Putin Threatens The West

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, L00b said:

Putin can be against the EU all he wants. Makes about as much sense as being against the sun rising in the east, or rain falling. Doesn’t give him any valid excuse, in law or equity, to deny countries over which he has no legitimate claim to rule, their own sovereign choices.

the same doesn’t apply to NATO though.

[Dromedary]

2 hours ago, L00b said:

Such countries on the other side of the iron country regained their sovereignty with the fall of the USSR. 

Correct!

2 hours ago, L00b said:

They decided, as a sovereign choice, to join the EU.

The EU was paramount in encouraging them to join and by also giving them bribes to do so. It was... join the EU, we will give you money to restructure your country and with the freedom of movement we can then get your workers to work on our farms as cheap labour. We can then do a deal with you to buy your spare resources and products cheap as well, got any oil, gas or grain then we will buy it.

 

2 hours ago, L00b said:

Whilst keeping their sovereignty, of course. Just as the UK did, then decided to leave the EU, still as a sovereign choice.

Nothing to do with the EU comes free and because of its one size fits all approach members may have some form of sovereignty but that come with conditions attached. 

 

2 hours ago, L00b said:

So please let us know, what the everlasting f*** should it matter, whether it displeases Putin, or not, what countries that were previously vassal states of the USSR and owe that ex-USSR precisely f*** all save for 50-odd years of politico-socio-economic mismanagement by the Kremlin, decide to do?

Because Putin does not like the EU, I thought that was obvious and one of his policies is to see it collapse.

 

2 hours ago, L00b said:

Putin can be against the EU all he wants.

Yes he can and is proving to be a big thorn in the EU's side so far, something you simply don't seem to get or wish to acknowledge.

 

2 hours ago, L00b said:

Makes about as much sense as being against the sun rising in the east, or rain falling. Doesn’t give him any valid excuse, in law or equity, to deny countries over which he has no legitimate claim to rule, their own sovereign choices.

I didn't say it did now did I!

[L00b]

13 hours ago, makapaka said:

the same doesn’t apply to NATO though.

Why and how?

13 hours ago, Dromedary said:

The EU was paramount in encouraging them to join and by also giving them bribes to do so. It was... join the EU, we will give you money to restructure your country and with the freedom of movement we can then get your workers to work on our farms as cheap labour. We can then do a deal with you to buy your spare resources and products cheap as well, got any oil, gas or grain then we will buy it.

Encouragement and bribes to restructure?

 

You mean…

 

you mean…

 

…like the EC gave to the 1970s sick man of Europe, and agrarian Ireland?

 

That kind of encouragement and bribes to restructure?

 

Eaten bread is soon forgotten.

13 hours ago, Dromedary said:

Because Putin does not like the EU, I thought that was obvious and one of his policies is to see it collapse.

Yes, and? Putin should be allowed to continue to do so, and in the process invade whichever ex-USSR country with veleities of joining the EU because…?

 

You’ve missed a bit in your explainer.

13 hours ago, Dromedary said:

Yes he can and is proving to be a big thorn in the EU's side so far, something you simply don't seem to get or wish to acknowledge.

You’ll have to show me where have I denied that Putin is a big thorn in the EU side (particularly since I’ve done nothing but highlight his nefarious influences on British, continental and US politics for the last 6-7 years, and counting, in the various Trump, Brexit, Conservative, etc. threads) and refused to acknowledge the effect of his latest ‘policies’ (again, since I’ve *also* highlighted, in counterpoint, what a great opportunity this war has been for the EU to pivot away from its dependency on Russian PoL in one big hurry - amongst other benefits).

 

I’ve never shied away from the EU’s genuine problems. But, and of course, I’ve never accepted that their solutions required its collapse. Unlike many seals still clapping on here.

 

What Ukraine has done, is reinforce western unity twice over: for EU member states, a second time after the continental unity that Brexit caused and, for NATO member states, the same amount of unity to cause Sweden and Finland to start accession.

 

For 4D chess-playing geostrategist Putin, it’s a total failure. He’s made the EU and NATO stronger by far, than they ever were pre-February 2022. Whilst tearing the @ss out of his national economy and depleting his military forces to levels prejudicial to (Russian-) national security.

Edited November 28, 2022 by L00b

[Dromedary]

6 hours ago, L00b said:

Why and how?

Encouragement and bribes to restructure?

 

You mean…

 

you mean…

 

…like the EC gave to the 1970s sick man of Europe, and agrarian Ireland?

 

That kind of encouragement and bribes to restructure?

Yep, they were just giving us some of the money we paid in back until Maggie negotiated a better deal. IIRC we have always been a net contributor.  The UK was the second largest net contribution to the EU budget in absolute terms, and the sixth largest net contribution per head of population no wonder they didn't like Brexit!

 

6 hours ago, L00b said:

Yes, and? Putin should be allowed to continue to do so, and in the process invade whichever ex-USSR country with veleities of joining the EU because…?

He can!

 

I am against all war but all the time other far away countries get involved it just perpetuates the system and this war will go on for a long time causing a lot of chaos. As we have seen from recent wars it can be very lucrative to those participating. What is happening now is that countries are getting involved by supplying armaments that get used and then need replacing thus making the manufacturers rich which is exactly what the UK, France and the US are doing. Do you actually believe that the countries that are doing that are doing it just because of goodwill alone and because it is the right thing to do?

 

[L00b]

44 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

Yep, they were just giving us some of the money we paid in back until Maggie negotiated a better deal. IIRC we have always been a net contributor.  The UK was the second largest net contribution to the EU budget in absolute terms, and the sixth largest net contribution per head of population no wonder they didn't like Brexit!

A typically cakeist perspective.

 

This is what the EC was about then, and what the EU has been since-

 

-being the trading tide which lifts all boats that get onto it.

 

Modern-day (pre-Brexit now, ofc) Polish butchers and Romanian vets were yesteryears’ Auf Widersehen Pet Geordie brickies.

 

As I said: eaten bread is soon forgotten. Never mind, you’ll eventually get it, in a few more years.

🙂
 

44 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

I am against all war but all the time other far away countries get involved it just perpetuates the system and this war will go on for a long time causing a lot of chaos. As we have seen from recent wars it can be very lucrative to those participating. What is happening now is that countries are getting involved by supplying armaments that get used and then need replacing thus making the manufacturers rich which is exactly what the UK, France and the US are doing.

Good job the Yanks eventually came off that mindset in 1940-41, eh?

 

We’d be speaking German now, you and me.

44 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

Do you actually believe that the countries that are doing that are doing it just because of goodwill alone and because it is the right thing to do?

Have I suggested anywhere, that I believe that?

Edited November 28, 2022 by L00b

[Dromedary]

10 minutes ago, L00b said:

....
 

Good job the Yanks eventually came off that mindset in 1940-41, eh?

They did? I thought we paid them through our lend lease agreement and other payments in kind which we finished paying off fully in 2006. 

 

10 minutes ago, L00b said:

We’d be speaking German now, you and me.

Err... We used to anyway. If you look at past history then you will find that we used to speak West Germanic in the UK until it evolved into what we now know as English.

 

In any case what does that matter?

 

10 minutes ago, L00b said:

Have I suggested anywhere, that I believe that?

It was a question not a statement/suggestion.

[Magilla]

 

Quote

What is relevant is you trying to use a NATO document to claim that NATO didn't do that.

There are two links, one from NATO... and another from a non-NATO source with the views of many others on the matter, none of which uphold your claims.

 

Quote

That would be worth trying in courts of law where we allow the man who's alleged to be guilty, to be the one who decides whether he is or not.

As above, selective gibberish.

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Magilla

[L00b]

2 hours ago, Dromedary said:

They did? I thought we paid them through our lend lease agreement and other payments in kind which we finished paying off fully in 2006. 

They did indeed, exactly as they and we are doing with Ukraine now.
 

Which goes directly to the next point-

2 hours ago, Dromedary said:

It was a question not a statement/suggestion.

-then my answer is clearly no, I don’t believe the US, the UK, the EU and all the others are delivering armaments and supplies to Ukraine “just because of goodwill alone and because it is the right thing to do”…no more than the US was delivering armaments and supplies to the UK, the USSR and all the others 70 years ago “just because of goodwill alone and because it was the right thing to do”.

Edited November 28, 2022 by L00b

[Jim117]

4 hours ago, L00b said:

They did indeed, exactly as they and we are doing with Ukraine now.
 

Which goes directly to the next point-

-then my answer is clearly no, I don’t believe the US, the UK, the EU and all the others are delivering armaments and supplies to Ukraine “just because of goodwill alone and because it is the right thing to do”…no more than the US was delivering armaments and supplies to the UK, the USSR and all the others 70 years ago “just because of goodwill alone and because it was the right thing to do”.

Economics aside it is still is the right thing to do. I can’t remember which US president made the quote and I’ll probably butcher it but something along the lines of evil only prospers if good men do nothing. Not a big Boris fan but I’m glad he stood up for Ukraine. Russia’s imperialistic BS should not be tolerated in the 21st century. Neither should its attitude of thinking its neighbours are little more than second class serfs. Russia is a terrorist state incapable of fielding a decent army and I hope they reap the whirlwind coming their way due to their attacks on civilians.

[hackey lad]

8 minutes ago, Jim117 said:

Economics aside it is still is the right thing to do. I can’t remember which US president made the quote and I’ll probably butcher it but something along the lines of evil only prospers if good men do nothing. Not a big Boris fan but I’m glad he stood up for Ukraine. Russia’s imperialistic BS should not be tolerated in the 21st century. Neither should its attitude of thinking its neighbours are little more than second class serfs. Russia is a terrorist state incapable of fielding a decent army and I hope they reap the whirlwind coming their way due to their attacks on civilians.

Good post