lukethethird
unknown member
Perhaps you see everyone that opposes US and Nato aggression as supporters of communism and Putin?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Odd Is Putin's Russia?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Perhaps you see everyone that opposes US and Nato aggression as supporters of communism and Putin?
While I object to that, it does not justify Putin's invasion of
Ukraine, especially wiping out apartment buildings, hospitals,
theaters, civilians, etc. And then there are the war crimes.
These acts are wrong. They shouldn't be defended or excused.
I merely asked if you hate capitalism, are a commie,
& side with Putin. You've not answered.
As for your question above, no.
lukethethird
unknown member
It's far too hypocritical of us to point fingers at Putin no matter what we might think of him. I am all for Putin being tried for war crimes in an international court of law along with all the war criminals from Washington DC and elsewhere, including Ukraine.
It's not hypocritical for me, since I opposed the prior
US wrongful wars. But even for people who are
hypocrites about war, I say better late than never
to recognize how evil it is to invade another country
for conquest.
Putin is committing evil. This is not made right by
accusing other countries of having done wrong.
To demand silence & inaction in the face of Putin's
evil is itself evil.
They made a temporary alliance of convenience with Hitler, which they considered necessary for defensive reasons, especially in light of the British-French capitulation at Munich. As a strategic move, it kept the Germans 200 miles further from the Russian border. A lot of national leaders were still thinking about what happened during WW1, and the Russian leadership would have been no different. You can't really blame the Russians for the rise of Hitler or anything to do with what the Nazis caused. They were Hitler's prime target, and they lost 20 million of their people fighting that SOB.
As for your claim that NATO had no record of ever invading Russia, that may only be technically true inasmuch as you're referring to "NATO" as a singular body. But there are members of NATO who have invaded Russia in the past, including those nations which participated in the Allied intervention in Russia during the Russian Civil War. France has invaded Russia in the past. The Germans have invaded numerous times over the centuries. Even the Swedes have invaded Russia. The Poles have invaded Russia. The Turks have invaded Russia.
As an American, it's hard for me to fathom what that must feel like to one's national consciousness, to be invaded so many times like that throughout one's history. However, I can appreciate the fact that this may lead them to hold vastly different perceptions as to what constitutes an "existential threat."
It should be noted for the record that at no time has Russia ever invaded the United States. We did have missiles pointed at each other - and bombers and subs poised to launch nuclear strikes if it ever came to that. Good thing it never did. But they never made any claims on US territory, they never attacked us directly, nor did they give us any real cause to believe that they were planning to take over the United States - or even Western Europe.
Again, considering that the West had opposed the Bolsheviks from day one, as well as the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, and the perception that they had done the bulk of the fighting, suffered most of the damage, and shed the most blood in the war - along with the very real fear that the Germans could rebuild, rearm, and do it all again - don't you think it's reasonable that they had some concerns about potential hostility from the West? After all, we had guys like Patton and MacArthur openly calling for war with Russia, as well as well as total nutjobs like J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, and all kinds of other warmongering whackos and overamped "G-men" in government and politics. You don't think they had reasonable cause to be at least mildly worried about what any of these men might do?
If nothing else, when you say "NATO posed no existential threat to Russia," that requires a lot more elaboration.
That doesn't justify anything about what Russia or Putin are doing now. Putin and his regime have crossed the line, regardless of any other position they've taken in the past. None of it justifies what he and his military have done.
On the other hand, it's a fair question to ask: If NATO had disbanded - or at least not chosen to expand - would we have to worry about the "existential threat" from Russia? Could they have perceived the expansion of NATO as a hostile act which caused them to put their guard up and take on a more antagonistic position towards the West? Do you think that's possible?
What you dismiss as "whataboutism" are actually reasons why other countries might look at the U.S. and think "Hey, maybe these people aren't so nice and wonderful and freedom-loving as they would like everyone to think they are. Maybe they are an existential threat to our security."
I'm not saying it justifies anything Putin or Xi have done - or what they might be planning to do. We might be past the point of no return when it comes to those guys, but I think it's worthwhile to consider how there must have been a considerable amount of fear which allowed people like that to gain power in the first place.
It's more a matter of connecting causes and their effects - both intended and unintended. In terms of cause-and-effect, I would say Putin has turned out to be some kind of "wild card" which can't really be predicted or planned for very well - although we have to figure that it's going to happen every so often. (The pandemic might be considered another "wild card" which wasn't planned for very well.)
The direction we seem to be heading at this point is possibly a realignment of the world's geopolitics which could lead to an isolation of China and Russia, coupled against a further solidification of NATO and other nations within the Western fold. However, there are a number of non-aligned nations which haven't reacted well to Western hegemony in the past, and they might be more amenable towards relations with China and Russia. So, they won't be totally isolated.
Which was only temporary cuz Hitler welched on the deal.
Otherwise, Russia sided with Hitler in carving up ownership
of all of Europe & beyond. Russia gets no credit just cuz
their deal failed.
lukethethird
unknown member
What's worse, Putin invading a neighbouring country, or US Nato viewing this as an opportunity and escalating it to new hights of danger? I wouldn't, and haven't, chosen sides in all of this because both sides are just as guilty as the other. Listen to Zelensky, he loves this war, he's thriving on it if you haven't noticed.
This is a false choice.
Putin actually did invade Ukraine.
But your speculation about NATO is bogus.
To criticize only the side favoring Ukraine
is to tacitly take the side of Russia's invasion.
There was no way the Germans and Russians would ever agree over the long term. Both the Kaiser and Hitler wanted Russia.
Good thing for the West that the Russians and Germans were always at odds with each other. If they really had joined forces and were on the same side, we'd be living in a different world today.
In any case, they didn't carve up ownership of "all of Europe," only a part of it. In subsequent conferences, FDR, Churchill, and Stalin got together and did some further "carving up," which pretty much superseded and overrode whatever previous "carving up" was done by Stalin, making that pretty much null and void in the end.
So, yes, they get no credit for their failed deal with Hitler, but what they did since then more than makes up for it. And the other Allies agreed at the various conferences during and after the war, so that's that. The rest is history.
But we know Russia's intent at the time, which was
to cooperate with Hitler, & conquer Europe & environs.
Comporting with this was Russia's invasion of Finland.
How do "we" know their intent? It seems that their actions were consistent with a government which correctly saw Hitler as a mortal danger and was trying to establish a defensive position in anticipation of a possible war. They obviously didn't think Britain or France were strong enough to defeat Hitler, and they were in a position where they needed to buy time.
I'm not saying that Russia was right to do what they did. The invasions of Finland and the Baltic republics were absolutely wrong, but looking at it strictly from a pragmatic, strategic point of view, (however cold-blooded it might seem) it makes sense. You might say that's bad enough just by itself, and you might have a good case for that, but it can't be used as evidence of any imagined plan "to cooperate with Hitler, & conquer Europe & environs." That's a product solely of your imagination and has absolutely no basis in historical fact.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
India will stand where it needs to. Many considerations are involved in the case of Ukraine (Ukrainians brought the war upon themselves).
I don't think that is a problem. India's security does not depend on mercy of others. Of course, we will buy what we do not produce, sellers galore.
IOW, you & India support Russia's
invasion of Ukraine because....
- Ukraine deserves it.
- India needs Russia's commerce.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
In time, we will be producing all that we need.
India does not support Ukraine invasion, but is not unaware of the role NATO has played in it.
NATO sacrificed the lamb for their own hegemony as they did in other places (Yugoslavia).
Ukrainians failed to read the plot.
How independent are they now? They are in the clutches of NATO.
Last edited:
It is not overt, but rather tacit support.
Perhaps reluctant, but it is what it is.
Russia now beheading captive Ukrainians?
www.yahoo.com
Russia accused of beheading Ukrainian soldiers
You can follow today’s Ukraine-Russia war live blog for the latest updates.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
There is no encircleing at all.
Neither was there any quest.
Expansion of NATO to the east always happened at the request of the countries there. NATO never invited anybody to join.
A good question to ask is why those eastern nations are so desperate to join NATO.
Perhaps it might have something to do with some large country in their proximity which they perceive as a major threat to their sovereignty for which they seek protection from a defensive alliance like NATO?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
If France wanted it peace, it should not have fought back against Nazi Germany either?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You act as if Ukraine isn't desperately begging the US to send arms.
If it were upto Ukraine, the world would send them 100-fold that which it already received.
Nobody is "pushing" Ukraine to fight nor is nobody "pushing" weapons on them.
Ukraine is the demanding party here. It is not even receiving a fraction of what they want to have.
If it were upto Ukraine, NATO / the UN would be enforcing no-fly zones over the country and putting boots on the ground.