What is the NATO?

[Estro Felino]

Right. This is the difference. You buy into this propaganda, and I don't. I realize Ukraine are not the bad guy here and did not persecute the Donbas people. That's why I'm actually anti-Russia on this, and it's why I'm giving a reasonable take based on facts, not Russian propaganda.

Nope, I sound like I know that Ukraine is its own country and should not be taken over by Russia of the UN. If you want an investigation, go for it, but only with Ukraine left to be its country like it has been. You are on the wrong side of history. Russia is on the wrong side of history. Their propaganda that you're spreading is on the wrong side of history.

You haven't explained why you think the UN is not the appropriate organization to solve the issue.
I am still waiting.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, there are power plays at work. The thing is, the West essentially conquered most of the world centuries ago. The United States of America is merely a product and outgrowth of that conquest and became the predominant hegemonic power in the Americas. France and Britain gained control over Africa and large parts of Asia, as well as all the sea routes. Clearly, they didn't want countries like Germany or Russia muscling in on their action.

And Russia gained control over a lot of other area and didn't want anyone muscling in on their action. Again, stop painting this as so one-sided.

Of course, it should be noted that, throughout most of history, if a country wanted to make a power play or grab territory, they just did it (if they thought they could win). They didn't have to invent any pretext, other than national glory and booty. In conquering the Americas, the Spanish battle cry was "Gold, Glory, and God." In the War of 1812, the battle cry in America was "On to Canada!" Nobody needed a reason; they just wanted it, so they were going to try to grab it (although America failed in that quest).

So, even if economic needs and power plays are a human constant, the emphasis on facades and obsession over maintaining an image of "legitimacy" is something relatively new to human history.

For example, after the overthrow of the US-backed Batista regime in Cuba, the U.S. wanted to get rid of Castro's communist regime and restore a US-friendly government. But they couldn't just invade outright, as that would make us look bad, so they had to cook up some scheme to make it look like it was Cubans themselves overthrowing their own government. If the US military had simply invaded outright, they could have won and taken over Cuba, but someone tied their hands, which led to the operation's failure.

So, it's true that the world largely operates the same way, with power plays and grabbing for land, power, resources, food, etc. It seems it's always been that way, for as long as recorded history. But what's different in more recent times is...the lie. The hypocrisy. The pretense of "enlightenment" where there is none.

The lie, the hypocrisy and the "pretense of enlightenment" are not new. Rome was civilizing the savages. So was Persia. States always used pretexts for wars.

 

[Magic Man]

You haven't explained why you think the UN is not the appropriate organization to solve the issue.
I am still waiting.

You would first have to give a good reason for essentially taking over a sovereign country. I don't want Russia to do it, why would I want another country or organization to do it? I'm still waiting for you to produce any reason why Ukraine shouldn't just remain the same Ukraine it's been for decades.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, yes, the first Red Scare and the Palmer Raids would confirm that from the outset. Long before the USSR could have been seriously considered any kind of threat to the West.

I'll agree that US politicians demonized Russia.
However, that didn't mean Russia wasn't a dangerous threat.

I would question the number of "tens of millions" in your claim here. They were bad and committed atrocities, but the numbers of those killed might be in doubt (the sources for those numbers are unreliable).

Question away.
The final tally may be disputed, but
there is no question about mass murders
on huge scales.

Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excerpted....
Some historians claim that the death toll was around 20 million,[68] a figure based on Conquest's book The Great Terror (1968), with some estimates relying in part on demographic losses such as Conquest's.[69] In 2003, British historian Simon Sebag Montefiore suggested that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million people.[70]

In any case, internal oppression is not an automatic reason or a reasonable basis for the West to align against it, consider the number of countries with oppressive governments which we have supported.

Oppression wasn't just within Russia, eg, the Holodomor.
And...

Military occupations by the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Obviously, oppression within a country is not a sufficient or reasonable basis for the West to take a hostile stance.

Should it be ignored?
No. It's part of the total picture.
An aggressively expanding country would impose
upon others worse than what it imposes upon its own.

(Perhaps you're arguing that they should do that, but if so, they should be consistent in that regard.)

I'm arguing that organized defense against
USSR & Russia was a reasonable measure.
Are you arguing against it?

As for your last point, Russia's designs on expanding, you may have a point there, but only if there is a bona fide threat to the West.

Violent expansion is inherently a threat.
Russia has openly planned further invasions
after Ukraine.

Russian border disputes in Eastern Europe do not break that barrier.

Is the Ukraine invasion just a border dispute?

 

[Estro Felino]

You would first have to give a good reason for essentially taking over a sovereign country. I don't want Russia to do it, why would I want another country or organization to do it? I'm still waiting for you to produce any reason why Ukraine shouldn't just remain the same Ukraine it's been for decades.

Because Ukraine has turned out to be a very violent and undemocratic country.

Again...you are still eluding the question about the UN. I am waiting.

 

[Wu Wei]

I always feel more intelligent after reading your work.

I have to stop looking at this thread, it is just ridiculous with a side of Russian propaganda being put forth as truth and a complete lack of understanding of how the US works

Substitute the word "Camelot" with "What is the NATO?"

TTFN.... have a nice day

 

[Estro Felino]

I always feel more intelligent after reading your work.

I have to stop looking at this thread, it is just ridiculous with a side of Russian propaganda being put forth as truth and a complete lack of understanding of how the US works

I think it is logical that being an European, I have much more in common with Russia, than with America.

So I think it's normal that I trust the Russian propaganda, because it's something that makes sense to me, culturally and anthropologically.

 

[Soandso]

I think it's normal that I trust the Russian propaganda

 

[Wu Wei]

I think it is logical that being an European, I have much more in common with Russia, than with America.

So I think it's normal that I trust the Russian propaganda, because it's something that makes sense to me, culturally and anthropologically.

I will leave this thread with something because

the definition of "Propaganda"

Propaganda - information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

So you just said you are better off believing especially biased or misleading information that is used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

AKA you have admitted to trusting a falsehood, and taking it as fact....... Doesn't exactly help your credibility.... good luck with that

TTFN

 

[Soandso]

I will leave this thread with something because

the definition of "Propaganda"

Propaganda - information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

So you just said you are better off believing especially biased or misleading information that is used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

AKA you have admitted to trusting a falsehood, and taking it as fact....... Doesn't exactly help your credibility.... good luck with that

TTFN

Whether or not people actually trust propaganda, I think that's the first time I've ever seen anyone openly admitting that they they trust propaganda using the actual word "propaganda"

 

[Stevicus]

I'll agree that US politicians demonized Russia.
However, that didn't mean Russia wasn't a dangerous threat.

Not in those years. They had just been defeated by Germany and forced to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. They were gripped by Civil War and economic collapse. They were absolutely incapable of mounting any kind of serious threat to the West. The threat was ideological. The West was concerned about agitators, people who might try to rile up the workers and the lower classes. Our leaders were threatened by "dangerous ideas," not by any direct bona fide military threat.

Question away.
The final tally may be disputed, but
there is no question about mass murders
on huge scales.

Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excerpted....
Some historians claim that the death toll was around 20 million,[68] a figure based on Conquest's book The Great Terror (1968), with some estimates relying in part on demographic losses such as Conquest's.[69] In 2003, British historian Simon Sebag Montefiore suggested that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million people.[70]

The link contained more information:


According to Barbara Anderson and Brian Silver, historians such as Robert Conquest made the most primitive of errors. They asserted that these Cold Warriors overestimated fertility rates and underrated the impact of assimilation, through which many Ukrainians were redesignated as Russians in the 1939 census, confusing population deficits, which included unborn children, with excess deaths.[58]

Historians such as J. Arch Getty, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and others, insist that the opening of the Soviet archives has vindicated the lower estimates put forth by the revisionist school.[74][75] In 2011, after assessing twenty years of historical research in Eastern European archives, American historian Timothy D. Snyder stated that Stalin deliberately killed about 6 million, which rise to 9 million if foreseeable deaths arising from policies are taken into account.[76][77] American historian William D. Rubinstein concluded that, even under most conservative estimates, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of at least 7 million people, or about 4.2% of USSRs total population.[78]

Some historians believe that the official archival figures of the categories that were recorded by Soviet authorities are unreliable and incomplete.[1]


Of course, it's still bad. I never denied that. But that's not really the issue in question here. We're asking whether or not it warranted a response from the West or if the West should have considered it a threat to their security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin#cite_note-70

Oppression wasn't just within Russia, eg, the Holodomor.
And...

Military occupations by the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was internal to the Soviet Union, and the fact is, many Russians also suffered under the same government. It wasn't a case of the Russians doing something to Ukrainians, but rather, the Soviets (led by a non-Russian) doing stuff to all nationalities within the Soviet Union. That doesn't change anything or make it right, but I don't see how it's something that can be blamed on "Russians."

The map showing their military occupations occurred around the time of WW2, when Germany was the primary aggressive power at the time. But the USSR could recognize that they were a prime target.

Should it be ignored?
No. It's part of the total picture.
An aggressively expanding country would impose
upon others what it imposes upon its own.

We can't be too certain of that. We've seen aggressively expanding countries in the past, such as Britain and France. They expanded all over the world and imposed their will upon countless nations and peoples - and our government was ostensibly okay with that. And they were, at some point early on, considered a potential threat to our security, but we eventually learned to work with them and cooperate with them to the point where they didn't have to be considered a threat anymore.

If we were hostile to them, then sure, they'd be hostile back and threaten us, but if we were nice to them, they were nice to us. Whatever else they were doing in the world didn't seem to matter, as long as we had a cordial relationship. We were not inclined to get entangled in foreign wars or international intrigue.

But it didn't just stop there. We propped up figures like the Shah of Iran, who imposed terror, torture, and murder upon his own people, yet the U.S. was nice to him and thought of him as a friend and ally. Or take our nice and friendly relationship with a medieval regime like Saudi Arabia.

The argument that "we oppose them because they oppress people" just doesn't hold any water. We may oppose them for many reasons, but not for that. Never for that reason.

I'm arguing that organized defense against
USSR & Russia was a reasonable measure.
Are you arguing against it?

An organized defense against any possibility could be argued as reasonable. If you're arguing that the USSR and Russia is some kind of special case which warrants an exceptional policy directed just at them, I might find reason to question that. I think America may face many potential threats in this world, and it requires a certain perspective to be able to evaluate those threats and determine which are the greater and more immediate threats to our homeland. I don't think everyone agrees that Russia is the greatest threat we currently face. Some might look at China. Some might look at Iran or the Middle East. Some might look to our southern border.

So, if you're trying to argue that Russia is a greater threat that warrants more attention than some of these other areas and hot spots in the world, that might take some explaining.

Is the Ukraine invasion just a border dispute?

Basically, yeah. That's what it is.

 

[Magic Man]

NATO is escalating this war as we speak. People are putting a lot of faith in Putin, faith that Putin won't drop a nuke, and if he does, it's curtains for all of us.

NATO is not escalating anything. Putin is escalating. If your idea is to avoid Putin using nukes at all costs, then Putin can just do whatever he wants. We're specifically not using military force directly for the express purpose of not escalating to where it could become nuclear.

 

[Magic Man]

Because Ukraine has turned out to be a very violent and undemocratic country.

1) No, it hasn't.

2) You'd need more than that to justify taking it over.

Again...you are still eluding the question about the UN. I am waiting.

I haven't eluded anything. You've suggested the UN taking over Ukraine for no good reason. I've pointed out that that's ridiculous and basically Russian propaganda.

 

[Magic Man]

I think it is logical that being an European, I have much more in common with Russia, than with America.

That is not logical. Being a European you have more in common with America. Russia is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. Italy is much more like America.

So I think it's normal that I trust the Russian propaganda, because it's something that makes sense to me, culturally and anthropologically.

I wouldn't say it's normal. Yes, you trust it because it makes sense to you. We know that. We're just telling you that it shouldn't make sense to you, and you shouldn't trust it. You should stick to facts and reality. The entire point of propaganda is to get believe to believe things that aren't true. That's what you're doing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not in those years. They had just been defeated by Germany and forced to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. They were gripped by Civil War and economic collapse. They were absolutely incapable of mounting any kind of serious threat to the West. The threat was ideological. The West was concerned about agitators, people who might try to rile up the workers and the lower classes. Our leaders were threatened by "dangerous ideas," not by any direct bona fide military threat.



The link contained more information:


According to Barbara Anderson and Brian Silver, historians such as Robert Conquest made the most primitive of errors. They asserted that these Cold Warriors overestimated fertility rates and underrated the impact of assimilation, through which many Ukrainians were redesignated as Russians in the 1939 census, confusing population deficits, which included unborn children, with excess deaths.[58]

Historians such as J. Arch Getty, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and others, insist that the opening of the Soviet archives has vindicated the lower estimates put forth by the revisionist school.[74][75] In 2011, after assessing twenty years of historical research in Eastern European archives, American historian Timothy D. Snyder stated that Stalin deliberately killed about 6 million, which rise to 9 million if foreseeable deaths arising from policies are taken into account.[76][77] American historian William D. Rubinstein concluded that, even under most conservative estimates, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of at least 7 million people, or about 4.2% of USSRs total population.[78]

Some historians believe that the official archival figures of the categories that were recorded by Soviet authorities are unreliable and incomplete.[1]


Of course, it's still bad. I never denied that. But that's not really the issue in question here. We're asking whether or not it warranted a response from the West or if the West should have considered it a threat to their security.
Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia


It was internal to the Soviet Union, and the fact is, many Russians also suffered under the same government. It wasn't a case of the Russians doing something to Ukrainians, but rather, the Soviets (led by a non-Russian) doing stuff to all nationalities within the Soviet Union. That doesn't change anything or make it right, but I don't see how it's something that can be blamed on "Russians."

The map showing their military occupations occurred around the time of WW2, when Germany was the primary aggressive power at the time. But the USSR could recognize that they were a prime target.



We can't be too certain of that. We've seen aggressively expanding countries in the past, such as Britain and France. They expanded all over the world and imposed their will upon countless nations and peoples - and our government was ostensibly okay with that. And they were, at some point early on, considered a potential threat to our security, but we eventually learned to work with them and cooperate with them to the point where they didn't have to be considered a threat anymore.

If we were hostile to them, then sure, they'd be hostile back and threaten us, but if we were nice to them, they were nice to us. Whatever else they were doing in the world didn't seem to matter, as long as we had a cordial relationship. We were not inclined to get entangled in foreign wars or international intrigue.

But it didn't just stop there. We propped up figures like the Shah of Iran, who imposed terror, torture, and murder upon his own people, yet the U.S. was nice to him and thought of him as a friend and ally. Or take our nice and friendly relationship with a medieval regime like Saudi Arabia.

The argument that "we oppose them because they oppress people" just doesn't hold any water. We may oppose them for many reasons, but not for that. Never for that reason.



An organized defense against any possibility could be argued as reasonable. If you're arguing that the USSR and Russia is some kind of special case which warrants an exceptional policy directed just at them, I might find reason to question that.

Russia was the big dog.
And it was (is) a vicious one.
Policies should specifically address such threats.
The only big question is what those policies should be.

So, if you're trying to argue that Russia is a greater threat that warrants more attention than some of these other areas and hot spots in the world, that might take some explaining.

I haven't ranked the various threats, & don't argue which is greatest.
Nonetheless, Russia does pose a threat, eg, the Ukraine invasion,
statements showing plans to invade more countries.

Basically, yeah. That's what it is.

Russia's invasion, killing, & destruction in
Ukraine is just a "border dispute"?
You're serious?
Understatement of the century.

 

[Magic Man]

Not in those years. They had just been defeated by Germany and forced to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. They were gripped by Civil War and economic collapse. They were absolutely incapable of mounting any kind of serious threat to the West. The threat was ideological. The West was concerned about agitators, people who might try to rile up the workers and the lower classes. Our leaders were threatened by "dangerous ideas," not by any direct bona fide military threat.

"The treaty was annulled by the Armistice of 11 November 1918,[1] in which Germany surrendered to the western Allied Powers. Subsequent attempts by the Soviets to restore power in the lost territories during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922) had mixed results, with the Red Army being defeated in the independence wars of the three Baltic countries and in the Polish–Soviet War, but achieving victory in its invasions of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia and in the Ukrainian–Soviet War. The border with Turkey established by the treaty was largely affirmed by the Treaty of Kars (1921). Under the Treaty of Rapallo (1922), Russia and Germany renounced all territorial and financial claims against each other."

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The threat was 100% real and not ideological.

We can't be too certain of that. We've seen aggressively expanding countries in the past, such as Britain and France. They expanded all over the world and imposed their will upon countless nations and peoples - and our government was ostensibly okay with that. And they were, at some point early on, considered a potential threat to our security, but we eventually learned to work with them and cooperate with them to the point where they didn't have to be considered a threat anymore.

If we were hostile to them, then sure, they'd be hostile back and threaten us, but if we were nice to them, they were nice to us. Whatever else they were doing in the world didn't seem to matter, as long as we had a cordial relationship. We were not inclined to get entangled in foreign wars or international intrigue.

But it didn't just stop there. We propped up figures like the Shah of Iran, who imposed terror, torture, and murder upon his own people, yet the U.S. was nice to him and thought of him as a friend and ally. Or take our nice and friendly relationship with a medieval regime like Saudi Arabia.

The argument that "we oppose them because they oppress people" just doesn't hold any water. We may oppose them for many reasons, but not for that. Never for that reason.

Good thing no one made the argument that "we oppose them because they oppress people". This whole section is just whataboutism.

An organized defense against any possibility could be argued as reasonable. If you're arguing that the USSR and Russia is some kind of special case which warrants an exceptional policy directed just at them, I might find reason to question that. I think America may face many potential threats in this world, and it requires a certain perspective to be able to evaluate those threats and determine which are the greater and more immediate threats to our homeland. I don't think everyone agrees that Russia is the greatest threat we currently face. Some might look at China. Some might look at Iran or the Middle East. Some might look to our southern border.

So, if you're trying to argue that Russia is a greater threat that warrants more attention than some of these other areas and hot spots in the world, that might take some explaining.

You're really stretching here in order to disagree.

Is an organized defense against expansionist threats reasonable? The question isn't whether Russia is or was the biggest threat, or which other threats might be bigger. Just whether creating an alliance to protect against threats is reasonable.

Basically, yeah. That's what it is.

Basically, no, it's really not. For someone who supposedly knows a lot about the world and history, you sure don't display that knowledge.

 

[lukethethird]

Russia was the big dog.
And it was (is) a vicious one.
Policies should specifically address such threats.
The only big question is what those policies should be.

I haven't ranked the various threats, & don't argue which is greatest.
Nonetheless, Russia does pose a threat, eg, the Ukraine invasion,
statements showing plans to invade more countries.

Russia's invasion, killing, & destruction in
Ukraine is just a "border dispute"?
You're serious?
Understatement of the century.

It is a border dispute.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is a border dispute.

Yeah....& the Holodomor was just a "food distribution problem".
You guyz....such dedicated Russophiles.

 

[Magic Man]

It is a border dispute.

Thank god you're around to defend Russia with this kind of complete silliness.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank god you're around to defend Russia with this kind of complete silliness.

The Nazi invasion of Poland was just a border dispute.