How United States created Putin

Post Reply New Topic

Here is a video in English for you. It is made by Pozner who, while a Russian radio host, has dual Russian and American citizenship. He was critical of Putin when it comes to his internal politics (including arrest of Khodorkowski) Yet he faults America when it comes to current situation. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA1lXXyEYjI

Enough said.

The video is utter, unmitigated BS.

Both QFT and Pozner have established themselves as Soviet Russian sympathizers; and as such, will make every possible excuse for the delusional monster that is Vladimir Putin.

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.

It's simple: They supported Trump in 2016 Not because he was a great leader, or had great ideas (he had none), but for one simple reason: his opponent was a woman.

"It's not my fault! He made me do it!"
Cheap exceuse.

If the West is in any way responsible for what's happening now, it's only because it did too little about Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014 and Russian atrocities in Syria - so Putin believed he could grab for even more and no one would stop him.

I know siege mentality is common in Russia. We have a problem with it in Poland, too, especially among the older generations, and it's pretty destructive. But one's paranoia is their problem, not everyone else's fault - and it certainly does not justify attacking others.

Ummm...

I think you posted this in the wrong thread. Not sure which thread you're actually responding to. But I dont think that its this one.

Have you watched the actual video?

I admit that I personally only watched first 20 minutes of it (will watch the rest within few days) but even there he made a point how right when the cold war ended Russia wanted to work together with the west, but when the west treated it worse than it expected that is what caused the change of attitude. The few things that I saw was:

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.

2) There was an actual document, and he gave a name of that document, where it says nobody can question anything USA does, and also that other countries don't have to arm themselves since USA will "take care of things". Also that document said that they have to watch out for Russia.

3) They used Germany's defeat in World War 2 as a model of how to treat Russian defeat in Cold War.

I realize you are saying its all just excuses. But let me reiterate: right after Cold War ended, Russia wanted to work together with the West. But then when the above happened it changed its mind.



As far as Georgia, you have to keep in mind that Ossetians are ethnic Russian that actually wanted to be part of Russia. It was Georgia that was keeping them from joining Russia against their will, while they wanted to re-join.



I used to say the same thing about this too, citing the fact that Crimea was part of Russia before Khruschev. But you told me in the other thread that actually Crimea used to be independent back in revolution time and then it only joined Russia for a very brief period of time before it was passed to Ukraine. So then it is a lot less clear.

Still, though, for some reason most Crimeans did vote they wanted to be part of Russia. Perhaps during those few years it happened that people from Russia proper moved to Crimea so it ended up being inhabitted by people with a lot deeper Russian roots?

I don't know this by the way, it is just a theory. The only thing I know is they voted to be part of Russia, and that is the only theory I can come up with as to why.



Well, the fact is Russia wanted to work together with the West when cold war just ended. In fact it tried throughout the Yeltsin regime, and even first two years or so of Putin's regime. But when it was repeatedly humiliated thats when it changed its mind.

You don't know how Crimeans really voted. No independent observers were let in. But "little green men" emerged there in massive numbers and took power, using an obvious lie that "you can buy these uniforms and military equipment in any store".
That's not how you do fair politics and assure safety of people.
Same with ethnic Russians elsewhere. There are plenty of ethnic somethingers in other states and Russia is the only one that uses it as a pretext for using military forces. Everywhere else in Europe, rights of ethnic minorities are assured by diplomatic means.

Where exactly did the West treat Russia unfairy?
And how? By not giving them special treatment and expecting Russia to stand for to the same standards and procedures every other state does?

This is rather like blaming the liberals for creating Trump.

But in Ossetia Russians are not a minority: they are a majority.



Look at items 1, 2 and 3 in the previous reply.

Well, thats true too.

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.

WTF? Plenty of NATO members question what USA does all the time. Especially the Iraqi war was heavily condemned by several European NATO members.

Which parts if it? Because I didn't see Russia divided between two "spheres of influence". 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.

I do. Not because of their liberal worldview, but because of their neoliberal economics. Trump is exactly what you get, if you label a social democrat like Sanders a left extremist. Every fascism is the sign of a failed revolurion - Sanders isn't a full-blown revolutionary, and Trump isn't a full-blown fascist. But this is just the overture- I heard Pence is running in 2024

quote="Fireblossom"]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.[/quote]Well, that much is true. For a neutral country to drastically alter their stance like that, Putin must have really burnt their bridge. That he threatened them over their decision is just proof that he's 100% to blame for the rest of Europe turning their back on him.

Well said. This is why I have zero sympathy for Putin in this conflict and continue to pray that Russia loses. Well, that and Russia winning would be bad for the world, so they need to lose.

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?

Did Russia by any chance support this because it was hoping to join? In this case I would still say Russia was misled. Not lied to directly since nobody promised it to join, they said they will think about it. But still it was operating under a false hope.

By the way I am not sure why Russia wanted to join NATO anyway if the express purpose of NATO is to oppose Russia. Its like Russia opposing itself.



It is Wolfowitz doctrine (see 16:45 of the video). And he mentioned not questioning the USA at 17:15 of the video.



He mentioned Germany analogy in 14:15



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.

By the way, I don't agree with Putin wanting to demilitarize Ukraine either. I would have liked what he said better if he were to cross out the demilitarization bit. I am thinking more of Kievlian Rus which implies being united as one country. But if it is truly united why would one part of the country want to "demilitarize" the other part? If Ukraine is demilitarized then its not a true partnership any more.

By the same token, I don't want Russia demilitarized either. If there was a partnership between Russia and USA (see 13:17 of the video) where neither side is demilitarized, that would be a good thing. But if the relationship is based on demilitarization of Russia, then its no longer partnership, it is a humiliation. Now, if both sides were to demilitarize at the same rate by mutual agreement, then its fine its not humiliating. But if its only Russia that is supposed to demilitarize as a side that lost cold war then yes it is humiliating.

So I think it is both unfair of USA to try to demilitarize Russia and its also unfair of Russia to try to demilitarize Ukraine. But I think the latter is a reaction to the former. Kind of like if a strong kid bullies a weaker kid, then the weaker kid would find even weaker one to bully in order to reassert their ego. One does not justify the other, but it is still true that it caused it.

P.S. I also heard in 14:21-25 of the video that America was de-militarizing the Allies countries, such as Britain and France, just for the fact that France was occupied by Germany and Britain was not even occupied just badly hurt. That is ridiculous. Those countries were actually on the same side, why punish them for getting hurt?!

Last edited by QFT on 30 May 2022, 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.