What is it that distances Russia from the West?

[Landon Caeli]

That's your perspective ..... not theirs.

You're wrong. It's theirs.

...Don't fall for the lies. They're very tricky, and dishonest to the core.

 

[eleos1954]

You're wrong. It's theirs.

...Don't fall for the lies. They're very tricky, and dishonest to the core.

If a neighbor of yours .... had a constant visible showing of arms/weapons (on their property) would you feel threatened?

 

[Landon Caeli]

If a neighbor of yours .... had a constant visible showing of arms/weapons (on their property) would you feel threatened?

If your neighbor robbed 5 houses, and you bought a gun to protect yourself, how would you feel if the neighbor then told everyone he was "afraid" of you, for buying a gun? And told everyone you're a monster?

 

[RDKirk]

It is the ultimate purpose of NATO to take Russia down (if need be) .... so Russia sees NATO as a threat to their sovereignty .... so yeah .... if Russia adds to their nation by overtaking other non-NATO nations .... then they (Russia) are eliminating the possibility of them becoming a member of NATO.

The main purpose of forming NATO was/is to defend against Russia (or eliminate it if needed) ..... and because of that Russia sees NATO-bound countries as a threat to them (of which Ukraine was moving towards) ....Ukraine formally adopted a constitutional amendment in 2019 committing to pursue NATO membership.

Even now Ukraine is being considered into admission into NATO, if that happens .... then boots on the ground will happen and all out war with Russia will happen ..... (World War III)

NATO's war plans are not against Russia, but against Russian forces transiting Eastern Europe. If Russia never invaded a NATO nation, there would never be a NATO war.

 

[eleos1954]

NATO's war plans are not against Russia, but against Russian forces transiting Eastern Europe. If Russia never invaded a NATO nation, there would never be a NATO war.

Ukraine was not/is not a NATO nation ..... yet NATO is involved .... so is seen as a threat by Russia ..... so yeah the plan is to war with Russia via NATO .... it was the reason NATO was formed in the first place ... to defend against Russia and yeah go to war with them if necessary.

 

[RDKirk]

Ukraine was not/is not a NATO nation ..... yet NATO is involved .... so is seen as a threat by Russia ..... so yeah the plan is to war with Russia via NATO .... it was the reason NATO was formed in the first place ... to defend against Russia and yeah go to war with them if necessary.

If Russia never invaded a NATO nation, there would never be a NATO war.

 

[Gene2memE]

Ukraine was not/is not a NATO nation ..... yet NATO is involved

Because
1) Ukraine was a prospective NATO member, and had been since 2006. In 2019, Ukraine even underwent a constitutional amendment to pave the way for full membership
2) Ukraine had ongoing defense relationships with NATO member states prior to the Russian invasion (and prior to the annexation of Crimea) -
3) Ukraine requested support from countries which are NATO member states - countries which have been opposed to Russian occupations of neighbouring countries in the last 15 years

.... so is seen as a threat by Russia ..... so yeah the plan is to war with Russia via NATO .... it was the reason NATO was formed in the first place ... to defend against Russia and yeah go to war with them if necessary.

If Russia wasn't invading it's neighbours, NATO wouldn't be involved.

The plan isn't to "war with Russia via NATO". It isn't even to war with Russia via Ukraine. The plan is to equip and support Ukraine sufficiently that it can resist a Russian invasion.

 

[RDKirk]

Because
1) Ukraine was a prospective NATO member, and had been since 2006. In 2019, Ukraine even underwent a constitutional amendment to pave the way for full membership
2) Ukraine had ongoing defense relationships with NATO member states prior to the Russian invasion (and prior to the annexation of Crimea) -
3) Ukraine requested support from countries which are NATO member states - countries which have been opposed to Russian occupations of neighbouring countries in the last 15 years



If Russia wasn't invading it's neighbours, NATO wouldn't be involved.

The plan isn't to "war with Russia via NATO". It isn't even to war with Russia via Ukraine. The plan is to equip and support Ukraine sufficiently that it can resist a Russian invasion.

Yes.

The "plan" is for the current boundaries to remain the boundaries and for European countries to finally and at last stop invading one another.

 

[eleos1954]

Are you sure that the purpose isn't actually to protect the world from Russia?

I'd say NATO is exclusively a defensive organization... Where Russia is a militarily aggressive empire.

If it is ..... then why did/does NATO get involved in other wars that have nothing to do with Russia.

You don't think Russia sees America and it's NATO allies as being aggressive? When a country becomes a member of NATO .... then a military
presence along with arms is placed within it ... and that's supposed to not be looked at as aggression?

If your neighbor had a bunch of people show up, heavily armed ..... would you consider that a threat? or would you think .... they are just there
to protect me from the other neighbors who might do me harm.

NATO and Russia are both aggressors. One in a direct way .... the other in an indirect way.

Wars are inevitable because of the depravity of mankind.

Wars, and rumors of wars ...... and so it is. Mankind is wicked to the core. There is not one good .... not one.

Romans 3:10-12
English Standard Version​

10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”

This is the state of our world.

 

[eleos1954]

Because
1) Ukraine was a prospective NATO member, and had been since 2006. In 2019, Ukraine even underwent a constitutional amendment to pave the way for full membership
2) Ukraine had ongoing defense relationships with NATO member states prior to the Russian invasion (and prior to the annexation of Crimea) -
3) Ukraine requested support from countries which are NATO member states - countries which have been opposed to Russian occupations of neighbouring countries in the last 15 years



If Russia wasn't invading it's neighbours, NATO wouldn't be involved.

The plan isn't to "war with Russia via NATO". It isn't even to war with Russia via Ukraine. The plan is to equip and support Ukraine sufficiently that it can resist a Russian invasion.

Baloney .... when a country joins NATO a military presence is put within it. It is occupied by NATO forces.

NATO was formed because of Russia and from there has extended itself into nations that are not threatened by Russia.

Ukraine was wanting to join NATO and Russia took that as a threat. If Ukraine would have joined NATO before Russias invasion NATO forces
would have been placed there ... that might have deterred a Russian invasion .... too late now.

Now .... because NATO is involved (after the fact) .... we are on the brink of World War III ... nice .... real nice .... good grief!

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Russia's regime is imperialist.

Russia only intervenes in other countries to protect its own interests. Can we say as much for the United States?

Just look at the current situation in Russia, and consider the possibilities... Currently, we have a rogue neighbor who jails anyone who speaks out publicly against the politics of their president - a violation of free speech! They have state-controlled media, and they're even cut-off from communicating via the internet with us here on this forum!

Like most of what the Western media says about Russia, lies...

Secondly, what you're calling U.S. hegemony, is really just the idea of acting civilly. The entire West is shaped merely on treating people with dignity and respect, and respecting their human rights. How's that wrong?

In practice "human rights" are nothing more than justification for endless foreign interventions, because these "rights" are ultimately defined by Washington. That's not dignified or respectful.

Thirdly, just imagine what would happen if Russia were decolonized, rather than holding the knee-jerk reaction of it being 'bad'... What if by breaking apart, all the nations held in Russia finally had their chance to participate in freedom, liberty, and independence? What if their individual ideas and cultures could finally be expressed rather than suppressed? How can we know that's a bad thing?

Well, at least now you're not denying that the US wants to overthrow the Russian government. I don't have to image it. The Russians remember being under Washington's heel during the Yeltsin years. They had quite enough of that. It was worse than communism. Look, for example, at Russia's average life expectancy:

We see a sharp drop under Yeltsin, and increase to its highest levels ever under Putin. We are seeing Russia becoming the country that it might have become in the last century had the Communists not taken over. Unfortunately, Western technocrats want to subject Russia to another revolution.

Finally, what makes anyone think that Russia makes Eastern Europe better than an Eastern Europe without it? What "good" does Russia do in this world?

Russia serves as an effective geopolitical counterweight to the US.

 

[FireDragon76]

Russia only intervenes in other countries to protect its own interests. Can we say as much for the United States?



Like most of what the Western media says about Russia, lies...



In practice "human rights" are nothing more than justification for endless foreign interventions, because these "rights" are ultimately defined by Washington. That's not dignified or respectful.



Well, at least now you're not denying that the US wants to overthrow the Russian government. I don't have to image it. The Russians remember being under Washington's heel during the Yeltsin years. They had quite enough of that. It was worse than communism. Look, for example, at Russia's average life expectancy:

View attachment 328707

We see a sharp drop under Yeltsin, and increase to its highest levels ever under Putin. We are seeing Russia becoming the country that it might have become in the last century had the Communists not taken over. Unfortunately, Western technocrats want to subject Russia to another revolution.



Russia serves as an effective geopolitical counterweight to the US.

Plenty of real Americans have spilled their blood for all those ideas you think are nothing but imperialism.

 

[Gene2memE]

Baloney .... when a country joins NATO a military presence is put within it. It is occupied by NATO forces.

You clearly don't know how NATO works.

Name a NATO member force that is "occupying" the US. Or Canada. Or the UK, or Lithuania, Lativa or Estonia.

Basing and hosting is not occupation.

Agreeing to another NATO member sending their troops into your territory is also not occupation.

Here's the Status of Forces agreement and International Military Headquarters agreement for NATO that covers these arrangements:

Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces

Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty

www.nato.int

Try and find where member states are permitted to be occupied. If you're having trouble, I can give it to you in Russian.

NATO was formed because of Russia

NATO was formed because of the SOVIET UNION, not Russia. Russia may have called the shots and been the largest by population (~50% of the people) and by land area (~75% of the area controlled), but it was just part of a larger entity.

and from there has extended itself into nations that are not threatened by Russia.

Since the fall of the USSR, NATO has added more European nations to its membership at their request. It is noteworthy that a lot of the new member are former republics of the USSR - now, I wonder why they would want to be members of a large defensive military alliance?

Ukraine was wanting to join NATO and Russia took that as a threat.

Tough. Russia doesn't get to dictate whether Ukraine enters NATO or not
- any more than it gets to tell Lativa, Estonia, Lithania, Norway of Finland what they can and cannot do.

Ukraine is a sovereign state and is free to enter or withdraw any alliances it wishes.

If Ukraine would have joined NATO before Russias invasion NATO forces would have been placed there ... that might have deterred a Russian invasion .... too late now.

Yes, it's unfortunate there was so much dithering. It's also unfortunate there were so many internal problems in Ukraine and vacillation between Western and Russian interests which prevented earlier accession to NATO - it would have potentially avoided a lot of bloodshed.

Now .... because NATO is involved (after the fact) .... we are on the brink of World War III ... nice .... real nice .... good grief!

Not really. No more than we were on the brink of WW3 during the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, or the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, or the Arab-Israeli War, or the Suez Crisis, or the Six Day War, or Yom Kippur War, or any number of proxy conflicts through the Cold War period.

Also, NATO has been involved with Ukraine since the end of the 1990s, and the process of Ukraine becoming a NATO member has been ongoing since 2002:

NATO-Ukraine Action Plan

www.nato.int

So, NATO is hardly involved after the fact.

 

[RDKirk]

If it is ..... then why did/does NATO get involved in other wars that have nothing to do with Russia.

You don't think Russia sees America and it's NATO allies as being aggressive? When a country becomes a member of NATO .... then a military
presence along with arms is placed within it ... and that's supposed to not be looked at as aggression?

If your neighbor had a bunch of people show up, heavily armed ..... would you consider that a threat? or would you think .... they are just there
to protect me from the other neighbors who might do me harm.

NATO and Russia are both aggressors. One in a direct way .... the other in an indirect way.

Wars are inevitable because of the depravity of mankind.

Wars, and rumors of wars ...... and so it is. Mankind is wicked to the core. There is not one good .... not one.

Romans 3:10-12​

English Standard Version​

10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”

This is the state of our world.

Well, then that's certainly the way Sweden and Finland should have looked at Russia all along, isn't it?

I'd also point out that NATO's armament, post the 1990s, has been quite modest, far below any possible level to sustain an invasion of Russia...and Russia darn well knows it.

 

[eleos1954]

Yes, these are the lies that Russia proclaims. Realistically, Russia does not view NATO as a threat, but rather as an obstruction of their desire to colonize all of Europe.

Realistically, Russia does not view NATO as a threat .... says who? The presence of NATO is ... in the view of Russia as a threat ..... because
when a nation joins NATO a military presence is put there ..... a military presence constitutes a threat. That is the whole point of putting a military presence in place ..... it is a threat ..... ie you mess with this country .... we have a presence there and will act .... it's a threat.

 

[eleos1954]

If your neighbor robbed 5 houses, and you bought a gun to protect yourself, how would you feel if the neighbor then told everyone he was "afraid" of you, for buying a gun? And told everyone you're a monster?

A blaten display of arms is viewed as a threat by anyone.

 

[eleos1954]

You clearly don't know how NATO works.

Name a NATO member force that is "occupying" the US. Or Canada. Or the UK, or Lithuania, Lativa or Estonia.

Basing and hosting is not occupation.

Agreeing to another NATO member sending their troops into your territory is also not occupation.

Here's the Status of Forces agreement and International Military Headquarters agreement for NATO that covers these arrangements:

Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces

Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty

www.nato.int

Try and find where member states are permitted to be occupied. If you're having trouble, I can give it to you in Russian.



NATO was formed because of the SOVIET UNION, not Russia. Russia may have called the shots and been the largest by population (~50% of the people) and by land area (~75% of the area controlled), but it was just part of a larger entity.



Since the fall of the USSR, NATO has added more European nations to its membership at their request. It is noteworthy that a lot of the new member are former republics of the USSR - now, I wonder why they would want to be members of a large defensive military alliance?



Tough. Russia doesn't get to dictate whether Ukraine enters NATO or not
- any more than it gets to tell Lativa, Estonia, Lithania, Norway of Finland what they can and cannot do.

Ukraine is a sovereign state and is free to enter or withdraw any alliances it wishes.



Yes, it's unfortunate there was so much dithering. It's also unfortunate there were so many internal problems in Ukraine and vacillation between Western and Russian interests which prevented earlier accession to NATO - it would have potentially avoided a lot of bloodshed.




Not really. No more than we were on the brink of WW3 during the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, or the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, or the Arab-Israeli War, or the Suez Crisis, or the Six Day War, or Yom Kippur War, or any number of proxy conflicts through the Cold War period.

Also, NATO has been involved with Ukraine since the end of the 1990s, and the process of Ukraine becoming a NATO member has been ongoing since 2002:

NATO-Ukraine Action Plan

www.nato.int

So, NATO is hardly involved after the fact.

A armed force of any kind is a threat.

 

[eleos1954]

Well, then that's certainly the way Sweden and Finland should have looked at Russia all along, isn't it?

I'd also point out that NATO's armament, post the 1990s, has been quite modest, far below any possible level to sustain an invasion of Russia...and Russia darn well knows it.

A armed presence is a threat. NATO puts a framework in place from which to operate from if needed.

 

[RDKirk]

A armed presence is a threat. NATO puts a framework in place from which to operate from if needed.

Your position, which you've repeated three consecutive times, is that Russia feels threatened by any nation that chooses to have its own military force.

That's a fairly dangerous national paranoia in this day and age.

Are you saying that Russia can only feel safe if they are the only armed force in Europe and everyone else must be disarmed?

 

[eleos1954]

Your position, which you've repeated three consecutive times, is that Russia feels threatened by any nation that chooses to have its own military force.

That's a fairly dangerous national paranoia in this day and age.

Are you saying that Russia can only feel safe if they are the only armed force in Europe and everyone else must be disarmed?

No .... what I am saying ..... there is a threat from those who are militarily armed whether that be Russia or anyone else that is militarily armed ... of which there are many. Do you consider China, Iran, North Korea .... others a threat (of course)? If China, Iran, North Korea where to put a Military presence in our county (no matter how small) ... would you consider that a threat? NATO is a armed presence and is a threat. The threat of NATO presence is "supposed" to deter invasions .... it is a threat against a threat.