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

[Estro Felino]

You are really obtuse. Stubborn. Whatever the word is.
I can only repeat myself:
A democratic properly elected government is exactly what the Russians don't want to see. This is why they hate the Zelensky government.
If they had their way and their "special military operation" had gone as planned, then Zelensky would be dead, the properly elected government dismantled and Ukraine would have become a second Belarus. A corrupt regime with fake elections with Russian overlords.

You won't answer my question? Do you want Ukraine to join the European Union?
Yes o No.
It's either yes or no.

If Austria would invade South Tyrol, they would see their behinds kicked out of Nato and their butts would be whooped by the full force of NATO invoking article 5.
And if that wouldn't occur, Italians would scream horror, unjustice and murder. And they'ld be right.

And afterwards, all hell would break loose because at that point the NATO alliance would be rendered worthless and it would all come crumbling down, leaving every nation on its own island. Tensions would rise globally and the slightest spark would cause war and Europe to burn up.

This would off course never happen.

The last time a European nation invaded its neighbours, all hell indeed broke loose and it ended up in WW2.

You do not give in to aggressors. You do not let bullies get away with bullying.
The sacrifice is worth it. Only a swift punch in the nose is what stops a bully.
Bending over with your pants down, only makes sure the bully continues to bully.

With all due respect, I know my compatriots.
You're from Belgium.

And since I know the psychology of my compatriots, I am 100% sure they would never sacrifice the lives of hundreds of soldiers to get a very small region like South Tyrol. There would be a referendum, allowing the Tyroleans to choose...at the end.
Italians would never fight in an endless war, just for a land. They are not that masochistic.

 

[metis]

Simply put, the fact is that the Ukraine did not attack Russia.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Such drama, do you take lessons?

You're hilarious. You gonna actually refute anything?

 

[lukethethird]

Interview with Noam Chomsky on Ukraine from 3 months ago:

Who is responsible
0:00
hello Mr komsky nice to see you first of all I wanted to ask you about your personal attitude towards the situation
0:06
in Ukraine right now your position on this war is very much different from the mainstream in the west could you tell me
0:12
who is responsible for the beginning of the invasion first of all it's not that
0:17
different from the West mainstream not the political leaders take a look for
0:24
example at the current issue of Harper's magazine major American Magazine the
0:33
long lead article by two prominent International Affairs specialist
0:40
Benjamin shorts Christopher land about the same as my position
0:46
who's responsible for the war well for the immediate aggression of course Putin
0:54
is responsible there's no justification for aggression on the other hand if you look back
1:00
further it's a shorts and land give it a good history of this it's been understood for
1:08
30 years ever since Clinton by the top level of
1:14
the U.S Diplomatic Corps including the current CIA director his predecessors
1:23
most of the political scientists in the 1990s and since they have been
1:31
strongly warning Washington that expanding NATO to Russia's border is in violation
1:40
a firm promises to Gorbachev is reckless and provocative and they have made it
1:47
very clear the current CIA director William Burns a
1:52
Russia specialist was particularly explicit about this
1:57
that in all the years he spent in Russia as an ambassador he never met a single
2:03
person from right to left who didn't agree that
2:08
Ukraine joining NATO was an absolute unacceptable Red Line
2:14
that's Yeltsin Gorbachev liberal critics of the Putin regime all
2:23
agree on that that's been understood by Washington for more than 30 years than the
2:31
overwhelming political class has supported well they went ahead anyway
2:37
and that's backgrounds can't Overlook doesn't justify The Invasion nothing
2:45
justifies aggression but it said part of the background it kind of look this went
2:51
on to the last minute as late as January February
2:57
2022 just before the invasion the Russians were lever off but then
3:03
were still saying very explicitly a crucial issue is Ukraine joining NATO
3:10
that we cannot accept any more than Yeltsin or Gorbachev yes but you agree

My point all along is that this war could have been avoided.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Interview with Noam Chomsky on Ukraine from 3 months ago:

Who is responsible
0:00
hello Mr komsky nice to see you first of all I wanted to ask you about your personal attitude towards the situation
0:06
in Ukraine right now your position on this war is very much different from the mainstream in the west could you tell me
0:12
who is responsible for the beginning of the invasion first of all it's not that
0:17
different from the West mainstream not the political leaders take a look for
0:24
example at the current issue of Harper's magazine major American Magazine the
0:33
long lead article by two prominent International Affairs specialist
0:40
Benjamin shorts Christopher land about the same as my position
0:46
who's responsible for the war well for the immediate aggression of course Putin
0:54
is responsible there's no justification for aggression on the other hand if you look back
1:00
further it's a shorts and land give it a good history of this it's been understood for
1:08
30 years ever since Clinton by the top level of
1:14
the U.S Diplomatic Corps including the current CIA director his predecessors
1:23
most of the political scientists in the 1990s and since they have been
1:31
strongly warning Washington that expanding NATO to Russia's border is in violation
1:40
a firm promises to Gorbachev is reckless and provocative and they have made it
1:47
very clear the current CIA director William Burns a
1:52
Russia specialist was particularly explicit about this
1:57
that in all the years he spent in Russia as an ambassador he never met a single
2:03
person from right to left who didn't agree that
2:08
Ukraine joining NATO was an absolute unacceptable Red Line
2:14
that's Yeltsin Gorbachev liberal critics of the Putin regime all
2:23
agree on that that's been understood by Washington for more than 30 years than the
2:31
overwhelming political class has supported well they went ahead anyway
2:37
and that's backgrounds can't Overlook doesn't justify The Invasion nothing
2:45
justifies aggression but it said part of the background it kind of look this went
2:51
on to the last minute as late as January February
2:57
2022 just before the invasion the Russians were lever off but then
3:03
were still saying very explicitly a crucial issue is Ukraine joining NATO
3:10
that we cannot accept any more than Yeltsin or Gorbachev yes but you agree

My point all along is that this war could have been avoided.

With all due respect to Chomsky, he is just wrong about this. Once again, the argument he - and you - seem to be making is that aggressive, imperialist nations should get to dictate the terms on which sovereign countries on their borders should be allowed to enter military defensive pacts with other countries.

There was never any formal or official agreement that Ukraine would never be offered NATO membership, nor should there ever be. Ukraine is a free state, and Russia should not get to determine whether or not Ukraine is allowed to apply. Not that it matters. Despite assurances that they would not be allowed to join, Russia invaded anyway. The idea that Ukraine joining NATO was a THREAT to Russia is just a lie. It was only a threat to their intentions of annexing Ukrainian territory. As his invasion proves, he has no care about "threats on his border", or else he wouldn't be creating one. He just wants Ukraine's land.

Both you and Chomsky are, unfortunately, making the imperialist and pro-interventionist argument; that powerful states, through virtue of their power, have not only the ability but the right to determine the foreign policy of neighbouring states that might otherwise be threatened by their outright annexation.

You're doing the imperialists work for them. And I think both you and Chomsky should be embarrassed to be expressing these views publicly.

 

[lukethethird]

With all due respect to Chomsky, he is just wrong about this. Once again, the argument he - and you - seem to be making is that aggressive, imperialist nations should get to dictate the terms on which sovereign countries on their borders should be allowed to enter military defensive pacts with other countries.

There was never any formal or official agreement that Ukraine would never be offered NATO membership, nor should there ever be. Ukraine is a free state, and Russia should not get to determine whether or not Ukraine is allowed to apply. Not that it matters. Despite assurances that they would not be allowed to join, Russia invaded anyway. The idea that Ukraine joining NATO was a THREAT to Russia is just a lie. It was only a threat to their intentions of annexing Ukrainian territory. As his invasion proves, he has no care about "threats on his border", or else he wouldn't be creating one. He just wants Ukraine's land.

Both you and Chomsky are, unfortunately, making the imperialist and pro-interventionist argument; that powerful states, through virtue of their power, have not only the ability but the right to determine the foreign policy of neighbouring states that might otherwise be threatened by their outright annexation.

You're doing the imperialists work for them. And I think both you and Chomsky should be embarrassed to be expressing these views publicly.

Not making an argument, just stating the facts of what took place for the last 30 years. You see them as all lies, well that's your opinion.

 

[exchemist]

Interview with Noam Chomsky on Ukraine from 3 months ago:

Who is responsible
0:00
hello Mr komsky nice to see you first of all I wanted to ask you about your personal attitude towards the situation
0:06
in Ukraine right now your position on this war is very much different from the mainstream in the west could you tell me
0:12
who is responsible for the beginning of the invasion first of all it's not that
0:17
different from the West mainstream not the political leaders take a look for
0:24
example at the current issue of Harper's magazine major American Magazine the
0:33
long lead article by two prominent International Affairs specialist
0:40
Benjamin shorts Christopher land about the same as my position
0:46
who's responsible for the war well for the immediate aggression of course Putin
0:54
is responsible there's no justification for aggression on the other hand if you look back
1:00
further it's a shorts and land give it a good history of this it's been understood for
1:08
30 years ever since Clinton by the top level of
1:14
the U.S Diplomatic Corps including the current CIA director his predecessors
1:23
most of the political scientists in the 1990s and since they have been
1:31
strongly warning Washington that expanding NATO to Russia's border is in violation
1:40
a firm promises to Gorbachev is reckless and provocative and they have made it
1:47
very clear the current CIA director William Burns a
1:52
Russia specialist was particularly explicit about this
1:57
that in all the years he spent in Russia as an ambassador he never met a single
2:03
person from right to left who didn't agree that
2:08
Ukraine joining NATO was an absolute unacceptable Red Line
2:14
that's Yeltsin Gorbachev liberal critics of the Putin regime all
2:23
agree on that that's been understood by Washington for more than 30 years than the
2:31
overwhelming political class has supported well they went ahead anyway
2:37
and that's backgrounds can't Overlook doesn't justify The Invasion nothing
2:45
justifies aggression but it said part of the background it kind of look this went
2:51
on to the last minute as late as January February
2:57
2022 just before the invasion the Russians were lever off but then
3:03
were still saying very explicitly a crucial issue is Ukraine joining NATO
3:10
that we cannot accept any more than Yeltsin or Gorbachev yes but you agree

My point all along is that this war could have been avoided.

Yes, if Poland, the Baltic States and the rest had been prepared to accept indefinite domination by Russia, which, oddly enough, after 40 years as brutalised colonies, they were not.

 

[Watchmen]

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.

The only spin here is yours. What you’ve quoted can hardly be called “provoking.”

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not making an argument, just stating the facts of what took place for the last 30 years. You see them as all lies, well that's your opinion.

You're now deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I did not say they were "ALL lies". I made an argument that none of it leads to the conclusion that you and Chomsky want to advocate for. I never once said that Ukraine WASN'T considered a "red line" for Russia - I explicitly said that that doesn't matter, because belligerent war-mongering imperialist states should not get to dictate whether or not weaker countries on their borders should have the choice to join military alliances or not.

You claim to be an anti-interventionist and an anti-imperialist, and yet your position on this subject (and Chomsky's) is that "because Russia powerful and scary, we should allow them intervene in and circumvent the will of neighbouring countries with a view to invading and annexing them". If that is NOT your position, then how on earth would you use this argument to pin Russia's invasion on NATO or the USA for daring to allow Ukraine the OPTION to join a military alliance that would prevent them FROM BEING INVADED BY RUSSIA?

Please start trying to deal with my actual arguments and the facts I present.

 

[lukethethird]

You're now deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I did not say they were "ALL lies". I made an argument that none of it leads to the conclusion that you and Chomsky want to advocate for. I never once said that Ukraine WASN'T considered a "red line" for Russia - I explicitly said that that doesn't matter, because belligerent war-mongering imperialist states should not get to dictate whether or not weaker countries on their borders should have the choice to join military alliances or not.

You claim to be an anti-interventionist and an anti-imperialist, and yet your position on this subject (and Chomsky's) is that "because Russia powerful and scary, we should allow them intervene in and circumvent the will of neighbouring countries with a view to invading and annexing them". If that is NOT your position, then how on earth would you use this argument to pin Russia's invasion on NATO or the USA for daring to allow Ukraine the OPTION to join a military alliance that would prevent them FROM BEING INVADED BY RUSSIA?

Please start trying to deal with my actual arguments and the facts I present.

You don't have to like the way the world works, that 2+2=4. Take Mexico for example instead of Ukraine, if Mexico joined with China in a war treaty similar to nato, and China brought missiles into Mexico aimed at the US, the US would blow Mexico away and you and I know it. I'm not making an argument for it, just stating the facts, you don't have to like them. I don't like them but that's how the world works.

The fact remains that for the past 30 years warnings of expanding nato went unheeded, and these were warnings from Americans.

 

[ajay0]

This post makes me vommit.

You guys have a very weird way of interpreting pure blackmail.

The cold war may be over, but the threat of corrupt elite warhawks in Russia is very much alive. As demonstrated by their actions every day.

Is poverty-stricken Russia the world's largest arms supplier ? I have read articles a decade back of russian soldiers complaining of not getting their salaries for months, ageing infrastructure and equipment, issues of Islamic terrorism in Chechnya, brain drain to other countries and so on. Do they have the war chest for imperial expansions ? Not at all.

Ponder over this question, and you will find your doubts clearing off.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You don't have to like the way the world works, that 2+2=4. Take Mexico for example instead of Ukraine, if Mexico joined with China in a war treaty similar to nato, and China brought missiles into Mexico aimed at the US, the US would blow Mexico away and you and I know it.

The difference being that NATO is a defensive military alliance that has never started any wars that any country is free to apply to, whereas Russia is an expansionist nation responsible for invading and annexing multiple territories on its borders.

Do you or do you not agree that foreign nations should not get to determine what military alliances or treaties other countries (particularly countries on their border under threat of invasion) are allowed to join?

I'm not making an argument for it, just stating the facts, you don't have to like them. I don't like them but that's how the world works.

How the world works, according to you, is that strong countries like Russia should get to determine the foreign policy of their neighbours in order to make them more easy to in invade.

The fact remains that for the past 30 years warnings of expanding nato went unheeded, and these were warnings from Americans.

Irrelevant. Ukraine applied to join NATO. NATO didn't invade and annex Ukraine. Ukraine APPLIED to join. As is their right as a free and sovereign country. If you believe, as you claim, that countries should not meddle with or circumvent the sovereignty of other independent nations, then you should not be making excuses for Russia like this. They have no right to threaten war if a country on their border wishes to join a defensive military pact. They have no right to determine other country's foreign policy.

Ukraine applied to join NATO. Russia can swivel.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is poverty-stricken Russia the world's largest arms supplier ? I have read articles a decade back of russian soldiers complaining of not getting their salaries for months, ageing infrastructure and equipment, issues of Islamic terrorism in Chechnya, brain drain to other countries and so on. Do they have the war chest for imperial expansions ? Not at all.

Ponder over this question, and you will find your doubts clearing off.

None of this has even the slightest thing to do with justifying or excusing Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

 

[lukethethird]

The difference being that NATO is a defensive military alliance that has never started any wars that any country is free to apply to, whereas Russia is an expansionist nation responsible for invading and annexing multiple territories on its borders.

Do you or do you not agree that foreign nations should not get to determine what military alliances or treaties other countries (particularly countries on their border under threat of invasion) are allowed to join?


How the world works, according to you, is that strong countries like Russia should get to determine the foreign policy of their neighbours in order to make them more easy to in invade.


Irrelevant. Ukraine applied to join NATO. NATO didn't invade and annex Ukraine. Ukraine APPLIED to join. As is their right as a free and sovereign country. If you believe, as you claim, that countries should not meddle with or circumvent the sovereignty of other independent nations, then you should not be making excuses for Russia like this. They have no right to threaten war if a country on their border wishes to join a defensive military pact. They have no right to determine other country's foreign policy.

Ukraine applied to join NATO. Russia can swivel.

Sure Ukraine has every right to join nato, never said they didn't, but now they've been invaded for threatening to engage in that right. There is absolutely no excuse for Russia's aggression, they had no right to do that, but just the same Ukraine has been invaded because the warnings of the past 30 years regarding nato expansion went unheeded. Mexico has every right to do exactly the same by signing a treaty with China and allowing China to bring missiles into Mexico, but you know what, I wouldn't advise Mexico pursue that right. There would be nothing left of Mexico if they pursued that right. So, who put Ukraine up to this? Who is benefitting?

Ukraine has every right to pursue whatever it likes in order to serve its own interests but bear in mind that the US has the might to dictate to Ukraine how it is going to be. If you don't understand that then you must be living on Mars.

 

[lukethethird]

Is poverty-stricken Russia the world's largest arms supplier ? I have read articles a decade back of russian soldiers complaining of not getting their salaries for months, ageing infrastructure and equipment, issues of Islamic terrorism in Chechnya, brain drain to other countries and so on. Do they have the war chest for imperial expansions ? Not at all.

Ponder over this question, and you will find your doubts clearing off.

You hit the nail on the head, here is what Chomsky stated about doublethink:


you recall George Orwell's concept of doublethink

the ability to have two contradictory

ideas in mind and believe them both

that's NATO right now

on the one hand they're gloating over the fact that the Russian military is so

incompetent that they can't conquer towns 20 kilometers from the border

on the other hand they're wailing in fear about the idea that the new Peter

the Great is going to conquer Europe

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure Ukraine has every right to join nato, never said they didn't,

And yet, you seem keen to suggest that NATO oughtn't to be allowed to "expand eastward". You're clearly suggesting that Ukraine should not have been allowed to join NATO.

but now they've been invaded for threatening to engage in that right.

I agree. That's bad. Russia shouldn't do that.

There is absolutely no excuse for Russia's aggression,

Boy, I wish you'd just finish with this statement right here, but I fear you're going to go on to say something that explicitly excuses Russia's aggression...

they had no right to do that, but just the same Ukraine has been invaded because the warnings of the past 30 years regarding nato expansion went unheeded.

Boom. Bang on cue.

It doesn't matter. Russia don't get to determine that. They don't get to bully neighbouring countries and meddle in their affairs through threat of force. This is not something you would EVER countenance as being a valid argument if it were made by America as an excuse for any of its imperialist actions, so why on earth do you constantly bring it up as a rationale behind Russia's invasion?

Mexico has every right to do exactly the same by signing a treaty with China and allowing China to bring missiles into Mexico, but you know what, I wouldn't advise Mexico pursue that right. There would be nothing left of Mexico if they pursued that right.

This is just total nonsense that is not even remotely comparable to what's going on in Ukraine. I'm sick of you drawing this false equivalence when I have taken every pain in explaining to you that NATO is a defensive military pact, not an offensive arm of American imperialism. A state becoming a missile base for a country explicitly for the purpose of attacking another state is completely different to a state joining a military alliance in order to prevent themselves being invaded by another state. Nobody is threatening Russia. They're a nuclear power. The idea that Russia felt genuinely threatened by countries joining NATO is garbage, and nobody had been talking about invading Russia. Again, they're a nuclear power. That would end the world.

Once again, you express lip service to the idea of hating Putin, but you are all too familiar with - and willing to repeat - his outright lies.

So, who put Ukraine up to this? Who is benefitting?

Ukraine wasn't "put up to it". They chose to do it because they have a violent, imperialist state on their border THREATENING TO INVADE THEM.

Ukraine is benefiting, because, again, they have a violent, imperialist state on their border THREATENING TO INVADE THEM.

Ukraine has every right to pursue whatever it likes in order to serve its own interests

Another statement that you REALLY should have finished on, but yet you continue...

but bear in mind that the US has the might to dictate to Ukraine how it is going to be.

The US hasn't done that, in this case. Russia has. Russia is the one who has been using force to meddle with Ukraine's sovereignty (they LITERALLY ANNEX TERRITORY AND FUNDED AND SUPPORTED SEPARATIST MILITIAS). Weird how you only care about it when you feel America does it, despite the clear and unambiguous history of Russia being the antagonists in this case.

If you don't understand that then you must be living on Mars.

Says the guy who wants me to "bear in mind" that US is powerful and has influence, but wants me to totally forget literally everything Russia has done to Ukraine for the past two decades, and wants to suggest that powerful nations have the right - by threat of force - to dictate the will of smaller nations on their borders that they are threatening to invade.

"I'm super against powerful countries meddling with and manipulating smaller countries, that's why I think NATO should not have considered allowing Ukraine in, because Russia said they shouldn't or else they'd invade, and I somehow blame the USA for this."

Totally and completely insane and backwards.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You hit the nail on the head, here is what Chomsky stated about doublethink:


you recall George Orwell's concept of doublethink

the ability to have two contradictory

ideas in mind and believe them both

You mean, like "larger, more powerful countries have no right to meddle with or seek undue influence over smaller states" and "Ukraine should not have been allowed to join NATO because Russia was threatening it with annexation"? Those two completely contradictory positions?

that's NATO right now

on the one hand they're gloating over the fact that the Russian military is so

incompetent that they can't conquer towns 20 kilometers from the border

on the other hand they're wailing in fear about the idea that the new Peter

the Great is going to conquer Europe

Oh, for God's sake.

Your utter disdain for the lives of the Ukrainian (and Russian) people is laid bare here. Russia are LITERALLY INVADING THEIR NEIGHBOUR and all you care about is using this whole event as an exercise in how smart you think you are. The smarm and condescension in this post is palpable.

"Gee, I wonder if fearing a country that invades its neighbours might be a cause of legitimate fear and anxiety for people?.... Nah, must just be NATO propaganda LOL!"

Disgusting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You won't answer my question? Do you want Ukraine to join the European Union?
Yes o No.
It's either yes or no.

It is not either yes or no.
What I "want" isn't relevant when it comes to this. It's their own decision.
If they want to join, they are welcome - but only if they meet the requirements of joining.
A big requirement is a fairly elected government that respects secularism and actual democratic values.
If they are overrun by Russia and turn into a corrupt facistic state like Belarus, they are most definitely NOT welcome.

With all due respect, I know my compatriots.
You're from Belgium.

And since I know the psychology of my compatriots, I am 100% sure they would never sacrifice the lives of hundreds of soldiers to get a very small region like South Tyrol. There would be a referendum, allowing the Tyroleans to choose...at the end.
Italians would never fight in an endless war, just for a land. They are not that masochistic.

Would it be a sham referendum like the one conducted in donbass, or an actual one?
What if the people decide against it and wish to stay with Italy and Austria continues to force them through military presence?
What then?

 

[Flankerl]

Chomsky is still very very angry that NATO stopped the Serbs from killing all Albanians.
The man is simply a senile Tankie.

 

[ajay0]

None of this has even the slightest thing to do with justifying or excusing Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

U.S was ready to invade Cuba and go to nuclear war with U.S.S.R after the Soviets stationed WMD in nearby Cuba.

Why should the Russians, having the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons act any different when NATO is expanded to neighboring Ukraine !

Any country in the world will perceive such military expansion to its very borders as a threat .