nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg admits and boasts about nato provoking Putin to invade

[Flankerl]

What if the locksmith, eyeing business profits, decided to provoke the neighbor to kick your door in !

Except that the locksmith did not do that.

But I wish to tankies what they love to see happen in Ukraine.

 

[ajay0]

The last thing western countries want is another drain on their economies, when they are trying to repay the debts incurred during the pandemic and finance the huge changes needed to address climate change. But they have to support Ukraine, or Putin will try to lop and/or intimidate more chunks of Europe.

You are talking about the western public. I have highlighted the woes of the western public but none of the posters seemed interested in the theme.

It is the capitalists that are centre-stage in the west, notwithstanding tall claims of 'democracy'. The sophisticated media controlled by them can churn narratives that can turn even a tramp or homeless guy into a bitter opponent of Russia thousands of miles away, and would call for aid and weapons to be diverted to Ukraine at their own expense of inexpensive healthcare, housing, education and other amenities needed for civilized life.

More weapons sales means more profits for the military industrial complex capitalists who are laughing all the way to the bank , passing by the same homeless guys and tramps on the road.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are talking about the western public. I have highlighted the woes of the western public but none of the posters seemed interested in the theme.

It is the capitalists that are centre-stage in the west, notwithstanding tall claims of 'democracy'. The sophisticated media controlled by them can churn narratives that can turn even a tramp or homeless guy into a bitter opponent of Russia thousands of miles away, and would call for aid and weapons to be diverted to Ukraine at their own expense of inexpensive healthcare, housing, education and other amenities needed for civilized life.

More weapons sales means more profits for the military industrial complex capitalists who are laughing all the way to the bank , passing by the same homeless guys and tramps on the road.

There are also corporations that financially benefit whenever there is a humanitarian crisis and we have to pay to send aid abroad. You would not use this same logic to imply those corporations are somehow complicit in the crisis or that we should not send aid just because it benefits them.

So, what are you arguing? That arms or aid shouldn't be sent? That, because people are profiting, these wars or humanitarian crises can and should be blamed on them?

Or do you think all this virtue signalling is just a distraction to avoid the actual perpetrators and the actual victims, here? I care significantly less about billionaires financially profiting off of war than I do about the Ukrainian people being invaded and the Russian soldiers invading them. You want us to take guns out of the hands of Ukrainians because it's bad that someone, somewhere, profited from that exchange? Or do you think that, maybe, the material reality of this situation matters just a bit more than the vague principles regarding war profiteering?

"Oop, sorry, we can't have people benefit from war - that's against our principles - so you Ukrainians will just have to suffer and die. But don't worry! You'll be dying for the glorious and noble purpose of making sure people I dislike get less money, so it will all be worth it in the end!... I suppose, until Russia rolls over you and starts threatening the borders of OTHER states and starting more wars... But we'll just refuse to send them weapons, too. This will all totally work out!"

 

[ajay0]

There are also corporations that financially benefit whenever there is a humanitarian crisis and we have to pay to send aid abroad. You would not use this same logic to imply those corporations are somehow complicit in the crisis or that we should not send aid just because it benefits them.

Nothing wrong in sending aid in case of a humanitarian crisis.

But intentionally engineering a crisis so that companies earn profits from sending crisis management supplies and logistics, is not obviously morally sound.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nothing wrong in sending aid in case of a humanitarian crisis.

But intentionally engineering a crisis so that companies earn profits from sending crisis management supplies and logistics, is not obviously morally sound.

Except the crisis was not engineered and you have never once produced a shred of credible evidence that it was. Russia's antagonism and interventionism with its neighbouring states has been ongoing for decades without any outside provocation.

Is your conclusion that we therefore should not be assisting Ukraine with arms?

 

[ajay0]

Then it's still your neighbour's fault for being easily provoked. Particularly if, prior to provocation, they repeatedly threatened to smash your door in and made repeated and very overt efforts to do so over and over again.

Not that it matters. They were not provoked.

Except that the locksmith did not do that.

But I wish to tankies what they love to see happen in Ukraine.

The locksmith is very clever indeed. My respects.

 

[Glaurung]

Russia's invasion being a western capitalist conspiracy is the most desperate claim I have seen.

Russia didn't choose to invade, it was provoked by the western capitalists!
The Ukrainians haven't chosen to defend their country from an unjust invasion, they're rubes being brainwashed by the western capitalists!

You three can make all the excuses for Russia's murderous warmongering all you want. When this is over you will have to live with the fact that you made excuses for a fascist regime. And I don't use the F-word lightly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The locksmith is very clever indeed. My respects.

So... That's it? You just get to claim whatever you want, without evidence?

 

[metis]

so Nato got the war they wanted

NATO was and is a defensive organization.

I'm antiwar,

As I am, which is why I felt even early on that the Ukrainians would be better off using non-cooperative non-violence.

 

[Flankerl]

You know it's bad when a poem from 106 years ago already showed how the nations who had to live under Muscovian control felt and that the entire sentiment only got worse with the following 106 years.

Between 1989 and 1991 the Baltic States

and Poland

achieved their independence from Moscovy,

and Ukraine is finally in the process of doing the same.

 

[lukethethird]

This explains the situation in a nutshell. Profits for the military-industrial complex without involving western troops as their high casualties would create anti-war movements at home leading to ending the war. Ukrainian lives lost would not be an issue as that could instead inflame sentiment for the war to continue and prop up weapons sales.

Yes, and it is obviously working considering the cheerleaders behind this effort, and the prize is Russia because Russia has vast resources. The US wants Putin out because they can't control him as they could Yeltsin. Yeltsin was a pushover and that's the type of leader they want. The US tossed out the Ukrainian leader that favoured Russia in 2014 and replaced him with a president of their choosing, one favouring the west. If you watch the first minute of confessions of a financial hitman you'll learn how it is done, and following there is a whole rundown of the many governments that were subverted by the US one way or another.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, and it is obviously working considering the cheerleaders behind this effort, and the prize is Russia because Russia has vast resources. The US wants Putin out because they can't control him as they could Yeltsin. Yeltsin was a pushover and that's the type of leader they want. The US tossed out the Ukrainian leader that favoured Russia in 2014 and replaced him with a president of their choosing, one favouring the west. If you watch the first minute of confessions of a financial hitman you'll learn how it is done, and following there is a whole rundown of the many governments that were subverted by the US one way or another.

They can't bear that the Russian State basically owns, either directly or indirectly the entire supply of natural gas and the entire banking system.

They want it all.
Grab all, lose all....is a proverb from my country.

 

[lukethethird]

NATO was and is a defensive organization.

As I am, which is why I felt even early on that the Ukrainians would be better off using non-cooperative non-violence.

Nato bombed Libya among other countries and that country has been torn apart ever since.

 

[Estro Felino]

Russia's invasion being a western capitalist conspiracy is the most desperate claim I have seen.

Russia didn't choose to invade, it was provoked by the western capitalists!
The Ukrainians haven't chosen to defend their country from an unjust invasion, they're rubes being brainwashed by the western capitalists!

You three can make all the excuses for Russia's murderous warmongering all you want. When this is over you will have to live with the fact that you made excuses for a fascist regime. And I don't use the F-word lightly.

Specify.
These Western Capitalists don't live in Europe.
But across the Ocean.
Buzz Soros and Nuland for more information.

 

[Flankerl]

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973), in response to events during the 2011 Libyan civil war. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity' ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Muammar Gaddafi regime and its supporters."[23]

14 of (then) 28 NATO member states took part in the UN sanctioned intervention as well as 4 other non-NATO countries.

Cry.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, and it is obviously working considering the cheerleaders behind this effort, and the prize is Russia because Russia has vast resources.

Baseless nonsense. Russia is not under threat of invasion. It's delusional to suggest a nuclear power is even remotely likely to be under genuine threat of invasion.

***STAFF EDIT***

 

[lukethethird]

NATO KNEW TERRORISTS WOULD GAIN FROM TOPPLING GADDAFI​

Nato knew terrorists would gain from toppling Gaddafi

 

[metis]

Nato bombed Libya among other countries and that country has been torn apart ever since.

And what was the reason for that? Maybe read here: 2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia

BTW, I did not support that action.

 

[metis]

Buzz Soros and Nuland for more information.

Can you link us to the supposed Soros connection on this?

 

[lukethethird]

"So, he [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”

"According to the U.S. government and the ever-obsequious New York Times, the Ukraine war was “unprovoked,” the Times’ favorite adjective to describe the war. Putin, allegedly mistaking himself for Peter the Great, invaded Ukraine to recreate the Russian Empire. Yet last week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg committed a Washington gaffe, meaning that he accidentally blurted out the truth." Jeffrey Sachs

​

Stoltenberg’s revealing words:

“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”

"To repeat, he [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
When Prof. John Mearsheimer, I, and others have said the same, we’ve been attacked as Putin apologists. The same critics also choose to hide or flatly ignore the dire warnings against NATO enlargement to Ukraine, long articulated by many of America’s leading diplomats, including the great scholar-statesman George Kennan, and the former U.S. ambassadors to Russia Jack Matlock and William Burns.

Burns, now C.I.A. director, was U.S. ambassador to Russia in 2008, and author of a memo entitled “Nyet means Nyet.” In that memo, Burns explained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the entire Russian political class, not just Putin, was dead-set against NATO enlargement. We know about the memo only because it was leaked. Otherwise, we’d be in the dark about it." Jeffrey Sachs, CN


I've been saying the same thing all along as Stoltenberg just admitted, and I too have been called a Putin apologist, go figure.