lukethethird
unknown member
I was wrong.
How about you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You're right, this was never about nato
- Thread starter lukethethird
- Start date
I was wrong.
How about you?
Tinkerpeach
Active Member
Funny, it shows how stupid most of the people on the left are.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So you have an edited clip which is the equivalent of a gish gallop and out-of-context quote mining.
Secondly, surely Nato expansion is part of the reason as it sticks like a thorn in his eye. Primarily because NATO expansion doesn't happen by the sword or force or anything like that. It's the countries themselves that want to become members themselves and ask for it. Beg, in some cases.
The reason Putin doesn't like that is not because it puts NATO closer to his borders. It rather is because it also means he can't invade those countries anymore and bomb them to the ground or otherwise oppress them and use that influence to install corrupt puppet regimes etc.
NATO is not a threat to russia.
But the idea, the success and attractiveness of NATO is a big threat to Putin's type of rule. He's losing the ideology war in his own backyard.
That is what angers him. That is what drives him to invade Ukraine, bomb it to the ground and replace it with a Russian-minded population.
Putin knows very well that he has nothing to fear from NATO in the military sense. It's by nature a defensive alliance and as long as he doesn't attack its members, they will not put boots on the ground to oppose his forces directly.
So really, his problem with NATO is just that it limits his freedom to swing his fists in any direction.
Secondly, surely Nato expansion is part of the reason as it sticks like a thorn in his eye. Primarily because NATO expansion doesn't happen by the sword or force or anything like that. It's the countries themselves that want to become members themselves and ask for it. Beg, in some cases.
The reason Putin doesn't like that is not because it puts NATO closer to his borders. It rather is because it also means he can't invade those countries anymore and bomb them to the ground or otherwise oppress them and use that influence to install corrupt puppet regimes etc.
NATO is not a threat to russia.
But the idea, the success and attractiveness of NATO is a big threat to Putin's type of rule. He's losing the ideology war in his own backyard.
That is what angers him. That is what drives him to invade Ukraine, bomb it to the ground and replace it with a Russian-minded population.
Putin knows very well that he has nothing to fear from NATO in the military sense. It's by nature a defensive alliance and as long as he doesn't attack its members, they will not put boots on the ground to oppose his forces directly.
So really, his problem with NATO is just that it limits his freedom to swing his fists in any direction.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Got any more stereotypes to share with us?
lukethethird
unknown member
The following pretty much sums it up, it makes it easy to see who is susceptible to western propaganda.
According to one narrative, Vladimir Putin is a Hitler-like aggressor. He wants to reestablish the Soviet empire by swallowing Ukraine and threatening the Baltic countries, Poland, and the nations further west. This narrative was created by Washington and Brussels. It has been repeated by European leaders and echoed endlessly in the media. If you accept this narrative, you will be lauded as a humanitarian, a virtuous citizen of Europe, the West, and the world.
The other narrative asserts that Putin invaded Ukraine because he perceived a threat from the West – in particular, from the progressive militarization of Ukraine. This narrative has been suppressed by Western governments and derided in the media. If you say that “NATO did it,” you will be called a “stooge of the Kremlin” or “Putin’s puppet.”
Unless you are the head of NATO.
You're Not Allowed To Say That NATO Caused the War, Unless You Are NATO's Secretary General - Antiwar.com Original
According to one narrative, Vladimir Putin is a Hitler-like aggressor. He wants to reestablish the Soviet empire by swallowing Ukraine and threatening the Baltic countries, Poland, and the nations further west. This narrative was created by Washington and Brussels. It has been repeated by European leaders and echoed endlessly in the media. If you accept this narrative, you will be lauded as a humanitarian, a virtuous citizen of Europe, the West, and the world.
The other narrative asserts that Putin invaded Ukraine because he perceived a threat from the West – in particular, from the progressive militarization of Ukraine. This narrative has been suppressed by Western governments and derided in the media. If you say that “NATO did it,” you will be called a “stooge of the Kremlin” or “Putin’s puppet.”
Unless you are the head of NATO.
You're Not Allowed To Say That NATO Caused the War, Unless You Are NATO's Secretary General - Antiwar.com Original
Dip brush in tar --- spread liberally!
Dozens and dozens of quotes, taken entirely out of context, and you think that helps you understand anything? If you do, then you will always be wrong.
lukethethird
unknown member
What is to know? The secretary general of Nato explained it to us., it was Nato all along, and he ought to know.
Please, don't ask.
The list goes on.