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

[ImmortalFlame]

OK, I get it, Russia is such an evil empire because it was for a time a communist state, and one day it's leader woke up and decided to attack Ukraine, and the world was shocked to learn of this "unprovoked" attack. There is no sense in sharing the blame for this, it's black and white, and that's how the world works.

Are you capable of dealing with actual arguments, or just these ridiculous, childish strawmen?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am trying to play devil's advocate here, what world leader would tolerate their adversaries bringing missiles up to their border?

So, to be clear, your position is that countries have a right to determine other country's alliances and foreign policy relations. Correct?

Also, how about Russia brushing up against Ukraine's neighbours? You have no issue with Russia expanding to border the EU? Especially considering invading its neighbours is something Russia has been KNOWN TO DO?

Playing devil's advocate does not make me a Putin apologist for those of you who are intolerant of questions.

No. The constant Putin apologism and the fact that I have caught you repeating a lie that was told directly by Putin himself makes you a Putin apologist.

Putin made it clear decades ago that Ukraine was a red line as any Russian leader would, nato knew this and didn't care and now here we are.

Russia doesn't get to determine other country's alliances. As someone who claims to oppose imperialism and foreign interventionism, it seems bizarre to me that you would say that what Putin wants in relation to Ukraine's foreign alliances should have been a determining factor in their NATO membership.

However, it doesn't really surprise me. Because I know you don't actually oppose imperialism or foreign interventionism. You just hate America doing it. Every other country gets a free pass.

Nato is a war treaty as opposed to a peace treaty and now appears to be nothing more than a self fulfilling prophecy.

NATO is a defensive and reactive military alliance that has never initiated any conflict. Russia is a belligerent, military imperialist nation with a tendency over the last couple decades of invading and annexing its much smaller neighbouring states. Is it really that surprising that those states might seek NATO protection?

I never saw Russia expanding back into Europe,

Then you're not looking. Putin is a military expansionist.

in fact many countries broke away from what was the Soviet Union peacefully for the most part.

And many have been subsequently invaded and annexed once Russia was taken over by an authoritarian ethno-nationalist imperialist. Weird, that.

Some people go so far as to claim that Russia wants to expand all the way to Berlin, based on what, I don't know.

The fact that they keep invading their neighbours and seek to limit the powers of military alliances that would keep them from doing that.

How on earth can you get the impression that NATO, an organisation that has never facilitated any invasions or annexed any territory, is a genuine threat to Russian sovereignty; but RUSSIA - a country that, over the last couple decades, has INVADED AND ANNEXED MULTIPLE NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES - should be given endless benefit of the doubt as to their intentions when they seek to invade MORE TERRITORY AND EXPAND WESTWARD SO THAT THEY BORDER EU COUNTRIES.

Yes, wrong to invade Ukraine, I get that much, but what brought us to this?

Putin's imperialism.

Now that Russia is a capitalist system as opposed to communist, is the competition just too much for the west to bear? Is that why nato expanded east?

I'll give you one clue as to why NATO expanded east:

It has something to do with countries in the east BEING CONSTANTLY INVADED AND ANNEXED BY RUSSIA.

Gee, I wonder why those countries would seek to join NATO?

Must be because something something America bad.

 

[Flankerl]

You can't counter people like OP and the other one with facts.
They live in a post-factual world where they get new conspiracies on their telegram channels every day.
If you disprove one of their "arguments" they switch to another one.

They are lost and can only help themselves.

 

[Nimos]

What leader would tolerate their adversaries bringing missiles up to their border?

What do you mean, a huge amount of countries tolerate this already? Just to mention a few, all of Scandinavia, Germany, Spain, Italy (Most European countries), Canada, and all of South America, in fact, the whole world does, these missiles can fly all over so we all tolerate it. Despite that, the US have the majority of their missiles in the US and can easily hit Russia from there if they want to.

 

[exchemist]

You can't counter people like OP and the other one with facts.
They live in a post-factual world where they get new conspiracies on their telegram channels every day.
If you disprove one of their "arguments" they switch to another one.

They are lost and can only help themselves.

It's certainly true that the OP has not dealt substantively with any of the points raised in response to the opening post, preferring to introduce a series of new issues ("missiles", "evil empire", "communist" and so on) instead.

 

[Estro Felino]

You can't counter people like OP and the other one with facts.
They live in a post-factual world where they get new conspiracies on their telegram channels every day.
If you disprove one of their "arguments" they switch to another one.

They are lost and can only help themselves.

I have documents, videos attesting what they have been doing behind our backs.

They are not conspiracies.

War doesn't belong in the EU.

 

[Glaurung]

OK, I get it, Russia is such an evil empire because it was for a time a communist state, and one day it's leader woke up and decided to attack Ukraine, and the world was shocked to learn of this "unprovoked" attack. There is no sense in sharing the blame for this, it's black and white, and that's how the world works.

This conflict is black and white. Putin believes Russia is entitled to hegemonic control over eastern Europe. He believes Russia is entitled to its old empire. To take Russia's side in this you have to disregard the feelings of not only Ukraine, but every post-Soviet state. Perhaps more could have been done these past few decades to bring Russia into the western fold, but to blame the west for Putin's nostalgic landgrab is asinine.

I have said it before. This war is an old man's temper tantrum that Russia is no longer powerful enough to dictate its will over its neighbors and not because Putin actually fears a NATO invasion.

 

[lukethethird]

This conflict is black and white. Putin believes Russia is entitled to hegemonic control over eastern Europe. He believes Russia is entitled to its old empire. To take Russia's side in this you have to disregard the feelings of not only Ukraine, but every post-Soviet state. Perhaps more could have been done these past few decades to bring Russia into the western fold, but to blame the west for Putin's nostalgic landgrab is asinine.

I have said it before. This war is an old man's temper tantrum that Russia is no longer powerful enough to dictate its will over its neighbors and not because Putin actually fears a NATO invasion.

Why do you suggest the west is to blame for Putin's invasion, I'm not suggesting that so why are you? All the west did was threaten him, Putin was stupid enough to take the bait, Putin is to blame.

I'm antiwar so If you think I am taking Russia's side, then you haven't read any of my posts.

These silly notions of Russia taking over eastern Europe, where does that come from? In reality we are talking about the border moving about 150 miles. All of eastern Europe, such drama.

 

[lukethethird]

So, to be clear, your position is that countries have a right to determine other country's alliances and foreign policy relations. Correct?

Also, how about Russia brushing up against Ukraine's neighbours? You have no issue with Russia expanding to border the EU? Especially considering invading its neighbours is something Russia has been KNOWN TO DO?


No. The constant Putin apologism and the fact that I have caught you repeating a lie that was told directly by Putin himself makes you a Putin apologist.


Russia doesn't get to determine other country's alliances. As someone who claims to oppose imperialism and foreign interventionism, it seems bizarre to me that you would say that what Putin wants in relation to Ukraine's foreign alliances should have been a determining factor in their NATO membership.

However, it doesn't really surprise me. Because I know you don't actually oppose imperialism or foreign interventionism. You just hate America doing it. Every other country gets a free pass.


NATO is a defensive and reactive military alliance that has never initiated any conflict. Russia is a belligerent, military imperialist nation with a tendency over the last couple decades of invading and annexing its much smaller neighbouring states. Is it really that surprising that those states might seek NATO protection?


Then you're not looking. Putin is a military expansionist.


And many have been subsequently invaded and annexed once Russia was taken over by an authoritarian ethno-nationalist imperialist. Weird, that.


The fact that they keep invading their neighbours and seek to limit the powers of military alliances that would keep them from doing that.

How on earth can you get the impression that NATO, an organisation that has never facilitated any invasions or annexed any territory, is a genuine threat to Russian sovereignty; but RUSSIA - a country that, over the last couple decades, has INVADED AND ANNEXED MULTIPLE NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES - should be given endless benefit of the doubt as to their intentions when they seek to invade MORE TERRITORY AND EXPAND WESTWARD SO THAT THEY BORDER EU COUNTRIES.


Putin's imperialism.


I'll give you one clue as to why NATO expanded east:

It has something to do with countries in the east BEING CONSTANTLY INVADED AND ANNEXED BY RUSSIA.

Gee, I wonder why those countries would seek to join NATO?

Must be because something something America bad.

Such drama, do you take lessons?

 

[metis]

Putin started the conflict because his "approval rating" was very low, which is especially a bad sign for fascists.

 

[Glaurung]

Why do you suggest the west is to blame for Putin's invasion, I'm not suggesting that so why are you? All the west did was threaten him, Putin was stupid enough to take the bait, Putin is to blame.

The west never threatened Russia. The adversarial relationship between the Russia and the west only exists due to Russia's refusal to abandon its imperialistic ambitions over eastern Europe. Russia believes it is entitled to everything east of Germany, which is why everyone except Belarus (a Russian vassal state) wants NATO protection.

I'm antiwar so If you think I am taking Russia's side, then you haven't read any of my posts.

If you are antiwar you would unequivocally condemn Russia's invasion. Ukraine has a right to exist, and it has a right to its internationally recognized borders. Ukraine should not be carved up because the existence of an independent Ukraine hurts Putin's feelings.

These silly notions of Russia taking over eastern Europe, where does that come from? In reality we are talking about the border moving about 150 miles. All of eastern Europe, such drama.

Peace with Russia on Russia's ideal terms would mean handing over political control over all post-Soviet states. Russia sees itself as victimized insofar as Russia is denied what it considers its rightful place as the hegemon of eastern Europe. It is not the west's fault that no one in Russia's historical sphere of influence wants anything to do with Russia because Russia is a corrupt kleptocratic crony state.

Make no mistake, Putin intended to take all of Ukraine when he launched his invasion. He has scaled back his ambitions only because he learnt the hard way that he lacks to military means to actually take and hold his original goal. If you think Russia's agressive posture would cease (in the long run) if it gained the Donbas then you are quite naive.

 

[lukethethird]

The west never threatened Russia. The adversarial relationship between the Russia and the west only exists due to Russia's refusal to abandon its imperialistic ambitions over eastern Europe. Russia believes it is entitled to everything east of Germany, which is why everyone except Belarus (a Russian vassal state) wants NATO protection.


If you are antiwar you would unequivocally condemn Russia's invasion. Ukraine has a right to exist, and it has a right to its internationally recognized borders. Ukraine should not be carved up because the existence of an independent Ukraine hurts Putin's feelings.


Peace with Russia on Russia's ideal terms would mean handing over political control over all post-Soviet states. Russia sees itself as victimized insofar as Russia is denied what it considers its rightful place as the hegemon of eastern Europe. It is not the west's fault that no one in Russia's historical sphere of influence wants anything to do with Russia because Russia is a corrupt kleptocratic crony state.

Make no mistake, Putin intended to take all of Ukraine when he launched his invasion. He has scaled back his ambitions only because he learnt the hard way that he lacks to military means to actually take and hold his original goal. If you think Russia's agressive posture would cease (in the long run) if it gained the Donbas then you are quite naive.

Are you sure about this? My guess is that Russia is going to invade North America and from there South America before it moves onto bigger game. I think you ought to try to be more fearful than you are now.

 

[sayak83]

The mainstream media parroting that this invasion was "unprovoked" contradicts Jens Stoltenberg's talking points:


nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg admits and boasts about nato provoking Putin to invade here: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm?selectedLocale=en

"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 for 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. He has got more NATO presence in eastern part of the Alliance and he has also seen that Finland has already joined the Alliance and Sweden will soon be a full member."


It will be interesting to read your spin on this, so have at it.

NATO did the right thing. Why would NATO bow to blackmail from Russia? Hope Ukraine joins NATO soon.

 

[sayak83]

What leader would tolerate their adversaries bringing missiles up to their border?

China has missiles in her border with India, so does India. Israel-Egypt...the list goes on. The point of a nation state is to have independent foreign policy and Ukraine govt can choose whichever alliance it feels gives its the best chance of progress and stability. Given that Russia had already attacked Ukraine and taken Crimea, Ukraine would naturally gravitate towards NATO. Who wouldn't? No nation or alliance will ever give in to threats of war to constrain their foreign policy independence.

 

[sayak83]

OK, I get it, Russia is such an evil empire because it was for a time a communist state, and one day it's leader woke up and decided to attack Ukraine, and the world was shocked to learn of this "unprovoked" attack. There is no sense in sharing the blame for this, it's black and white, and that's how the world works.

All attacks are unprovoked attacks. It is that black and white.
I am including US attack on Vietnam and Iraq here as well.
You talked about Cuban crisis. But US did not attack Cuba. If both sides are reasonable, there is always a de-escalation solution. Putin attacked because he wanted Ukraine....everything else is just an excuse.

 

[Flankerl]

Are you sure about this? My guess is that Russia is going to invade North America and from there South America before it moves onto bigger game. I think you ought to try to be more fearful than you are now.

Yes the country that can't even conquer a direct neighbour that 10 years ago didn't even have a proper army is going to invade the Americas.

Yes.

That's going to happen.

Afterwards the moon and then the entire solar system.



Meanwhile in reality Ukraine blew up a modern Muscovite submarine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The mainstream media parroting that this invasion was "unprovoked" contradicts Jens Stoltenberg's talking points:


nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg admits and boasts about nato provoking Putin to invade here: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm?selectedLocale=en

"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 for 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. He has got more NATO presence in eastern part of the Alliance and he has also seen that Finland has already joined the Alliance and Sweden will soon be a full member."


It will be interesting to read your spin on this, so have at it.

I think your title is extremely misleading.

It should be more like: "Jens Stoltenberg explains how NATO didn't bend to Putin's blackmail"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't see how bringing missiles up to the Russian border nearest to Moscow is provocative? Interesting.

Dude...............


ICBM's in the USA, at the other side of the world, are capable of reaching Russia. And they are not just in the USA.
But a few rockets and air defense systems near its borders is "provocative"?
Get real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Western military analysts have warned for several decades that nato expansion eastward could cause a bloodbath in Ukraine and here we are. Did nato want that?

NATO didn't put a gun to anyone's head to make them join.
The countries themselves wanted to join.

That in itself should tell you how they feel about Russia and how "safe" they thought they were from it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is like someone holding you at gunpoint to mug you, and when you refuse to give him your money and he shoots you, he says, "You MADE ME shoot you! How DARE you provoke me!"



Laughable "analysis" from the Putin apologists as usual.

They live in their own little universe.

Let's also not forget that the official reason Putin and his cohorts give for the Ukrainian invasion, oeps sorry 'special military operation', has nothing to do with Nato expansion or whatever but rather a "denazification".