How Odd Is Putin's Russia?

[Stevicus]

So, should Belgium and France invade Germany because hey, who knows, perhaps one day a new Hitler will show up there?

From the direction European politics appears headed, it shouldn't be discounted as a possibility. Perhaps not like Hitler or Germany, but as I said, we should always expect the unexpected and consider all possibilities and contingencies.

But just as a word of advice, if France or Britain ever ask Belgium's permission to allow them military access to build up their border defenses with Germany, let them. Belgium's refusal to do it the last time around put the Allies at a disadvantage.

Not sure what your point is. Are you trying to compare NATO countries to the Taliban an al-qaida?

Well, let's just say that I see a great deal of short-sightedness, incompetence, and inexcusable failures when it comes to our policymakers and their implementation of our foreign and military policies. And a lot of it comes from a common perception I've seen from national leaders and even those of us among the hoi polloi. That is, they look at much of the world in a way similar to the way zoologists study wildlife. I consider that to be the wrong approach. I think it's the underlying mentality and root philosophy that drives our foreign policy in such a way that it can only set us up for failure. Not necessarily now, but in the coming decades.

A re-evaluation is in order.

 

[Magic Man]

There are always ways. NATO technically is not involved in Russia-Ukraine war, but all NATO countries are helping Ukraine in their individual capacity. That makes it a NATO-Russia war. Is that any different from NATO involvement?

Yes, significantly so. The whole point of NATO not being directly involved is to not escalate things (and that Ukraine isn't part of NATO). If NATO was directly involved and fighting Russia, the invasion likely wouldn't have lasted long, and Russia would have been defeated after maybe a few months.

Which is unfortunate. The war is more than 2 years-old, a large number of Ukrainian citizens have died, injured or have left Ukraine. I do not know when it will end and will it escalate from the current situation? That is the problem in fighting someone else's war. The NATO countries are sitting pretty. Their solders are not fighting the war.

Which is the whole reason Ukraine wants to be part of NATO. So this doesn't happen.

In spite of the discussions, US has approved sending 65 F-16s from Denmark and Netherlands. Sure, Ukraine may even like supply of atom bombs, for destruction of Russia, and consequently their own destruction and that of many other countries. NATO will not agree to that.
That is the beauty of the plan. NATO does not want a Russian defeat, that could be dangerous. Russia could use nuclear bombs. NATO wants to bleed Russia, and the war to continue. And whom they should use for this purpose? Ukraine. They are not friends of Ukraine. A friend would have sought ways to end the war.
Enforcing a non-fly zone was not their plan. That would have been direct confrontation.

This apparently is popular but false all the same.. NATO can't help Ukraine by sending in their own militaries, or else they risk escalating to nukes. Ukraine is fighting for their life. NATO is helping in the ways they can. They have all sought other ways to end the war, including peace talks and sanctions on Russia. Putin doesn't want any of that. He knows NATO won't risk getting directly involved. He wants this war, and he's made it clear the only way he'll call a truce is by Ukraine giving up the land Russia's already taken and agreeing never to join NATO.

 

[Estro Felino]

From the direction European politics appears headed, it shouldn't be discounted as a possibility. Perhaps not like Hitler or Germany, but as I said, we should always expect the unexpected and consider all possibilities and contingencies.

But just as a word of advice, if France or Britain ever ask Belgium's permission to allow them military access to build up their border defenses with Germany, let them. Belgium's refusal to do it the last time around put the Allies at a disadvantage.

Belgium has a German minority at the border with the Germany.
Imagine...if the Brussels government mistreated, persecuted and killed German separatists legitimately fighting for their linguistic rights.
Germany would be so entitled to invade Belgium and to save those German people.

But the doublestandardists overcrowd the European Union: those who think, that they are God while Russia is nothing, so Russia can do nothing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those NATO countries having élites and banking groups who want to conquer Russia to steal all its resources from her.

These "elites"....do they resemble fairies or sprites....or leprechauns?

 

[Estro Felino]

These "elites"....do they resemble fairies or sprites....or leprechauns?

Ok, let's make a deal.
If I receive a document from these élites that is signed before a notary, where they attest that they are not interested in Russia's raw materials such as fuels, etc...
I will believe it.
Not until then.

 

[Revoltingest]

At present, I'm not sure there are any.

Is there a member of NATO that
previously posed a threat to Russia?

But then again, I don't have access to the same level of information that the Russians might have.

So Russians might have secret info about which
NATO country has plans & capability to conquer
the largest country on Earth?
You really believe this is possible?

One thing that comes to mind is that Snowden arrived there in 2013, a year before the invasion of Crimea. And the US government was hot to get their hands on Snowden. They were totally desperate about it, as if they had something to hide. Snowden himself said that he did what he did because he was disillusioned about the US government after having seen all the skeletons in our government's closet.

Add that to what is already generally known about the NSA, CIA, military, and other government entities, then one might surmise that the US government might not be the irreproachable paragon of virtue that some people seem to think they are.

When taking things like that into consideration, it's easy to infer why they might see us as a threat. Even our European allies feel threatened by America, believing that we're mostly just a bunch of heavily armed crazy people.



I try to look at the situation from a pro-American viewpoint, actually.

From a strictly pro-American point of view, a friendly relationship with Russia could have helped us neutralize trouble spots like Iran, Syria, and North Korea - just to name a few places. Better relations with Russia could have also kept China at bay. Now that we're practically driving Russia into the arms of the Chinese, we can expect China to get even more brazenly hostile in the future. And Russia won't behave any better either.

In contrast, adding Ukraine to our alliance only burdens it further. Ukraine can't help us against Iran, North Korea, or China. Just like South Vietnam couldn't really be an asset or help us in any meaningful way; they weakened us to the point of internal dissension and discord.

All this inventive speculation about NATO possibly
attacking Russia seems an attempt to exculpate
Russia for invading.

 

[Eddi]

Ok, let's make a deal.
If I receive a document from these élites that is signed before a notary, where they attest that they are not interested in Russia's raw materials such as fuels, etc...
I will believe it.
Not until then.

I love how you demonise some elites but make other elites your heroes

A person with any integrity would disapprove of both Western and Russian plutocrats

 

[Estro Felino]

I love how you demonise some elites but make other elites your heroes

A person with any integrity would disapprove of both Western and Russian plutocrats

Let's make a distinction.
There are "plutocrats" who nationalize raw materials so the State can purchase services, build hospitals and schools.

There are other plutocrats who want to privatize the same raw materials so they can get all the profits, that they will surely spend on disgusting stuff, in casinos and brothels.

And by the way, your country has a socialist tradition too, so you should side with me, against the élites who want it all.

 

[Eddi]

Let's make a distinction.
There are "plutocrats" who nationalize raw materials so the State can purchase services, build hospitals and schools.

There are other plutocrats who want to privatize the same raw materials so they can get all the profits, that they will surely spend on disgusting stuff, in casinos and brothels.

And by the way, your country has a socialist tradition too, so you should side with me, against the élites who want it all.

Plutocracy is always wrong be it Russian or Western

Doesn't it strike you as odd that ordinary people in the West are much better off and have far more freedoms than the ordinary folk in Russia?

Doesn't that tell you something?

Or are you going to blame that on "the banking elites"?

Your constant support for Putin is ridiculous and I don't think there is any point engaging with you, you are an apologist for the rich and powerful

You clearly favour autocracy over democracy

As such I have very little respect for you and will always think of you as being called Moscow Felino

 

[Stevicus]

Belgium has a German minority at the border with the Germany.
Imagine...if the Brussels government mistreated, persecuted and killed German separatists legitimately fighting for their linguistic rights.
Germany would be so entitled to invade Belgium and to save those German people.

But the doublestandardists overcrowd the European Union: those who think, that they are God while Russia is nothing, so Russia can do nothing.

It's hard to gauge sometimes, whether it's a matter of genuine concern for one's own nationality, or if it's just used as a convenient excuse or a pretext. The Germans used it as a pretext for invading Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Since language is the main identifying characteristic, their language groups don't entirely correspond to their actual national boundaries. Some of it may have had to do with flaws and difficulties in how the borders were drawn in the first place. That seems to be the major bugaboo in a lot of crises and conflicts. The way that they drew the borders of the African countries, in such a willy-nilly fashion, has created numerous problems for those countries which persist to this day.

Of course, as I mentioned before, America was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free (George Carlin joke), and it was from that and numerous other double standards that the tapestry of Americana was woven. Of course, it hasn't been all horrible, as American inventors invented...everything. And of course, America saved the world from evil, and since then, our mission has been to be the leader of the free world, to fight injustice, to right that which is wrong, and to serve all mankind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The whole point of NATO not being directly involved is to not escalate things (and that Ukraine isn't part of NATO). If NATO was directly involved and fighting Russia, the invasion likely wouldn't have lasted long, and Russia would have been defeated after maybe a few months.

Which is the whole reason Ukraine wants to be part of NATO. So this doesn't happen.

NATO can't help Ukraine by sending in their own militaries, or else they risk escalating to nukes. Ukraine is fighting for their life. NATO is helping in the ways they can. They have all sought other ways to end the war, including peace talks and sanctions on Russia. Putin doesn't want any of that. He knows NATO won't risk getting directly involved. He wants this war, and he's made it clear the only way he'll call a truce is by Ukraine giving up the land Russia's already taken and agreeing never to join NATO.

Two advantages to NATO there. 1. They don't have to send their soldiers in the war. 2. They do not want Ukraine to win. They want to bleed Russia. They want war to continue as long as possible. That is the plan. If Russia nears defeat, then it will use nuclear bombs.

You are correct. They will not make Ukraine a NATO member and cite the rule book. NATO is using Ukraine for their own purpose. Sanctions on Russia have not worked. Who were the mediators in the peace talks? Putin will not want arms suppliers as mediators. I do not know what Russia may finally settle for. That can only be decided across the table. Tough conditions may be for show.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is there a member of NATO that previously posed a threat to Russia?


So Russians might have secret info about which NATO country has plans & capability to conquer the largest country on Earth?

All this inventive speculation about NATO possibly attacking Russia seems an attempt to exculpate Russia for invading.

US is a permanent threat to Russia and China. The others do not count.
There is nothing secret about it. Ukraine war itself is a proof for that.
NATO knows they cannot do it. Russia has 5,889 bombs.

 

[Revoltingest]

US is a permanent threat to Russia and China.

Do US think plans to conquer them?
Or is it a threat to defend other countries against
Russia & China attacking them, eg, Ukraine, Latvia,
Moldova, Poland, Taiwan?

There is nothing secret about it. Ukraine war itself is a proof for that.

What does it prove to you?

 

[Magic Man]

Two advantages to NATO there. 1. They don't have to send their soldiers in the war. 2. They do not want Ukraine to win. They want to bleed Russia. They want war to continue as long as possible. That is the plan. If Russia nears defeat, then it will use nuclear bombs.

You said this before, and it's still false. Only a cynically anti-NATO bias would cause these claims. There's absolutely nothing to show that NATO doesn't want Ukraine to win or that they want "to bleed Russia" or that they want the war to continue as long as possible.

That is not the plan. The plan is to help Ukraine in any way that isn't likely to escalate into nuclear war.

There is no reason to think that if Russia nears defeat, it will use nuclear bombs. Them not being able to conquer another country is not likely to be something that prompts them to use nukes. If Russia was directly attacked, they might use nukes, but that's a different situation.

You are correct. They will not make Ukraine a NATO member and cite the rule book. NATO is using Ukraine for their own purpose. Sanctions on Russia have not worked. Who were the mediators in the peace talks? Putin will not want arms suppliers as mediators. I do not know what Russia may finally settle for. That can only be decided across the table. Tough conditions may be for show.

Biden talked to Putin twice before the invasion. Other western leaders did too. Putin wanted this war. He knew what he was getting into, and this suits his needs. He has no reason to end the invasion unless NATO gets directly involved. What Russia will settle for is Ukraine giving up part of its land and vowing not to join NATO. They've made that clear.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Doesn't it strike you as odd that ordinary people in the West are much better off and have far more freedoms than the ordinary folk in Russia?

We have a saying in Hindi. 'Lakshmi chalayaman hai' (Money and prosperity move their location). Today's rich may be tomorrow's poor. Look at India. At one time, Greece, Rome, Mongols, Persians were most prosperous.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's hard to gauge sometimes, whether it's a matter of genuine concern for one's own nationality, or if it's just used as a convenient excuse or a pretext. The Germans used it as a pretext for invading Czechoslovakia and Poland.

In that case it was done to lure Germany into a trap, of course.
Because it deals with the same élites.
But since we have learned to know them,...and their dirty tactics, they don't fool us anymore.

Since language is the main identifying characteristic, their language groups don't entirely correspond to their actual national boundaries. Some of it may have had to do with flaws and difficulties in how the borders were drawn in the first place. That seems to be the major bugaboo in a lot of crises and conflicts. The way that they drew the borders of the African countries, in such a willy-nilly fashion, has created numerous problems for those countries which persist to this day.

Europe is made in that way.
We can't help it. Nation states are its core.

since then, our mission has been to be the leader of the free world, to fight injustice, to right that which is wrong, and to serve all mankind.

I wonder how Americans see Europeans.
I have never understood it. As a colony?

 

[Revoltingest]

In that case it was done to lure Germany into a trap, of course.

Poor Hitler....he was just a victim.
No wonder Italy embraced him so readily.
But Italy is fickle....seeing the Allies start to
win, Italy switched sides. Such courage!

 

[Aupmanyav]

And of course, America saved the world from evil, and since then, our mission has been to be the leader of the free world, to fight injustice, to right that which is wrong, and to serve all mankind.

Very kind of you, Uncle Sam. Save, do not let Ukraine to be destroyed completely in fighting your war.

 

[Estro Felino]

Poor Hitler....he was just a victim.
No wonder Italy embraced him so readily.
But Italy is fickle....seeing the Allies start to
win, Italy switched sides. Such courage!

Because our king loved his own people.
He didn't want more people to die, that is why he immediately surrendered to the Americans.
Unlike some elitist politician who in order to win against a gigantic country, is disposed to sacrifice hundreds and hundreds of soldiers...because he couldn't care less about them

 

[Revoltingest]

Because our king loved his own people.
He didn't want more people to die....

Unless they were Roma, Jews, Allied soldiers, etc.
Italy was willing to help kill them all....until that
became risky.