believe you're not very knowledgeable of what Wagner Group is doing in Africa;


I haven’t heard of Wagner group before.

Now that I look it up on Google I see Russia does interfere globally. Still, with Russia it is just one group while with USA it’s a pattern.

magz wrote:
2. Parts of "American imperialism" like NATO expansion are on request of local nations.


But there was no request from Iraq. Yet they didn’t impose sanctions on the USA similar to the ones imposed on Russia.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,342

31 May 2022, 9:50 pm

SkinnedWolf wrote:
America is better than Russia for most Eastern European countries.
(At least the U.S. has no territorial demands on them, and there is no apparent attempt to interfere in internal affairs. Look at Belarus.)

So the Eastern European countries chose to let the United States participate. Otherwise, Russia may forcibly "participate".

Case closed.


I can see why Eastern Europe would back the US for the reasons you cited. But that won’t apply to the Western Europe. Unlike the US, Russia is not trying to capture the countries it doesn’t see historic ties with. You won’t see Russia trying to attack England or France. It just won’t happen.



SkinnedWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2022
Age: 23
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,533
Location: China

31 May 2022, 10:15 pm

QFT wrote:
SkinnedWolf wrote:
America is better than Russia for most Eastern European countries.
(At least the U.S. has no territorial demands on them, and there is no apparent attempt to interfere in internal affairs. Look at Belarus.)

So the Eastern European countries chose to let the United States participate. Otherwise, Russia may forcibly "participate".

Case closed.


I can see why Eastern Europe would back the US for the reasons you cited. But that won’t apply to the Western Europe. Unlike the US, Russia is not trying to capture the countries it doesn’t see historic ties with. You won’t see Russia trying to attack England or France. It just won’t happen.

England and France are founding members of NATO.
Before this year's conflict in Ukraine, France and Russia actually got along pretty well.


_________________
With the help of translation software.

Cover your eyes, if you like. It will serve no purpose.

You might expect to be able to crush them in your hand, into wolf-bone fragments.
Dance with me, funeralxempire. Into night's circle we fly, until the fire enjoys us.


Last edited by SkinnedWolf on 31 May 2022, 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,754
Location: Australia

31 May 2022, 10:17 pm

QFT wrote:
SkinnedWolf wrote:
America is better than Russia for most Eastern European countries.
(At least the U.S. has no territorial demands on them, and there is no apparent attempt to interfere in internal affairs. Look at Belarus.)

So the Eastern European countries chose to let the United States participate. Otherwise, Russia may forcibly "participate".

Case closed.


I can see why Eastern Europe would back the US for the reasons you cited. But that won’t apply to the Western Europe. Unlike the US, Russia is not trying to capture the countries it doesn’t see historic ties with. You won’t see Russia trying to attack England or France. It just won’t happen.


It can't happen. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,203
Location: Queens, NYC

31 May 2022, 10:56 pm

The US was a prime impetus for the full founding of NATO in 1949. They insisted on its existence.

For two years, the “Western Alliance” did not include the US.