Or hide,not in that scenario but there's more than one dog it has to face,love pitbulls btw.
-
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!
Is Russia had right to afraid from West agenda? ?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Or hide,not in that scenario but there's more than one dog it has to face,love pitbulls btw.
Peacekeeping involves military action.
I prefer a more hands off approach.
stvdv
Veteran Member
I love "pitbulls that love me"
I have quite a few neighbors with pitbulls
All friendly, lots of barking though
You asked: "How was Russia being antagonized by USA prior to Russia's invading Ukraine?"
What time frame are you talking about? Over the past 100 years? Past 10 years? One problem with Americans is that most of us have short memories and short attention-spans - and we think everyone else in the world is just like us.
I don't see anything here to disagree wtih.
A few points:
- Ukraine is not the United States. I don't believe that we should equate loyalty to the United States with loyalty to Ukraine.
- I see no reason to attach ourselves to Ukraine any more than we should attach ourselves to Russia.
- NATO no longer has any relevance. It was ostensibly formed to prevent the spread of communism in Europe. When the Soviet Union disbanded and stopped being communist, then NATO's reason to exist was no longer valid. NATO's subsequent expansion after 1989 could not have been for any other reason other than to antagonize Russia. Why do that, especially the ideological basis for the entire Cold War was no longer relevant?
- Russia left Ukraine and the other former Soviet Republics alone after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. After 1991, there was absolutely no reason for any of these countries to feel threatened by Russia. Granted, there may have been some lingering resentments over the Soviet Union, but Russia itself withdrew from the Soviet Union. So, any resentments against Russia or its people were unwarranted and irrational.
They love barking for sure,it's part of their mission lol
It's not about a time frame, but rather events relevant to
Putin's motives for attacking Ukraine, whenever they occur.
Do you think that's an issue for anyone?
OK.
Ukraine, Finland, & Sweden might disagree.
Russia was still there, relevant history was still young,
& Russia didn't disarm its many nuclear weapons.
Besides, NATO being about cooperation, it could have
other uses.
I see another possible reason, ie, the possibility
that Russia could try expanding again.
Because history tends to repeat. To stand down
totally would require some confidence, eg, peaceful
relations lasting long enuf to appear durable.
Not quite. Russia was involved in Ukraine's
nuclear disarmament, & taking its weapons.
Again, history tends to repeat. A cautious leader
wouldn't presume a benign Russia so quickly.
(Note that Russia didn't disarm either.)
But NATO countries did start winding down.
Ref...
HOW NATO HAS CHANGED IN THE POST COLD WAR ERA
Last edited:
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I get what you are saying and that it might be important to him. But taking Ukraine in regards to hurting the west, is a poor argument. Because if we look at it, from an objective point of view, he is not hurting the west as such. If we assume he took it and it became Russian etc. I don't really think it would make a huge difference for EU in regards to our economy or security etc. As I said we support Ukraine, because what he is doing is wrong, from a humanistic point of view. But from a pure political and economic point of view it doesn't hurt us as such, if that is in fact his idea behind all this.
And him doing this has had the exact opposite effect, because as we already know, the Ukrainian president have already signed and ask EU to accept them, because they want to be part of it clearly as a result of what Russia is doing, and my guess is depending on how this end, that they will also very much like to become part of NATO and I would fully understand if there are other countries with borders to Russia that seriously considers joining NATO as a result of this or maybe find another way to improve relationship with EU. Look at the **** show, Putin has thrown Russia into.
And remember that a lot of these huge deals both from countries and companies that have invested money or bought stuff from Russia that are getting cancelled or redirected, are not just coming back afterwards as if nothing have happened, so Russia is going to face a very difficult time after this no matter what, obviously it will take some time before all these things starts to affect the average Russian citizen, but it probably will at some point.
So adding it all together if anything, what Putin have done is to give NATO, EU and the collaboration between us and the US a new boost. I mean, freaking Germany is starting to upgrade and increase their military as a result of this. UK even though they are not part of EU anymore, support both EU and the US as well, then you have Canada and countries all over the world. What Putin have done is to show his hand and in my opinion he didn't have a very strong one, compared to the rest of the world, and that is going to suck for him and the Russians, I think.
It doesn't appear to be that great of a mystery. He saw the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO as an unacceptable threat to Russia.
It would seem so. I find the rhetoric and tone of the discussions regarding this to be reminiscent of the Cold War. It was often characterized by arguments which would equate loyalty to other nations with loyalty to the United States. It also demanded ideological loyalty, with the implication that anyone who wasn't loyal to capitalism was a communist agent who took their orders directly from Moscow.
It's kind of humorously ironic in a way, considering how much people get chided and ridiculed over believing in supposed conspiracy theories. But if it's a conspiracy theory about Putin or Russia, suddenly it's taken as the gospel truth. Free tip: The rules of evidence do not change from country to country.
Are they afraid of the Comintern?
The issue during the Cold War was about communism, not Russia.
Right. And there's a possibility Britain could try reclaiming their former colonial empire.
The fact that the Russian Federation voted to withdraw from the Soviet Union was an act of good faith that they had chosen to stand down. That should have been good enough at the time. What else could they have done?
As I said to someone else about this. What if you had two gunfighters in a standoff, pointing weapons at each other? One gunfighter decides to be the one to stand down, to lay down his weapon and step back in good faith. The other gunfighter sees this, and rather than lay down his weapon, he chooses to continue pointing his weapon. That would be a treacherous and dishonorable act. Do you disagree?
I'm not seeing any arguments equating the loyalties you claim.
Links?
Dem, Pub, Green, or Tea Party...they all have their
conspiracies. They're just different boogeymen.
Of Russia.
Whether he brings back communism/socialism
or not would be a later problem...or not.
Russia was an underlying problem with communism.
Let those powdered wig wear'n unarmed goobers try.
We'll support the aboriginals to send them back crying
to their Queen & loser children.
Remained peaceful.
Deactivated more nukes.
It depends upon who deserves to win.
If the other guy is a slave trader who rapes children
& tortures cute little puppies, I'm shooting him.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
If USA's reputation has not been destroyed by Vietnam, Iraq and Libya, I am sure that Russia's reputation also will not be destroyed by incursion into Ukraine.How do I know. But he is doing so much to destroy the reputation of Russia and trash the progress that was made over the last 30 years. Not notice his authoritarian nature developing over the last 20 years - as to reducing any democracy that might have developed? He's gone rogue.
The same Gaddafi who would go to schools so he could pick out his next group of young girls to abuse?
I've noted a certain provocative tone from people displaying a "those-who-are-not-with-us-are-against-us" attitude. Some people seem to be upset when they encounter who don't hate Russia with equal ferocity as we're apparently supposed to have.
It's the same mentality that existed in the McCarthy, the same rhetoric used against anti-war protesters.
I'd rather not post any links right now. For one thing, they're scattered all over multiple threads and it would be too much work to find them. Second, I would rather just leave those comments there; I don't want to rehash anything or call anyone out at this time.
I just find it interesting that different standards of evidence are applied. The issue of double standards seems to be a common one, not just regarding Ukraine and Russia, but a great many issues, both foreign and domestic.
The fact is, countries and governments act for their own national interests, at least as much as they can with whatever means are available. We do it. They do it. Why try to deny it?
It seems clear that Putin is afraid of NATO right now, so if they join with NATO, he might see that as a threat.
Russia has had a lot of underlying problems, but looking over their history and their relationships with the rest of the world, the West seems to have viewed Russia with suspicion, even during good times. This goes back centuries. Maybe it's due to the split between the Eastern and Western Churches, I don't know.
Well, I'm sure they wouldn't try now. But my point was, anything is possible.
Are you saying that they didn't abide by the disarmament agreements?
I'm not sure what you mean by "remained peaceful."
So, that's really all it comes down to then. Our side deserves to win, just because it's our side. Their side should lose, because they're not us. Fine by me. At least that's a position to take, and it's relatively consistent.
But if we're looking at this from our side, what course of action would be best for America's practical national interests? Are we to be forever burdened with the role of the white knight, Captain America going off to save yet another damsel in distress in a world which we cannot control? This really doesn't have anything to do with Putin, Russia, or Ukraine, but it's about what America chooses to do next.
At this point, the only thing we can do now is wait and see what happens in Ukraine. If there's no plan or proposal to send troops to help defend Ukraine, then that's where it stands. From what I'm seeing, Russia is not having an easy time of it, and I sort of figured it would go like this. I didn't know for certain, but I was looking at history.
Historically, Russian attempts at conquest don't typically go well. Their major territorial acquisitions came about in the aftermath of winning defensive wars, such as the Napoleonic Wars and WW2 - all recognized through treaties signed by the major powers. Of course, they have tried to launch offensive wars of conquest, such as against Turkey, which have had mixed results. They did poorly against Finland and Afghanistan. They fought against Japan over Korea and botched it. The Crimean War was another disaster for Russia.
Poor planning, low troop morale and a fierce Ukrainian resistance. Why Russia is getting bogged down (yahoo.com)
stvdv
Veteran Member
That was all I was saying
I agree that would be a poor argument. I did not say he took Ukraine "to hurt the West" though
Not with this step.
Only Putin knows why he did this
Yes, he won't be happy with that
Yes, I also read "Ukraine demanded immediate membership to the EU". Not what Putin anticipated I guess. Karma is a *****.
Putin even said himself, before invading, that his army could not win against NATO, and still he invaded. So, he anticipated (or knew) that NATO would allow him to take Ukraine . And I'm glad they do,
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I was just watching an analyst talking about his nuclear threat, which is interesting and a bit worrying.
Analyst: Putin 'does not play the bluffing game' - CNN Video
The big question and maybe the most worrying is, whether or not he will accept an outcome that doesn't fulfill his ambitions or whether he is simply going to really crank up on it, because I think its clear by now for almost everyone, that this invasion can't have gone exactly as he planned, both military and political for himself and Russia. Is he capable of stopping or is he so determined that he want to win no matter the cost? And he is starting to really gather a lot of countries against him, just heard that Sweden is sending weapons to the Ukrainians now, they are freaking neutral for God sake!!.. I think that say something about the amount countries that simply won't accept what he is doing.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I think things have gone the way as Putin thought. US, West and NATO have not dared to intervene. Sending armaments will act against Ukraine. It will make the war more bitter, costing the lives of more men. Russia will use its armaments to the fullest extent, even probably bombing the civilian areas, till it gets what it wants - a different government in Ukraine.
stvdv
Veteran Member
The West won't stop Putin, as by now they understand why Putin invaded, and that it's no bluff those nuke threats.
So Putin wins, and shows the world their fear of him. He is a blackbelt+, they like to fight and win, and demand respect (biggy for Putin)
stvdv
Veteran Member
Nobody hopefully is crazy enough to find that out
stvdv
Veteran Member
Exactly that's what I think too. Putin has already won from his POV. The West fears him now (well, his nukes to be exact), and takes his words serious