|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On November 22 2025 03:27 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +“If China or Russia built a military alliance and moved to include Mexico and Canada, the United States would never accept it – Monroe Doctrine 101. We are doing precisely what we would never tolerate in our own hemisphere. The fact that Canada is already in NATO is irrelevant; NATO was built when the only threat was the Soviet Union and the U.S. was the overwhelmingly dominant power. Try to add Mexico to a Chinese-led military alliance today and watch what happens.”
5. Invading isn’t a better offer
“International politics is not a dating service. Great powers use coercion when vital interests are at stake. The United States invaded Iraq, bombed Serbia, droned Libya – all to prevent unfavourable outcomes. Russia is doing the same. You may hate the means, but pretending great-power politics runs on kindness is liberal delusion.”
6. Sovereignty and “it’s not up to Putin”
“Sovereignty exists only to the extent it can be defended. Tiny countries next to great powers do not have unrestricted Westbindung rights when the great power says its survival is at stake. Ask Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. Ukraine is not Switzerland floating in the middle of nowhere; it is the most geopolitically sensitive piece of real estate in Eurasia. Great powers decide the security architecture in their backyard – always have, always will.”
So just to be clear, you're saying that Russia invading Ukraine was justified? ...or are you just saying its "realpolitik"?
I never use the word "justified" because that implies some moral endorsement, and I'm not taking about morality—it's about how the world actually works. What I'm saying is that the Russian invasion was entirely predictable and understandable as a regional power response to what Moscow saw as an existential threat: NATO creeping right up to its border via Ukraine. Regional powers don't play dating games when their core security is at stake; they push back, often with force. The United States would do exactly the same if the roles were reversed, which US have done, repeatedly, from the Monroe Doctrine to Iraq.
Is it realpolitik? Yep, nternational politics is nasty busness where survival trumps liberal ideals every time. Blaming Putin as some uniquely evil imperialist misses the point: this crisis was manufactured in Washington and Brussels through boneheaded policies that ignored basic geopolitical realities. The tragedy is that it was avoidable if the West had treated Russia like a regional nuclear power with legitimate interests instead of a defeted enemy to be encircled
|
Canada11583 Posts
US/west has invested over 4 billion to make Ukraine hostile to Russia
Victoria Nuland said US has invested $4B or Nuland has said that US invested $4B to make Ukraine hostile to Russia? Because those are two very different things and if it is the first, then you are being very dishonest with your claims.
Source please. Because I don't trust anything Putin stans say about Nuland considering how they tried to twist her handing out cookies... sandwiches actually I think and conveniently failing to mention that she brought food for both sides, not just the Euromaidan protestors.
edit.
Also. US needs to spend zero dollars to make neighbours of Russia hostile to Russia. What Russian imperialists (in this thread even) fail to understand is that the only thing that causes hostility towards Russia is Russia's imperialism. The call is coming from inside the house.
|
On November 22 2025 08:29 spets1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2025 03:27 blomsterjohn wrote:“If China or Russia built a military alliance and moved to include Mexico and Canada, the United States would never accept it – Monroe Doctrine 101. We are doing precisely what we would never tolerate in our own hemisphere. The fact that Canada is already in NATO is irrelevant; NATO was built when the only threat was the Soviet Union and the U.S. was the overwhelmingly dominant power. Try to add Mexico to a Chinese-led military alliance today and watch what happens.”
5. Invading isn’t a better offer
“International politics is not a dating service. Great powers use coercion when vital interests are at stake. The United States invaded Iraq, bombed Serbia, droned Libya – all to prevent unfavourable outcomes. Russia is doing the same. You may hate the means, but pretending great-power politics runs on kindness is liberal delusion.”
6. Sovereignty and “it’s not up to Putin”
“Sovereignty exists only to the extent it can be defended. Tiny countries next to great powers do not have unrestricted Westbindung rights when the great power says its survival is at stake. Ask Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. Ukraine is not Switzerland floating in the middle of nowhere; it is the most geopolitically sensitive piece of real estate in Eurasia. Great powers decide the security architecture in their backyard – always have, always will.”
So just to be clear, you're saying that Russia invading Ukraine was justified? ...or are you just saying its "realpolitik"? I never use the word "justified" because that implies some moral endorsement, and I'm not taking about morality—it's about how the world actually works. What I'm saying is that the Russian invasion was entirely predictable and understandable as a regional power response to what Moscow saw as an existential threat: NATO creeping right up to its border via Ukraine. Regional powers don't play dating games when their core security is at stake; they push back, often with force. The United States would do exactly the same if the roles were reversed, which US have done, repeatedly, from the Monroe Doctrine to Iraq. Is it realpolitik? Yep, nternational politics is nasty busness where survival trumps liberal ideals every time. Blaming Putin as some uniquely evil imperialist misses the point: this crisis was manufactured in Washington and Brussels through boneheaded policies that ignored basic geopolitical realities. The tragedy is that it was avoidable if the West had treated Russia like a regional nuclear power with legitimate interests instead of a defeted enemy to be encircled
I already debunked that nonsense but of course you will refuse to address that, like always.
|
On November 22 2025 08:04 Legan wrote:
The level of disdain and even hate for Europe from Republicans is surprising. Is it coming from people who were outside of politics a decade ago, or is there some older faction behind it? Just people buying into Europe being a socialist dystopia?
The most surprising part to me is probably the total lack of competence among the old national security wing of Republicans. Every diplomatic action seems very poorly implemented. It is not that surprising that the deal is bad or has some hard-to-accept points. However, the way the proposal has been made, while ignoring the EU and Ukraine, and how completely it fails to make any demands on Russia, just makes the USA look weak and disinterested in its long-time allies. Working with Europe and Ukraine could help develop a framework for actions that soften the worst aspects of any peace deal.
At the same time, the isolationists still seem to demand that others just do as the USA demands. None of them seems to connect listening to allies and having allies act in a favourable way. This should probably be taken as a serious sign that demands for Greenland and Canada will be a real threat in the future. There seems to be an entitlement mentality among Republicans.
I think a big reason is Europeans are a lot more direct and blunt than us NAs. So when Republicans say dumb shit about guns or what ever they call it directly out. And now with all the extra stupid MAGA stuff and the near daily Trump idiocy.
Basically they hurt his fragile ego by pointing out he’s a moron.
|
On November 22 2025 08:39 Falling wrote:Victoria Nuland said US has invested $4B or Nuland has said that US invested $4B to make Ukraine hostile to Russia? Because those are two very different things and if it is the first, then you are being very dishonest with your claims. Source please. Because I don't trust anything Putin stans say about Nuland considering how they tried to twist her handing out cookies... sandwiches actually I think and conveniently failing to mention that she brought food for both sides, not just the Euromaidan protestors. edit. Also. US needs to spend zero dollars to make neighbours of Russia hostile to Russia. What Russian imperialists (in this thread even) fail to understand is that the only thing that causes hostility towards Russia is Russia's imperialism. The call is coming from inside the house.
Here's the talk she gave from US own records:
"Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine."
does this say "to make Ukraine hostile to Russia"? No —Nuland framed it as "democracy promotion." But here's where the dishonesty is: those "democratic skills and institutions" weren't neutral good-government workshops. They were a deliberate, decades-long U.S. strategy to build a pro-Western political networks, and media ecosystm in Ukraine that was explicitly designed to pull it out of Moscow's influence and into NATO and the EU. The $5 billion funded opposition parties, training for activists, and media that amplified anti-Russian narratives. which were activated with the 2014 coup. I mean well played to the US.
As for the cookies—or sandwiches, is another dead give away. Nuland's pictures handing out bread to Maidan protesters in December 2013 was a high-level U.S. official publicly endorsing one side in a domestic crisis. She didn't "bring food for both sides" in any meaningful way; that claim is a myth peddled to make it believble. The real signal was her standing on stage with the opposition, including far-right elements, while the U.S. leaked diplomatic cables plotting who should run the post-Yanukovych government. Senators like John McCain were right there too, waving Ukrainian flags. Clear message who US is backong
Did US stages every element in that overthrow? No, it's great-power competition by other means, aimed at flipping a key buffer state against your rival. So it was predictable that Russia will react as it did.
|
On November 22 2025 09:05 spets1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2025 08:39 Falling wrote: US/west has invested over 4 billion to make Ukraine hostile to Russia Victoria Nuland said US has invested $4B or Nuland has said that US invested $4B to make Ukraine hostile to Russia? Because those are two very different things and if it is the first, then you are being very dishonest with your claims. Source please. Because I don't trust anything Putin stans say about Nuland considering how they tried to twist her handing out cookies... sandwiches actually I think and conveniently failing to mention that she brought food for both sides, not just the Euromaidan protestors. edit. Also. US needs to spend zero dollars to make neighbours of Russia hostile to Russia. What Russian imperialists (in this thread even) fail to understand is that the only thing that causes hostility towards Russia is Russia's imperialism. The call is coming from inside the house. Here's the talk she gave from US own records: "Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine." does this say "to make Ukraine hostile to Russia"? No —Nuland framed it as "democracy promotion." But here's where the dishonesty is: those "democratic skills and institutions" weren't neutral good-government workshops. They were a deliberate, decades-long U.S. strategy to build a pro-Western political networks, and media ecosystm in Ukraine that was explicitly designed to pull it out of Moscow's influence and into NATO and the EU. The $5 billion funded opposition parties, training for activists, and media that amplified anti-Russian narratives. which were activated with the 2014 coup. I mean well played to the US. As for the cookies—or sandwiches, is another dead give away. Nuland's pictures handing out bread to Maidan protesters in December 2013 was a high-level U.S. official publicly endorsing one side in a domestic crisis. She didn't "bring food for both sides" in any meaningful way; that claim is a myth peddled to make it believble. The real signal was her standing on stage with the opposition, including far-right elements, while the U.S. leaked diplomatic cables plotting who should run the post-Yanukovych government. Senators like John McCain were right there too, waving Ukrainian flags. Clear message who US is backong Did US stages every element in that overthrow? No, it's great-power competition by other means, aimed at flipping a key buffer state against your rival. So it was predictable that Russia will react as it did.
So, she didn't say that. She said something entirely different, and you interpreted it in a specific way.
|
On November 22 2025 09:11 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2025 09:05 spets1 wrote:On November 22 2025 08:39 Falling wrote: US/west has invested over 4 billion to make Ukraine hostile to Russia Victoria Nuland said US has invested $4B or Nuland has said that US invested $4B to make Ukraine hostile to Russia? Because those are two very different things and if it is the first, then you are being very dishonest with your claims. Source please. Because I don't trust anything Putin stans say about Nuland considering how they tried to twist her handing out cookies... sandwiches actually I think and conveniently failing to mention that she brought food for both sides, not just the Euromaidan protestors. edit. Also. US needs to spend zero dollars to make neighbours of Russia hostile to Russia. What Russian imperialists (in this thread even) fail to understand is that the only thing that causes hostility towards Russia is Russia's imperialism. The call is coming from inside the house. Here's the talk she gave from US own records: "Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine." does this say "to make Ukraine hostile to Russia"? No —Nuland framed it as "democracy promotion." But here's where the dishonesty is: those "democratic skills and institutions" weren't neutral good-government workshops. They were a deliberate, decades-long U.S. strategy to build a pro-Western political networks, and media ecosystm in Ukraine that was explicitly designed to pull it out of Moscow's influence and into NATO and the EU. The $5 billion funded opposition parties, training for activists, and media that amplified anti-Russian narratives. which were activated with the 2014 coup. I mean well played to the US. As for the cookies—or sandwiches, is another dead give away. Nuland's pictures handing out bread to Maidan protesters in December 2013 was a high-level U.S. official publicly endorsing one side in a domestic crisis. She didn't "bring food for both sides" in any meaningful way; that claim is a myth peddled to make it believble. The real signal was her standing on stage with the opposition, including far-right elements, while the U.S. leaked diplomatic cables plotting who should run the post-Yanukovych government. Senators like John McCain were right there too, waving Ukrainian flags. Clear message who US is backong Did US stages every element in that overthrow? No, it's great-power competition by other means, aimed at flipping a key buffer state against your rival. So it was predictable that Russia will react as it did. So, she didn't say that. She said something entirely different, and you interpreted it in a specific way.
Yea I agree with you
|
United States44191 Posts
On November 22 2025 08:39 Falling wrote:
Also. US needs to spend zero dollars to make neighbours of Russia hostile to Russia. What Russian imperialists (in this thread even) fail to understand is that the only thing that causes hostility towards Russia is Russia's imperialism. The call is coming from inside the house.
|
The war map doesn‘t look too awful for Ukraine. Scary how close they got to Kiew though. The southern part doesn‘t look so good either.
It definitely is about autonomy and spheres of influence.
Dunno how relevant it is how close warheads would be stationed to a motive to invade.
Pretty sure most Russians use western technology so arguing it‘s about culture doesn‘t make much sense when the encroachment happens electronically already.
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On November 22 2025 08:57 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2025 08:04 Legan wrote:
The level of disdain and even hate for Europe from Republicans is surprising. Is it coming from people who were outside of politics a decade ago, or is there some older faction behind it? Just people buying into Europe being a socialist dystopia?
The most surprising part to me is probably the total lack of competence among the old national security wing of Republicans. Every diplomatic action seems very poorly implemented. It is not that surprising that the deal is bad or has some hard-to-accept points. However, the way the proposal has been made, while ignoring the EU and Ukraine, and how completely it fails to make any demands on Russia, just makes the USA look weak and disinterested in its long-time allies. Working with Europe and Ukraine could help develop a framework for actions that soften the worst aspects of any peace deal.
At the same time, the isolationists still seem to demand that others just do as the USA demands. None of them seems to connect listening to allies and having allies act in a favourable way. This should probably be taken as a serious sign that demands for Greenland and Canada will be a real threat in the future. There seems to be an entitlement mentality among Republicans. I think a big reason is Europeans are a lot more direct and blunt than us NAs. So when Republicans say dumb shit about guns or what ever they call it directly out. And now with all the extra stupid MAGA stuff and the near daily Trump idiocy. Basically they hurt his fragile ego by pointing out he’s a moron.
They hate us cos they ain’t us.
But no, being serious, I think a big part of it is that MAGA America first nonsense is kinda directly innately opposed by European multilateralism, ergo the latter must be eroded at all times.
I don’t think the powers that be are idiots, it’s quite deliberate. Not necessarily Trump, but the powers behind the throne for sure.
It’s completely asinine, but hey what else is new with this lot?
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On November 22 2025 08:29 spets1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2025 03:27 blomsterjohn wrote:“If China or Russia built a military alliance and moved to include Mexico and Canada, the United States would never accept it – Monroe Doctrine 101. We are doing precisely what we would never tolerate in our own hemisphere. The fact that Canada is already in NATO is irrelevant; NATO was built when the only threat was the Soviet Union and the U.S. was the overwhelmingly dominant power. Try to add Mexico to a Chinese-led military alliance today and watch what happens.”
5. Invading isn’t a better offer
“International politics is not a dating service. Great powers use coercion when vital interests are at stake. The United States invaded Iraq, bombed Serbia, droned Libya – all to prevent unfavourable outcomes. Russia is doing the same. You may hate the means, but pretending great-power politics runs on kindness is liberal delusion.”
6. Sovereignty and “it’s not up to Putin”
“Sovereignty exists only to the extent it can be defended. Tiny countries next to great powers do not have unrestricted Westbindung rights when the great power says its survival is at stake. Ask Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. Ukraine is not Switzerland floating in the middle of nowhere; it is the most geopolitically sensitive piece of real estate in Eurasia. Great powers decide the security architecture in their backyard – always have, always will.”
So just to be clear, you're saying that Russia invading Ukraine was justified? ...or are you just saying its "realpolitik"? I never use the word "justified" because that implies some moral endorsement, and I'm not taking about morality—it's about how the world actually works. What I'm saying is that the Russian invasion was entirely predictable and understandable as a regional power response to what Moscow saw as an existential threat: NATO creeping right up to its border via Ukraine. Regional powers don't play dating games when their core security is at stake; they push back, often with force. The United States would do exactly the same if the roles were reversed, which US have done, repeatedly, from the Monroe Doctrine to Iraq. Is it realpolitik? Yep, nternational politics is nasty busness where survival trumps liberal ideals every time. Blaming Putin as some uniquely evil imperialist misses the point: this crisis was manufactured in Washington and Brussels through boneheaded policies that ignored basic geopolitical realities. The tragedy is that it was avoidable if the West had treated Russia like a regional nuclear power with legitimate interests instead of a defeted enemy to be encircled
How about this alternative plan.
People are happy enough dealing with Russia. It’s not a pariah, Germany especially is enmeshing its energy policy in Russia, to the degree it had issues extricating itself.
Why not take that ball and keep running with it? Maybe try that?
Youse are fucking lunatics, my lord. Relations were normalising, but the Russian ego can’t handle just being a regular country, with regular relations.
|
On November 22 2025 06:59 KwarK wrote:
Where did I say I liked the breakdown of the rules based international system?
China export market and being where it is now, is within the rules based international system.
It just so happens the old system funded it growth, even if it's meant to be a hostile state.
And now they are colluding with the China reliant nations to change up the rules, still very much rule based.
|
On November 22 2025 09:56 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2025 08:57 Billyboy wrote:On November 22 2025 08:04 Legan wrote:
The level of disdain and even hate for Europe from Republicans is surprising. Is it coming from people who were outside of politics a decade ago, or is there some older faction behind it? Just people buying into Europe being a socialist dystopia?
The most surprising part to me is probably the total lack of competence among the old national security wing of Republicans. Every diplomatic action seems very poorly implemented. It is not that surprising that the deal is bad or has some hard-to-accept points. However, the way the proposal has been made, while ignoring the EU and Ukraine, and how completely it fails to make any demands on Russia, just makes the USA look weak and disinterested in its long-time allies. Working with Europe and Ukraine could help develop a framework for actions that soften the worst aspects of any peace deal.
At the same time, the isolationists still seem to demand that others just do as the USA demands. None of them seems to connect listening to allies and having allies act in a favourable way. This should probably be taken as a serious sign that demands for Greenland and Canada will be a real threat in the future. There seems to be an entitlement mentality among Republicans. I think a big reason is Europeans are a lot more direct and blunt than us NAs. So when Republicans say dumb shit about guns or what ever they call it directly out. And now with all the extra stupid MAGA stuff and the near daily Trump idiocy. Basically they hurt his fragile ego by pointing out he’s a moron. They hate us cos they ain’t us. But no, being serious, I think a big part of it is that MAGA America first nonsense is kinda directly innately opposed by European multilateralism, ergo the latter must be eroded at all times. I don’t think the powers that be are idiots, it’s quite deliberate. Not necessarily Trump, but the powers behind the throne for sure. It’s completely asinine, but hey what else is new with this lot?
I think that it's because Europe stands in pretty much direct opposition to what Republicans preach. Lobbying, huge corporate monopolies, US being the "ruler" of the entire globe etc.
Do you remember the outrage when Google and other big US corps got fined really hard by the EU for monopoly practices? Instant threats of tariffs etc. They just can't get their heads around the fact that someone might be opposed to making shit ton of money regardless of cost. How can you even challenge the practices that make you money? Ethics and caring about the citizens, the state that has wellbeing of its inhabitants in mind and puts people before the big corps are exactly the socialist bullshit that is anathema to the Republicans.
As with most things in politics, if you don't know what something is about then there's 99.9% chance that it's all about money.
|
On November 22 2025 11:29 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2025 09:56 WombaT wrote:On November 22 2025 08:57 Billyboy wrote:On November 22 2025 08:04 Legan wrote:
The level of disdain and even hate for Europe from Republicans is surprising. Is it coming from people who were outside of politics a decade ago, or is there some older faction behind it? Just people buying into Europe being a socialist dystopia?
The most surprising part to me is probably the total lack of competence among the old national security wing of Republicans. Every diplomatic action seems very poorly implemented. It is not that surprising that the deal is bad or has some hard-to-accept points. However, the way the proposal has been made, while ignoring the EU and Ukraine, and how completely it fails to make any demands on Russia, just makes the USA look weak and disinterested in its long-time allies. Working with Europe and Ukraine could help develop a framework for actions that soften the worst aspects of any peace deal.
At the same time, the isolationists still seem to demand that others just do as the USA demands. None of them seems to connect listening to allies and having allies act in a favourable way. This should probably be taken as a serious sign that demands for Greenland and Canada will be a real threat in the future. There seems to be an entitlement mentality among Republicans. I think a big reason is Europeans are a lot more direct and blunt than us NAs. So when Republicans say dumb shit about guns or what ever they call it directly out. And now with all the extra stupid MAGA stuff and the near daily Trump idiocy. Basically they hurt his fragile ego by pointing out he’s a moron. They hate us cos they ain’t us. But no, being serious, I think a big part of it is that MAGA America first nonsense is kinda directly innately opposed by European multilateralism, ergo the latter must be eroded at all times. I don’t think the powers that be are idiots, it’s quite deliberate. Not necessarily Trump, but the powers behind the throne for sure. It’s completely asinine, but hey what else is new with this lot? I think that it's because Europe stands in pretty much direct opposition to what Republicans preach. Lobbying, huge corporate monopolies, US being the "ruler" of the entire globe etc. Do you remember the outrage when Google and other big US corps got fined really hard by the EU for monopoly practices? Instant threats of tariffs etc. They just can't get their heads around the fact that someone might be opposed to making shit ton of money regardless of cost. How can you even challenge the practices that make you money? Ethics and caring about the citizens, the state that has wellbeing of its inhabitants in mind and puts people before the big corps are exactly the socialist bullshit that is anathema to the Republicans. As with most things in politics, if you don't know what something is about then there's 99.9% chance that it's all about money.
No allies in Asia liked all these EU lawsuits against the US, when the entire alliance depends a F ton on US keeps on performing, and definitely don't be anything like Europe in many areas.
Yet another "trump is bad, so we now friend with China" kinda alliance says a lot about what the nature of these alliances had been. MONEY. Looking at you, Canada.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/10/31/canadas-carney-and-chinas-xi-jinping-take-step-towards-mending-ties
I have several friends emigrated to Canada because of CCP, now they are literally fucked.
Anyways to stay onto topic of Ukraine, Europe support has fallen a lot after the initial boost in early 2025.
Germany PMI just got released today, and is looking even more sluggish into a contraction territory.
If Europe needs to continue the funding, they really should start unlocking those russian assets seized
I think if the deal is to be rejected, that's the least they can do for Ukraine.
Pokrovisk looks like will be ending in couple of days max, and apparently quite a few battalions ran out of time to withdraw.
Just terrible situation made worse.
|
On November 22 2025 10:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2025 08:29 spets1 wrote:On November 22 2025 03:27 blomsterjohn wrote:“If China or Russia built a military alliance and moved to include Mexico and Canada, the United States would never accept it – Monroe Doctrine 101. We are doing precisely what we would never tolerate in our own hemisphere. The fact that Canada is already in NATO is irrelevant; NATO was built when the only threat was the Soviet Union and the U.S. was the overwhelmingly dominant power. Try to add Mexico to a Chinese-led military alliance today and watch what happens.”
5. Invading isn’t a better offer
“International politics is not a dating service. Great powers use coercion when vital interests are at stake. The United States invaded Iraq, bombed Serbia, droned Libya – all to prevent unfavourable outcomes. Russia is doing the same. You may hate the means, but pretending great-power politics runs on kindness is liberal delusion.”
6. Sovereignty and “it’s not up to Putin”
“Sovereignty exists only to the extent it can be defended. Tiny countries next to great powers do not have unrestricted Westbindung rights when the great power says its survival is at stake. Ask Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. Ukraine is not Switzerland floating in the middle of nowhere; it is the most geopolitically sensitive piece of real estate in Eurasia. Great powers decide the security architecture in their backyard – always have, always will.”
So just to be clear, you're saying that Russia invading Ukraine was justified? ...or are you just saying its "realpolitik"? I never use the word "justified" because that implies some moral endorsement, and I'm not taking about morality—it's about how the world actually works. What I'm saying is that the Russian invasion was entirely predictable and understandable as a regional power response to what Moscow saw as an existential threat: NATO creeping right up to its border via Ukraine. Regional powers don't play dating games when their core security is at stake; they push back, often with force. The United States would do exactly the same if the roles were reversed, which US have done, repeatedly, from the Monroe Doctrine to Iraq. Is it realpolitik? Yep, nternational politics is nasty busness where survival trumps liberal ideals every time. Blaming Putin as some uniquely evil imperialist misses the point: this crisis was manufactured in Washington and Brussels through boneheaded policies that ignored basic geopolitical realities. The tragedy is that it was avoidable if the West had treated Russia like a regional nuclear power with legitimate interests instead of a defeted enemy to be encircled How about this alternative plan. People are happy enough dealing with Russia. It’s not a pariah, Germany especially is enmeshing its energy policy in Russia, to the degree it had issues extricating itself. Why not take that ball and keep running with it? Maybe try that? Youse are fucking lunatics, my lord. Relations were normalising, but the Russian ego can’t handle just being a regular country, with regular relations.
That's the problem the US kept pushing and not giving Russia a chance to be integrated. The US strategy is to ensure that Russia and Germany never join up and become another great power that is able to challenge US with gemran ingenuity and Russian cheap energy and other resources
April 2008, Bucharest NATO Summit: the United States forced through the declaration that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO” over the explicit objections of Germany and France. Merkel herself said it would be viewed as a declaration of war by Russia.
2008–2013: the US and EU trained the Ukrainian military under NATO standards, and poured money into turning Kyiv westward.
2014 the coup
2014–2021: NATO conducted dozens of join exercises in Ukraine, the US started lethal arms deliveries in 2017 and Zelensky in 2021 openly declared NATO membershp an urgent goal and started talking about getting nuclear weapons back.
From Moscow’s point of view, normalizing relations meant: sell us your gas cheaply, let us buy some companies, and in exchange we will slowly watch NATO and American missiles move 300 miles from Moscow and park permanently in the one place on earth that can cut Russia in half in a week. That is not “normal relations”; that is slow-motion strangulation with a smile.
The West never offered Russia a neutral Ukraine and a European security architecture that included Moscow; it offered encirclement. Russia chose to fight. Predictable, and entirely consistent with how politics, international relations worked for five hundred years of history
|
United States44191 Posts
The US is not afraid of Russia teaming up with anyone. Russia is not a great power.
|
On November 22 2025 13:13 spets1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2025 10:32 WombaT wrote:On November 22 2025 08:29 spets1 wrote:On November 22 2025 03:27 blomsterjohn wrote:“If China or Russia built a military alliance and moved to include Mexico and Canada, the United States would never accept it – Monroe Doctrine 101. We are doing precisely what we would never tolerate in our own hemisphere. The fact that Canada is already in NATO is irrelevant; NATO was built when the only threat was the Soviet Union and the U.S. was the overwhelmingly dominant power. Try to add Mexico to a Chinese-led military alliance today and watch what happens.”
5. Invading isn’t a better offer
“International politics is not a dating service. Great powers use coercion when vital interests are at stake. The United States invaded Iraq, bombed Serbia, droned Libya – all to prevent unfavourable outcomes. Russia is doing the same. You may hate the means, but pretending great-power politics runs on kindness is liberal delusion.”
6. Sovereignty and “it’s not up to Putin”
“Sovereignty exists only to the extent it can be defended. Tiny countries next to great powers do not have unrestricted Westbindung rights when the great power says its survival is at stake. Ask Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. Ukraine is not Switzerland floating in the middle of nowhere; it is the most geopolitically sensitive piece of real estate in Eurasia. Great powers decide the security architecture in their backyard – always have, always will.”
So just to be clear, you're saying that Russia invading Ukraine was justified? ...or are you just saying its "realpolitik"? I never use the word "justified" because that implies some moral endorsement, and I'm not taking about morality—it's about how the world actually works. What I'm saying is that the Russian invasion was entirely predictable and understandable as a regional power response to what Moscow saw as an existential threat: NATO creeping right up to its border via Ukraine. Regional powers don't play dating games when their core security is at stake; they push back, often with force. The United States would do exactly the same if the roles were reversed, which US have done, repeatedly, from the Monroe Doctrine to Iraq. Is it realpolitik? Yep, nternational politics is nasty busness where survival trumps liberal ideals every time. Blaming Putin as some uniquely evil imperialist misses the point: this crisis was manufactured in Washington and Brussels through boneheaded policies that ignored basic geopolitical realities. The tragedy is that it was avoidable if the West had treated Russia like a regional nuclear power with legitimate interests instead of a defeted enemy to be encircled How about this alternative plan. People are happy enough dealing with Russia. It’s not a pariah, Germany especially is enmeshing its energy policy in Russia, to the degree it had issues extricating itself. Why not take that ball and keep running with it? Maybe try that? Youse are fucking lunatics, my lord. Relations were normalising, but the Russian ego can’t handle just being a regular country, with regular relations. That's the problem the US kept pushing and not giving Russia a chance to be integrated. The US strategy is to ensure that Russia and Germany never join up and become another great power that is able to challenge US with gemran ingenuity and Russian cheap energy and other resources April 2008, Bucharest NATO Summit: the United States forced through the declaration that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO” over the explicit objections of Germany and France. Merkel herself said it would be viewed as a declaration of war by Russia. 2008–2013: the U.S. and EU trained the Ukrainian military under NATO standards, and poured money into turning Kyiv westward. 2014 the coup 2014–2021: NATO conducted dozens of joint exercises in Ukraine, the U.S. started lethal arms deliveries in 2017 and Zelensky in 2021 openly declared NATO membership an urgent goal and started talking about getting nuclear weapons back. From Moscow’s point of view, normalizing relations meant: sell us your gas cheaply, let us buy some companies, and in exchange we will slowly watch NATO and American missiles move 300 miles from Moscow and park permanently in the one place on earth that can cut Russia in half in a week. That is not “normal relations”; that is slow-motion strangulation with a smile. The West never offered Russia a neutral Ukraine and a European security architecture that included Moscow; it offered encirclement. Russia chose to fight. Predictable, and entirely consistent with five hundred years of history of regional powers competition
You really think Russia is so weak that it can't compete with the US without Germany's help? Do you think the problem is the leadership or the people themselves? Clearly their military was no as advertised, so you may have a point.
|
Russia is not inherently weak—it's a nuclear-armed power with vast resources, a huge landmass, and a population three times that of France.
The issue isn't about bein weak or the Russian peple; it's the hand the Russia ha been delay since WW2. American grand strategy since Ww2 has been to dominate Eurasia precisely because a unified Europe tied to Russia could create a real competitor that outmatches even the US in industrial might and technological edge. Without Germany or France as partners, Russia is trapped n its own neighborhood, facing encirclement from NATO on one side and a rising China on the other.
the U.S. has masterfully played divide-and-conquer to keep potential rivals fragmented.
As for the military, sure, the initial invasion of Ukraine exposed corruption, poor logistics, and overestimation of their own capabilitie
But look at the adaptation since 2022: Russia has mobilized its economy, outproduced the West in artillery and drones, and ground down a NATO-backed Ukraine despite unprecedented sanctions.
The real point is that russia is in a strategic trap and unless it breaks out of isolation it will be weak, which is exactly what Washington works to keep
|
On November 22 2025 13:21 KwarK wrote:
The US is not afraid of Russia teaming up with anyone. Russia is not a great power.
When it comes to who gets to sell energy it matters.
Or who gets to buy up stuff around central Europe between east and west.
The guy who created telegram is also realistic competition to whatsapp and communication apps determine who gets access to information.
I‘m guessing that the US-Russian rivalry is more annoying than anything to central Europeans.
If only the US would seem more like a responsible country lately…
|
On November 22 2025 13:37 spets1 wrote:
Russia is not inherently weak—it's a nuclear-armed power with vast resources, a huge landmass, and a population three times that of France.
The issue isn't about bein weak or the Russian peple; it's the hand the Russia ha been delay since WW2. American grand strategy since Ww2 has been to dominate Eurasia precisely because a unified Europe tied to Russia could create a real competitor that outmatches even the US in industrial might and technological edge. Without Germany or France as partners, Russia is trapped n its own neighborhood, facing encirclement from NATO on one side and a rising China on the other.
the U.S. has masterfully played divide-and-conquer to keep potential rivals fragmented.
As for the military, sure, the initial invasion of Ukraine exposed corruption, poor logistics, and overestimation of their own capabilitie
But look at the adaptation since 2022: Russia has mobilized its economy, outproduced the West in artillery and drones, and ground down a NATO-backed Ukraine despite unprecedented sanctions.
The real point is that russia is in a strategic trap and unless it breaks out of isolation it will be weak, which is exactly what Washington works to keep
What hand has Russia been holding back since WW2? You know of course that the only reason Russia even was on the winning side of WW2 was that they got lots of stuff from the US?
And Russia isn't really outproducing anyone. Especially if you consider it's in full war economy whereas all of EU is in peace economy. Russia is spending on military over 7% of its GDP. Germany would have more money to spend of military than Russia if they were spending 3%.
Russia may be vast but it's actually quite poor compared to the West. Bringing back Germany to keep it consistent - German economy is twice the size of Russia's.
Overall NATO dwarfs Russia like 6 to 1 (during peace time and excluding the US, with US included it's 10 to 1). Russia has the most land, tons of resources, twice the population of Germany or France but its economy is still two times weaker. Truly a sign of a country being run competently...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
