Is Russia had right to afraid from West agenda? ?

[Nimos]

BUT, maybe it is time to create or utilize a different defense structure that has less baggage than NATO. There is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which Russia is a current member. IF Russia makes strides toward real democracy, I think that OSCE could be the answer.

Well the problem is that Russia doesn't exactly seem all that reliable, but sure if they valued democracy and lived up to the humanitarian agreements etc. it not unthinkable. But the fact is that Russia have a very long history of extremely corrupt and poor leaders that doesn't seem to value these things and that causes an issue.

 

[viole]

Libya had no tyrannical leader.
And by the way, Italy has always guaranteed that Libya was a modern and wealthy country.

The NATO sided with the fundamentalists, instead of siding with the Libyans.

And your great man seems to be no more than a children killer.

ciao

- viole

 

[England my lionheart]

Libya had no tyrannical leader.
And by the way, Italy has always guaranteed that Libya was a modern and wealthy country.

The NATO sided with the fundamentalists, instead of siding with the Libyans.

Gadaffi not a tyrant,ok how about dictator?,please list the good things and achievements of this man.

 

[Estro Felino]

The "end of Communism in the US"?
We were never communist, so communism never ended.
We even have a Communist Party (which is small though).
I read that now as....
Hostility towards Russia began immediately after
the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's not the
history I remember after its fall. The cold war
seemed over....albeit with concern that Russia's
many nuclear weapons might not be secure.

Are you arguing that something that happened before
Putin subsequently inspired Putin to see an existential
threat from NATO? Even after Ukraine transferred all
its nuclear weapons to Russia, Putin sees Ukraine as
an existential threat?

I think you all going off topic.
The OP is speaking of what the NATO did to several Middle East countries.

I can witness what happened after the destruction of Libya. So many people started feeling resentment towards the POTUS and siding with Putin, who did not want Gaddafi to be killed.
Yea. Gaddafi was liked.
Obama confessed destroying Libya was a big mistake.

 

[Estro Felino]

Gadaffi not a tyrant,ok how about dictator?,please list the good things and achievements of this man.

He turned Libya into a modern, wealthy, efficient Arab country. He built infrastructures, he reduced unemployment to zero, he worked for social justice in all of Africa. Libya was at peace throughout decades, and Tripoli had become one of the wealthiest capitals in the Mediterranean.

 

[Revoltingest]

When the cold war ended, has there ever been a project to create a military alliance between USA and Russia?
Considering the great accomplishments done in space by shared missions?

A military alliance between USA & Russia doesn't
seem useful without some common enemy.
Cessation of hostilities is more than enuf.

 

[Estro Felino]

A military alliance between USA & Russia doesn't
seem useful without some common enemy.
Cessation of hostilities is more than enuf.

Are you serious?
So are you saying that the NATO is a pretext to keep antagonizing Russia?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you all going off topic.
The OP is speaking of what the NATO did to several Middle East countries.

I'm trying to keep you on topic, ie, Russia's
invasion of Ukraine, relevant history, &
the response by other nations.

I can witness what happened after the destruction of Libya. So many people started feeling resentment towards the POTUS and siding with Putin, who did not want Gaddafi to be killed.
Yea. Gaddafi was liked.
Obama confessed destroying Libya was a big mistake.

That is the result, in Rome. 2014

View attachment 60477

How does this relate to Putin invading Ukraine?

 

[stvdv]

I agree and that is the issue here, the trust between the 4 (3) great powers, they spend way to much time at each others throats rather than working together. But its obviously not easy when one part support very restricted freedom and the other part want as much freedom as possible.

True, even on RF we have this challenge to respect different beliefs and lifestyles

They should come to RF, here people get the chance to learn to respect different beliefs, not trying to preach to the other, nor to belittle the other's (non) faith. Everything comes down to respect in life. Each human just wants a bit of respect

I heard a few Putin speeches, and he mentioned quite a few times that the West belittled him, not take them serious, no respect and speaking bad about Russia.

Enough was enough Putin might have thought, if the West trashes us for decades, well let us behave that way. Or just let us stop those bad mouthers once and for all. Actions speak louder than words. And Putin has a few black belts, so I am surprised he controlled himself for so long.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you serious?

As a heart attack.
Perhaps you infer something I don't intend.

So are you saying thar the NATO is a pretext to keep antagonizing Russia?

No.
NATO isn't a pretext for anything.
(That's an odd use of the word, "pretext".)
It's an organization geared towards defense of member
states against post WW2 Soviet expansion. And now
it serves to defend against Russian expansion.

Whatever anyone here thinks of USA's mis-deeds
around the world, this does not defeat the argument
that NATO is useful for member states, particularly
in light of Russia invading Crimea & Ukraine, & also
threatening Scandinavian countries.

 

[Estro Felino]

As a he And now
it serves to defend against Russian expansion.

So it is still an anti-Russian organization.

I meant: it should be an organization cooperating with Russia to have peace.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm trying to keep you on topic, ie, Russia's
invasion of Ukraine, relevant history, &
the response by other nations.

How does this relate to Putin invading Ukraine?

Re-read the OP.

 

[Revoltingest]

So it is still an anti-Russian organization.
Thank you for clarifying.

That's one way to say it...if one wants to see NATO as a threat.
I see it differently....
NATO is an ant-invasion by Russia organization.
As long as Russia doesn't invade them, no problem.
They were even engaging in much commerce with
Russia...before Putin
invaded Ukraine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Re-read the OP.

I re-read it.
Your turn.

 

[Stevicus]

I would like to ask Americans this question.

Is the average American aware that an economic war (through sanctions) is going to harm European countries enormously?

Because Germany in particular depends on Russian natural gas?. But all of Europe trades with Russia...basically.

Or is the average American more inclined to think ""I couldn't care less about the European countries. "?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

The average American has been led to believe that all of this is in the name of protecting Europe. America's interests, just by themselves, are not being taken into consideration, except with vague ideological statements about it all being about "freedom" and "democracy."

 

[England my lionheart]

He turned Libya into a modern, wealthy, efficient Arab country. He built infrastructures, he reduced employment to zero, he worked for social justice in all of Africa. Libya was at peace throughout decades, and Tripoli had become one of the wealthiest capitals in the Mediterranean.

I'm not seeing rape of young girls and war crimes in your post or persecution,c'mon he was a paedophile tyrant surely.

 

[Estro Felino]

I re-read it.
Your turn.

The NATO is not an organization of equal members.
Italy and Germany have a much inferior status than others, being former occupied countries.
So they are military colonies of the US, because they cannot but obey.

And I can prove you in any international court that the NATO imposed Italy anything against her own will.

Otherwise Italy would have never okayed the Libyan disaster.

 

[Stevicus]

You've been so cagey.
That's why I asked.

Cagey? I don't think I could be any plainer.

 

[Estro Felino]

The average American has been led to believe that all of this is in the name of protecting Europe. America's interests, just by themselves, are not being taken into consideration, except with vague ideological statements about it all being about "freedom" and "democracy."

Thank you so much.

 

[Godobeyer]

Nato is a defensive organization. By definition, only ruthless attackers can fear it.

Anyway, If someone attacks a country because it expresses its sovereign right to ally itself with whomever they want, than that is wrong to attack it. Whoever does that. If the USA does that, then the USA would be wrong. But now it is Russia doing that. So, I am not sure what your point is.

do you think that something usually wrong turns right if someone else does it?

ciao

- viole

The involve of NATO in Libya to remove ,and Iraq and many places hitted , denied the fact of it's just defensive .
I believe both are wrong , Russia and NATO.
NATO said something and doing something else on ground that's what Putin said.

I would not give an exemple by install Russian missiles Mexico missiles (if Mexico allie to Russia)because it's already happened Cuba is current example.

What you suggest now ,should world involve in nuclear war because Russia invade Ukraine , because Ukraine want to be NATO member ...etc ?