|
|
On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983.
Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia.
|
yatz backed by vampire money and got marked for prime ministry by that bitch nuland in the leaked call, he's at least 80% puppet.
plastic revolution with fascist vanguard financed by vampire money - check.
muppet show governement controlled by said vampires - check.
fascist faction leaders in security positions - check.
enjoy the extortion, ukraine. unless the valiant saint putin manages fight back the forces of evil ofc. ;>
User was warned for this post
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Even if true I wouldn't blame Ukraine or be supprised for choosing a guy who has warm relations to NATO after Russia just decided to occupy Crimea.
edit:
+ Show Spoiler +
Finnish donald duck cover. Editors claim its purely coincidental to resemble a certain political situation.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia.
While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early?
So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time.
|
On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time.
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam.
|
On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time.
Anyone who argues over politics understands how politics work.
Anyone who isn't a hermit living in a cave who hasn't seen another human being for 40 years understands how politics work.
Any time you get 2 or more people together, politics comes into existence and they politick each other to determine the social hierarchy.
Politics is human nature, any human being who is intelligent enough to exchange meaningful information with another human being instinctively engages in politics whether they are good at it or not.
So please, no, no more facile comments about how politics works and doesn't work. Realist and idealist analyses both have valid insight into how politics works.
|
|
|
On March 11 2014 03:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. So please, no, no more facile comments about how politics works and doesn't work. Realist and idealist analyses both have valid insight into how politics works.
Probably bad wording on my part, the point was more that I don't think it's a farce to talk about Russia's interest in her closest neighbors in light of that particular idealistic thought. Or something like that.
|
|
|
The amount of Russian propaganda was small and has already mostly vanished. What he talks about are sites like TheGuardian where alot of comments and commentators are relaying the russian propaganda and this method of justificating the invasion.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/ukraine-crisis-us-crimea-referendum-putin-ambassador
Even if TheGuardian is a center left journal that with some of its lectors like to bash on the US, it's totally hallucinating. There are thousands of comments for every single piece of news on the Ukrainian crisis, all relying the same arguments and leading to the same sites.
So I will sum my observations and speculations on these comments:
-it seems there is an abnormal number of comments on each ukr related thread on theguardian
-the majority of the comments are pro russian while it s still a uk journal
-most of these comments are badly written so they arent from natives nor educated people (sorry but usually awful english = awful ideas)
-some comments are repeated in response to different pro ukr comments and some commentators participate alot in a single piece of news
-the likes are on the pro russian comments and the numbers of likes are extremely high
-most of the commentators are newly created and don t even have photos
Now maybe I am paranoiac but I have been reading theguardian on the net for a long time and I don t think most of its users would bash on the US or the West like that. Even the term West isnt used by western people, it s strange to think the Eu can be grouped with the US with the same interests. Maybe some pro russian are doing this heavy propaganda for free or perhaps they are paid but to me it looks extremely artificial and it all comes down agaim to the same dangerous pro russian nationalism.
|
But, hey, I'm sure it will be explained by experts on TV, right?
|
On March 10 2014 18:47 Geisterkarle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2014 18:13 Ghanburighan wrote:
More evidence that Germany is moving towards taking a harder line:
I may remember incorrectly, but wasn't there something like that during the last presidential elections in the USA where the USA forbid international observers to "question their elections"!? So why exactly don't we believe in true and free elections on Crimea?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/globe-in-ukraine-putin-obama-ramp-up-standoff-over-crimean-referendum/article17390664/
Voters, in any case, will not have much choice in the referendum. Crimean officials released a copy of the ballot over the weekend and it offers two options: joining Russia or reverting back to the 1992 Crimean constitution which gave the territory more powers as an autonomous region within Ukraine. Voting “no” is not an option. And even selecting the second choice puts the region on track to joining Russia because the government has already asked the Russian parliament to begin the annexation process.
The second option will restore a constitution that has declared Crimea sovereign.
|
On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam.
It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism.
|
On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism.
Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare?
|
On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism.
Err, the difference is very simple. NATO has had countries join voluntarily, while Russian imperialism concerns the ambition to annex countries near it border. In fact, the reason why NATO has expansion is because countries want to protect themselves against Russian imperialism. There is no coercion from NATO (or any NATO member) to join the organization.
|
Also this isn't just one country annexing some other country. This is the guy who called the fall of the soviet union the "biggest tragedy of the 20th century" who tries to invade a country which has suffered millions of deaths during the Holodomor.
Just imagine Germany being lead by someone who would call the fall of the third Reich 'the greatest tragedy of the 20th century' and then proceeds annexing a part of Poland. Would we be discussing the pro's and cons of that?
|
On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:On March 11 2014 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:21 Banaora wrote:Maybe you would trust this site http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners . For me it's clear Russia fears the expansion of NATO into Ukraine on the long run. I don't know if this is common knowledge but the soviet union has been given garanties by the western allies in the 2+4 treaty of the German re-union that NATO will stop expanding at the German border. This was mentioned lately in a German talk show with Egon Bahr the founder of Germany's new eastern policy in the 70s. Sure you can argue legally that the soviet union does not exist anymore so all treaties with it are not binding. Well as we know NATO expanded into Poland and the Baltic States and is now planning to build a missile defense system there to prevent terrorist attacks from muslim countries (it says). I don't believe this. What Russia is doing in crimea is against international law but countries like the U.S. or Russia only care about this law when it suits them. For example see Grenada intervention by the U.S. in 1983. Please, this is a farce. Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? It's not like NATO has any intention of attacking Russia. While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early? So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare?
NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose.
Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://is13.snstatic.fi/img/978/1288663764959.jpg)
