What is the NATO?

[Regiomontanus]

So do Ukrainians.

The difference is that one bear has nukes. The other only has the non-nuclear weapons our tax dollars are buying for them (and we are only giving them enough to have a stalemate). I hope everyone understands that Ukraine will NEVER get all of their land back. Not saying that is right or just, just that Russia has lost too much to back down. IMHO.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ukraine is just a pawn.
Americans couldn't care less about Ukraine

 

[lukethethird]

What exactly did the west do to poke the bear? Ukraine said they wanted to join NATO. NATO didn't even say they'd accept them. Again, this is why we point out that you defend Russia. Putin wanted this. Putin instigated this. Putin escalated this. Putin carried this out. There was no provocation and no poking the bear. The only one close to doing that is Putin.

How is poking the bear defending Russia? It doesn't get Russia off the hook, so why are you obsessed with declaring the west's righteousness in all of this, as if they never provoked a war before?

 

[Regiomontanus]

..., so why are you obsessed with declaring the west's righteousness in all of this, as if they never provoked a war before?

Yes. Look at all of the wars in the last 75 years. "The west" (USA and the UK, mostly) have been the primary war mongers. God bless America?

 

[Magic Man]

How is poking the bear defending Russia?

Because it plays inaccurate blame on others.

It doesn't get Russia off the hook, so why are you obsessed with declaring the west's righteousness in all of this, as if they never provoked a war before?

It's always interesting to watch all of the fallacies used. I'm not obsessed with declaring the west's righteousness, and whether or not they've provoked war before is irrelevant. That's whataboutism.

All I'm doing is keeping things factual. The only way you can say there was any provocation from anyone other than Russia is to say that Ukraine's declaration of their desire to join NATO was provocation. It's silly to call that such. Putin wanted this. He instigated it and carried it out. He's responsible. If anything, he's poking the bear. In this situation he's responsible, not the west or Ukraine.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that when this happened, also thanks to Berlusconi, some warmonger from that elitist gang had a fatal heart attack.

NATO and Russia getting closer, 2002.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=320923923552054

 

[Regiomontanus]

Because it plays inaccurate blame on others.

It's always interesting to watch all of the fallacies used. I'm not obsessed with declaring the west's righteousness, and whether or not they've provoked war before is irrelevant. That's whataboutism.

All I'm doing is keeping things factual. The only way you can say there was any provocation from anyone other than Russia is to say that Ukraine's declaration of their desire to join NATO was provocation. It's silly to call that such. Putin wanted this. He instigated it and carried it out. He's responsible. If anything, he's poking the bear. In this situation he's responsible, not the west or Ukraine.

"Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party. They claim the United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification. In this view, Russia is being forced to forestall NATO’s eastward march as a matter of self-defense.


The West has vigorously protested that no such deal was ever struck. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise. Although what the documents reveal isn’t enough to make Putin a saint, it suggests that the diagnosis of Russian predation isn’t entirely fair. Europe’s stability may depend just as much on the West’s willingness to reassure Russia about NATO’s limits as on deterring Moscow’s adventurism."

Op-Ed: Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise

Moscow solidified its hold on Crimea in April, outlawing the Tatar legislature that had opposed Russia’s annexation of the region since 2014.

www.latimes.com

No formal agrement, just a diplomatic 'handshake.' Madeline Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski's legacy: war, death, suffering. And we must include Clinton, the Bushs, and Obama (aka the drone dude) to the list, of course.

 

[Magic Man]

"Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party.

I don't doubt that. We're getting the story according to Moscow from plenty others here. I'm only interested in the real story, not Russia's skewed version. Why wouldn't NATO allow countries in Eastern Europe in anyway, if they wanted to join? That doesn't make sense.

 

[lukethethird]

Because it plays inaccurate blame on others.

It's always interesting to watch all of the fallacies used. I'm not obsessed with declaring the west's righteousness, and whether or not they've provoked war before is irrelevant. That's whataboutism.

All I'm doing is keeping things factual. The only way you can say there was any provocation from anyone other than Russia is to say that Ukraine's declaration of their desire to join NATO was provocation. It's silly to call that such. Putin wanted this. He instigated it and carried it out. He's responsible. If anything, he's poking the bear. In this situation he's responsible, not the west or Ukraine.

Russia was provoked but that doesn't make Putin any less a war criminal than he is. You have no idea what a threat it is to have a gun pointed at your face at close range. Moving NATO into Ukraine was understood to be a red line, the west knew this and that is why they did it. Ukraine is now a de facto NATO member and Russia is dealing with it through aggression and that is what the west always wanted, a proxy war with Russia so that they can weaken it.

 

[Magic Man]

Russia was provoked

They were not.

but that doesn't make Putin any less a war criminal than he is. You have no idea what a threat it is to have a gun pointed at your face at close range. Moving NATO into Ukraine was understood to be a red line, the west knew this and that is why they did it. Ukraine is now a de facto NATO member and Russia is dealing with it through aggression and that is what the west always wanted, a proxy war with Russia so that they can weaken it.

The west didn't do anything. They didn't want a war with Russia. Ukraine said they wanted to join NATO. NATO didn't accept them or say they would. Putin just didn't like them even declaring they wanted to.

Now Ukraine will probably become part of NATO, but of course, this invasion probably only helped that along.

And this is why I point out you're defending Russia. Here you're blaming the west. It's their fault. They provoked Russia on purpose because they wanted to go to war with them. It's simply false and a defense of Russia. Again, Putin wanted this. He instigated it and escalated it. He is responsible, not the west and not Ukraine.

 

[lukethethird]

They were not.

The west didn't do anything. They didn't want a war with Russia. Ukraine said they wanted to join NATO. NATO didn't accept them or say they would. Putin just didn't like them even declaring they wanted to.

Now Ukraine will probably become part of NATO, but of course, this invasion probably only helped that along.

And this is why I point out you're defending Russia. Here you're blaming the west. It's their fault. They provoked Russia on purpose because they wanted to go to war with them. It's simply false and a defense of Russia. Again, Putin wanted this. He instigated it and escalated it. He is responsible, not the west and not Ukraine.

Your little rant is childish nonsense. No one is innocent here and anyone paying attention knows what is going on.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I don't doubt that. We're getting the story according to Moscow from plenty others here. I'm only interested in the real story, not Russia's skewed version. Why wouldn't NATO allow countries in Eastern Europe in anyway, if they wanted to join? That doesn't make sense.

LOL, I quoted the LAtimes

 

[Regiomontanus]

They were not.

The west didn't do anything. They didn't want a war with Russia. Ukraine said they wanted to join NATO. NATO didn't accept them or say they would. Putin just didn't like them even declaring they wanted to.

Now Ukraine will probably become part of NATO, but of course, this invasion probably only helped that along.

And this is why I point out you're defending Russia. Here you're blaming the west. It's their fault. They provoked Russia on purpose because they wanted to go to war with them. It's simply false and a defense of Russia. Again, Putin wanted this. He instigated it and escalated it. He is responsible, not the west and not Ukraine.

You really have not studied the history of the region, it would seem.

 

[Magic Man]

Your little rant is childish nonsense. No one is innocent here and anyone paying attention knows what is going on.

Ah, we've gotten to the "I don't have an actual response, so instead of just not responding, I'll just insult the other poster to make myself feel better" part.

I'm sorry to be the one to correct you and offer the facts of the situation. I'm sorry that you have to lash out like this instead of being capable of rational discourse. Sadly, what I said is accurate and true.

 

[Magic Man]

LOL, I quoted the LAtimes

LOL, you quoted this, which I quoted too:

"Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party."

It doesn't matter which outlet presents it. Look what it actually says. "Leaders in Moscow." Russia says they're the aggrieved party. Yeah, no crap. Of course they do. If you have something of substance, let me know.

 

[Magic Man]

You really have not studied the history of the region, it would seem.

That seems to be a common refrain from those of you who don't understand the situation and have a skewed view of it. Obviously just making this false claim is easier than trying to actually address the points made, so that's what you do. Let me know if you have anything of substance to add to the discussion.

 

[Estro Felino]

LOL, you quoted this, which I quoted too:

"Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party."

It doesn't matter which outlet presents it. Look what it actually says. "Leaders in Moscow." Russia says they're the aggrieved party. Yeah, no crap. Of course they do. If you have something of substance, let me know.

Do you mind me asking something?
Is your father the proprietor of some important warfare company?
I mean...a weapon factory?

 

[Magic Man]

Do you mind me asking something?
Is your father the proprietor of some important warfare company?
I mean...a weapon factory?

No, that's why I'm supporting peace, which means calling out Russia and pointing out that this is their fault, and they're the ones who can stop it. As opposed to you warmongers who defend Russia.

 

[lukethethird]

LOL, you quoted this, which I quoted too:

"Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party."

It doesn't matter which outlet presents it. Look what it actually says. "Leaders in Moscow." Russia says they're the aggrieved party. Yeah, no crap. Of course they do. If you have something of substance, let me know.

Meanwhile leaders in Washington said the attack was "unprovoked." Yeah, no crap.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, that's why I'm supporting peace, which means calling out Russia and pointing out that this is their fault, and they're the ones who can stop it. As opposed to you warmongers who defend Russia.

Actually there are peaceful instruments to promote peace: sanctions, diplomacy, agreements.

Sending weapons to Ukraine will bring more war. More dead people.

Seeking peace through weaponry is like trying to sweeten a cake by adding salt.