The NATO

[Wandering Monk]

Ahhhh, now I'm starting to understand your position a little better.

You think Putin is appointed by God. That explains a lot.

There are videos of Putin lambasting LGBTQ as a sign of Western decadence, of him claiming that Christendom is under attack, that Russia is defending Christianity etc. He is blatantly co-opting Christianity to get Christians to support him. He has succeeded it seems with some of them here on RF, the MAGA world, and other Christians in Europe. The head of the Orthodox Church in Russia is beating the drum for Putin.

This is reminiscent of how Hitler co-opted the Lutheran churches in Germany prior to WWII which resulted in the formation of the Deutsche Christen organization. This co-opting of the church was vehemently opposed by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was later charged by the Nazis with being part of a plot to kill Hitler and later executed by the Nazis.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yeah, that is true. Israel is an example. That is why we too had to develop nuclear weapons. We had no other option..

You did actually. You could trust in God.

I remember a British politician saying that they wouldn't renew Trident .. "we can't use nuclear weapons anyway .. they are not lawful by international treaty or on moral grounds"
An eye for an eye, eh?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If Allah did not want Putin to rule Russia, Putin would not have lasted even for 5 minutes ("lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata ʾillā bi-llāhi").

..and that's the thing about Qadr .. it doesn't mean that everything that happens is what "Allah wants".
It's what Allah, the Most High, allows.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not all that happens in the world can be justified.

That's for sure.
..but two wrongs don't make a right.

..and invasion of a sovereign nation is a big wrong, unless attacked first.
If Russia or China was "chipping away" at your borders, you might not feel so comfortable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I know the Libyan matter in detail..

It doesn't sound like it.
You need to quote from wiki, to convince me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You did actually. You could trust in God.

I remember a British politician saying that they wouldn't renew Trident .. "we can't use nuclear weapons anyway .. they are not lawful by international treaty or on moral grounds"

No God, therefore, no trust in any God. UK might need it soon if things go wrong.

It's what Allah, the Most High, allows.

Very kind of him to allow wars and atrocities, disasters and diseases. Kindly convey my thanks to the old ogre.

 

[Aupmanyav]

..and invasion of a sovereign nation is a big wrong, unless attacked first.
If Russia or China was "chipping away" at your borders, you might not feel so comfortable.

Sure, that is happening and we are not comfortable with it. The word 'attack' can be defined in many ways. It is not limited to marching of soldiers into foreign territory. For example, terrorism in India (or in US, 9/11) is a proxy war by enemies of the nation.

 

[ajay0]

Which is, again, their right as sovereign nations. Also, Ukraine would not have met the requirements to join NATO due to its internal issues. By invading Ukraine, all Russia has really done is proven how necessary NATO membership is for its' neighbours.

What are the requirements that Ukraine does not meet that prevents it from joining NATO !!

 

[Estro Felino]

What are the requirements that Ukraine does not meet that prevents it from joining NATO !!

Is Ukraine a democratic country?
Watching this video, it seems to me that some Deep State overseas went to colonize it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What are the requirements that Ukraine does not meet that prevents it from joining NATO !!

Generally speaking, NATO does not allow new members to join if they are experiencing a significant amount of internal conflict. Since the refusal to join NATO by Viktor Yanukovych and the subsequent unrest, protests and actions of numerous separatist groups in Ukraine, it's understandable that Ukraine would have difficulty applying. The same thing happened with numerous other countries, who were also denied membership on the basis of sections of the country being controlled by separatist groups, such as what happened in Moldova.

 

[ajay0]

Generally speaking, NATO does not allow new members to join if they are experiencing a significant amount of internal conflict. Since the refusal to join NATO by Viktor Yanukovych and the subsequent unrest, protests and actions of numerous separatist groups in Ukraine, it's understandable that Ukraine would have difficulty applying.

Then why does not NATO emphasize this fact that they are not interested in taking Ukraine in on account of its internal issues.

This would have resolved this issue in the beginning itself.

If this is indeed true, Russia would have probably minded its own business with Putin enjoying himself posing as usual with his shirtless macho pictures in jeans imitating his hollywood cowboy heroes, and so on, and other nonsense.

There was no need for him to launch an expensive invasion jeopardising his own finances and Rusia's finances.

Similarly middle-class and poor europeans having fuel shortages and inflation due to Russian blockage of gas and oil, would have cause to cheer if this war had not happened.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then why does not NATO emphasize this fact that they are not interested in taking Ukraine in on account of its internal issues.

Do they have to? Speaking diplomatically, "We will not accept this nation because we doubt their ability to self-govern" is not exactly a good signal to send out, and since NATO has an open door policy dependent on the vote of the existing members it would be a bit geo-politically awkward for NATO to announce "Sorry, Ukraine, Spain and Denmark really wanted you in, but it turns out the UK, France and Lithuania think you can't keep control of your own country - better luck next time!"

This would have resolved this issue in the beginning itself.

If this is indeed true, Russia would have probably minded its own business with Putin enjoying himself posing as usual with his shirtless macho pictures in jeans imitating his hollywood cowboy heroes, and so on, and other nonsense.

This assumes that NATO membership is actually the issue. It isn't. Putin always wanted Ukraine, NATO membership was just a pretext - and the only reason NATO membership would have posed any threat to Russia is because becoming a member of NATO would have made it impossible for him to invade Ukraine. Putin has been offered assurances that Ukraine will not join NATO, and these overtures were rejected.

He wants Ukraine. Please don't believe the flimsy pretext for this war that Russia desperately wants you to believe

There was no need for him to launch an expensive invasion jeopardising his own finances and Rusia's finances.

I agree, there wasn't. And NATO had nothing to do with it. Russia has been trying to control Ukraine for years and has a history of invading its neighbours even without a NATO-related pretext. Military expansionism is just a thing Putin does. NATO is only a threat to him because it's a threat TO his military expansionism.

Similarly middle-class and poor europeans having fuel shortages and inflation due to Russian blockage of gas and oil, would have cause to cheer if this war had not happened.

Russia started it. So the fault lies with them.

 

[ajay0]

I agree, there wasn't. And NATO had nothing to do with it. Russia has been trying to control Ukraine for years and has a history of invading its neighbours even without a NATO-related pretext. Military expansionism is just a thing Putin does. NATO is only a threat to him because it's a threat TO his military expansionism.

Russia started it. So the fault lies with them.

Which country did Russia invade (without a NATO-related pretext ) other than Georgia and Ukraine , both of which had been due to their proximity to NATO and their border areas with Russia!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which country did Russia invade (without a NATO-related pretext ) other than Georgia and Ukraine , both of which had been due to their proximity to NATO and their border areas with Russia !

Transnistria - Wikipedia
Abkhazia - Wikipedia

Again, "proximity to NATO" is a BS excuse. Russia themselves have suggested joining NATO. The only threat NATO poses to Russia is that NATO protects Russia's neighbours from being interfered with or flat-out invaded by Russia. That's it. NATO never has been an offensive organization - it is defensive and reactive. Russia does not oppose them because they pose a threat to its borders; Russia is a nuclear superpower (well... maybe not so much any more). Any threat to its borders can be nullified by nuclear deterrence. NATO have never tried - and never made any moves towards - encroaching on sovereign Russian territory.

Is it really so surprising that Russia's neighbours want to join NATO when Russia is constantly occupying and annexing their territory, and interfering with their governments? That is their right as free states to do. If Russia wasn't making every effort to make it in their best interests to join NATO, maybe they wouldn't join. But they WANT to join because Russia poses a threat to them and NATO offers them protection.

Not that any of this matters. NATO is not the issue in this war - Russia is. This war started because of Putin's territorial ambitions, which is something Putin himself has been very clear about since the beginning of his government; to restore Soviet borders. He will say anything to justify that, from falsely claiming Nazis control Ukraine to claiming "NATO started it" by somehow forcing Ukraine to... want to join it?

Please don't swallow the propaganda.

 

[Estro Felino]

Similarly middle-class and poor europeans having fuel shortages and inflation due to Russian blockage of gas and oil, would have cause to cheer if this war had not happened.

The European Left is a Left made up of very elitist people. Of lounge-loving intellectuals who restlessly focus on other countries' leaders, disregarding those of their own countries.
Most of them are wealthy so they couldn't care less if the European middle class or the proletariat suffer because of the rising cost of energy or fuel shortage.
They couldn't care less because that doesn't affect their wealth.
They don't care about the populace...whom they despise.
Yet they call themselves Left. It's like Linda Lovelace were called Immaculate, Virgin and Martyr. Amen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The European Left is a Left made up of very elitist people. Of lounge-loving intellectuals who restlessly focus on other countries' leaders, disregarding those of their own countries.
Most of them are wealthy so they couldn't care less if the European middle class or the proletariat suffer because of the rising cost of energy or fuel shortage.
They couldn't care less because that doesn't affect their wealth.
They don't care about the populace...whom they despise.
Yet they call themselves Left. It's like Linda Lovelace were called Immaculate, Virgin and Martyr. Amen.

Ah yes, "the left", well known for being exclusively comprised of wealthy aristocrats, corporatists and billionaires.

Whereas the scrappy, working-class right wing...

Estro, please ditch the whole "elites" euphemism. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you just use it as a catch-all term for a group you can't even properly define.

 

[ajay0]

Transnistria - Wikipedia
Abkhazia - Wikipedia

Both these countries seems to be independent countries that broke away with Russian support. These kind of events happen around other large nations too, such as China and other countries you have even mentioned.

I am not condoning Russia here, but they do not amount to an invasion like that of Georgia and Ukraine on account of NATO proximity.

I would say that the latter could have been avoided if NATO had admitted Russia into its ranks.

The issue right now is possible confrontation between nuclear-armed Russia and U.S-NATO, which can disastrous for both sides.

I am saying that UN should have identified these regions as potential troublesome and instituted mechanisms to solve any disputes with diplomacy and negotiation so as to nip issues in the bud itself .

 

[Estro Felino]

Estro, please ditch the whole "elites" euphemism. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you just use it as a catch-all term for a group you can't even properly define.

Do you expect me to say that the Rothschilds are poor and in need?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Both these countries seems to be independent countries that broke away with Russian support.

They are Russian-occupied territories.

These kind of events happen around other large nations too, such as China and other countries you have even mentioned.

Yeah, belligerent authoritarian regimes tend to enjoy interfering with and occupying territory.

I am not condoning Russia here, but they do not amount to an invasion like that of Georgia and Ukraine on account of NATO proximity.

I am assuming there is a typo in this sentence, because you appear to be agreeing with me. Yes, Russia do not mount invasions because of NATO proximity. They mount invasions because they want land and resources and Putin is an expansionist who seeks to restore Soviet borders and exert control over neighbouring territory.

I would say that the latter could have been avoided if NATO had admitted Russia into its ranks.

No nation is entitled to NATO membership, and since Russia keeps annexing territory and threatening (and engaging in) war with its neighbours, I think it would not be in NATO's best interest to have Russia be a member. It's a bad look.

Why are you so desperately keen to shift all of the burden of this conflict on to NATO?

The issue right now is possible confrontation between nuclear-armed Russia and U.S-NATO, which can disastrous for both sides.

I agree, that is an issue. Russia can easily resolve this, though, by leaving Ukraine. Since it invaded Ukraine, we can assume that Russia is willing to disregard a potential disasterous outcome for its own part. If they really wanted to avoid that, they would not have invaded. This is basically something called "cry bullying", when you do something wrong, someone comes along and tells you not to do it (or you begin to face consequences for your behaviour) and you cry about it and pretend that the inevitable consequences of your actions are an example of YOU being the victim. That's what Russia in engaged in right now.

I am saying that UN should have identified these regions as potential troublesome and instituted mechanisms to solve any disputes with diplomacy and negotiation so as to nip issues in the bud itself .

People keep saying this as if Putin would have been happy with a gift basket or a head pat or something.

Putin CHOSE to invade. That's what he wanted. That's what he has wanted for years: control of Ukraine.

He is CURRENTLY invading.

If Putin wants peace, he can LEAVE Ukraine.

What offer do you possibly think could be made to please Putin? Assurance that Ukraine won't join NATO? Already made the offer and he rejected it. Assurance NATO will not form agreements with neighbouring states? Not gonna happen - countries are free to join if they want to and to impede that process breaks international laws that Russia itself agreed to. Annexing part of sovereign Ukrainian territory? Also not gonna happen - countries don't get to steal land from their neighbours without consequence or global politics is basically just a joke.

It is becoming extremely clear that what Putin wants is to control Ukraine. They are no longer engaging in peace talks. They are currently arming their own populace to fight this war. They are arresting protesters who oppose the war. They staged phony referendums to try and justify annexing Ukrainian territory. They have repeatedly lied about the reasons for invading: from claiming there were Nazi atrocities being carried out by the Ukrainian government, to all this nonsense about NATO and claiming Ukraine is basically just another part of Russia anyway. They have made it clear that, no matter what, their intentions were to invade and occupy Ukraine, and they would fabricate any possible pretext to do that. They are the aggressor, they started the invasion, they want the land.

Why do people not get that appeasing them is not the way to go?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you expect me to say that the Rothschilds are poor and in need?

Ahh, the Rothschilds. Subject of many an obviously antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Care to drop any other names?