Putin Threatens The West

[Kidorry]

I will second that.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Magilla said:

 

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.

 

As above, selective gibberish.

 

That is what you are suggesting.     That  NATO   is the one who decides whether NATO has  expanded it's influence as Putin claims.

 

They most definitely have,  right from the East German border,  up to the Russian border.

 

You may call the truth a lie if you wish and you may call up as many documents as you like but, you are  wrong and Putin, evil though he may be, is correct when he makes this claim.

 

[L00b]

10 hours ago, Jim117 said:

Economics aside it is still is the right thing to do. (…)

I certainly agree. And if my reply to Dromedary suggested that the EU/UK/US were helping Ukraine under lend-lease -type arrangements due to economics, that’s my bad: these countries and groups are helping Ukraine for a very wide variety of reasons, not only because it’s the right thing do, nor for profit (what stocks they send to Ukraine, they have to replenish at home, to maintain their own order of battle short-term, and there is no objective or equitable reason, why their respective taxpayers should foot that bill).

 

And some notable reasons are the weakening of Russia’s military and world standing, and the real-life testing, in modern battlefield conditions, of much of their modern armaments, that hadn’t seen much of any use in the mostly insurgency-type conflicts of the recent decades.

[trastrick]

47 minutes ago, L00b said:

I certainly agree. And if my reply to Dromedary suggested that the EU/UK/US were helping Ukraine under lend-lease -type arrangements due to economics, that’s my bad: these countries and groups are helping Ukraine for a very wide variety of reasons, not only because it’s the right thing do, nor for profit (what stocks they send to Ukraine, they have to replenish at home, to maintain their own order of battle short-term, and there is no objective or equitable reason, why their respective taxpayers should foot that bill).

 

And some notable reasons are the weakening of Russia’s military and world standing, and the real-life testing, in modern battlefield conditions, of much of their modern armaments, that hadn’t seen much of any use in the mostly insurgency-type conflicts of the recent decades.

The usual Eurocentric and grossly outdated colonial view of "the World".  The reality is that it is a minority view, at best.

 

The West's frequent, and often failed attempts to impose, by force if necessary, it's own ideas on what's "best" for other sovereign countries through "regime change" has been met with serious opposition, outside its own little backyard.

 

I would suggest the opposite is true. The West's "standing" in the World is seen as diminished and diminishing, by the majority, in Russia, China, India, Africa, S America and the Middle East.

 

It was once prepared to fully engage its superior "modern armaments" against its enemies, but that will, for better or worse, is no more, as it has slid, intentionally or not, into dependency on its enemies, for its basic needs, such as Russian Oil and Gas, and Chinese manufactured goods!

 

Seems "the right thing to do", is no longer clear cut, but open to inerpretaion, determined by political necessity.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by trastrick

[L00b]

16 minutes ago, trastrick said:

The usual Eurocentric and grossly outdated colonial view of "the World".  The reality is that it is a minority view, at best.

 

The West's frequent, and often failed attempts to impose, by force if necessary, it's own ideas on what's "best" for other sovereign countries through "regime change" has been met with serious opposition, outside its own little backyard.

 

I would suggest the opposite is true. The West's "standing" in the World is seen as diminished and diminishing, by the majority, in Russia, China, India, Africa, S America and the Middle East.

 

It was once prepared to fully engage its superior "modern armaments" against its enemies, but that will, for better or worse, is no more, as it has slid, intentionally or not, into dependency on its enemies, for its basic needs, such as Russian Oil and Gas, and Chinese manufactured goods!

You can suggest all you want. It’s hardly a Eurocentric view, still less a minority one.
 

UN votes over the past 9 months, ITC proceedings initiated since, and volumes of polls, editorials and interviews around the globe, are plain evidence of the fact, if there was any further need of it.
 

Since you’re reducing the debate to the monochromatic “West bad, autocracies good” yet again, then within that specific context, the choice for autocrats is always simple, such as it has been since the early XXth century: so long as you abide by normative socio-political standards encoded in global treaties (human rights, sovereignty, non-aggression, etc), then you do all your fascistic and mafia-esque extorting of your population and others you manage to co-opt, and all is and stays well; once you cease to abide by those standards, if you keep it up, eventually you get crushed by ‘the West’ (and allies).

 

Witnesses to the fact, variously: several European monarchies since 1914, Hitler and consorts across Europe (Mussolini, the Vichy lot, Finns, etc), the Japanese senior military leadership, Stalin, PolPot, Milosevic, Karadzic, Yanukovych, Ghaddafi, <…>

22 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Seems "the right thing to do", is no longer clear cut, but open to inerpretaion, determined by political necessity.

And when has that ever been any different, pray tell? 🙄

[trastrick]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

You can suggest all you want. It’s hardly a Eurocentric view, still less a minority one.
 

UN votes over the past 9 months, ITC proceedings initiated since, and volumes of polls, editorials and interviews around the globe, are plain evidence of the fact, if there was any further need of it.
 

Since you’re reducing the debate to the monochromatic “West bad, autocracies good” yet again, then within that specific context, the choice for autocrats is always simple, such as it has been since the early XXth century: so long as you abide by normative socio-political standards encoded in global treaties (human rights, sovereignty, non-aggression, etc), then you do all your fascistic and mafia-esque extorting of your population and others you manage to co-opt, and all is and stays well; once you cease to abide by those standards, if you keep it up, eventually you get crushed by ‘the West’ (and allies).

 

Witnesses to the fact, variously: several European monarchies since 1914, Hitler and consorts across Europe (Mussolini, the Vichy lot, Finns, etc), the Japanese senior military leadership, Stalin, PolPot, Milosevic, Karadzic, Yanukovych, Ghaddafi, <…>

And when has that ever been any different, pray tell? 🙄

 The U.N. is impotent in stopping wars. The (US) ITC?

 

Polls, editorials and interviews, (Western institutions) likewise.

 

"once you cease to abide by those standards, if you keep it up, eventually you get crushed by ‘the West’ (and allies)"

 

Once, maybe, but might has always been "right", and pure Western "might" once had free reign to impose their values on any nation, virtually unopposed.

 

Not any more!

 

 "And when has that ever been any different, pray tell?"

 

Never, of course, and it's something I can, at last agree, with you on.

 

As for the "morality" and "rights" of it all, I'm a firm believer in democracy. But democracies are run by weak, often lame duck election dependent politicians, who's policies can be overturned at the next November election. The reality is the World is run by flawed human beings, some weak, some corrupt, some strong, some downright evil!

 

"Rights" are not absolute. They are only obtained, and maintained, in direct proportion to a nation's willingness to fight to the death for them.

 

You have a "right", written on paper somewhere, to cross the street on a dedicated pedestrian crossing, but if you get hit by a truck, that "right" is meaningless!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by trastrick

[Magilla]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

You have a "right", written on paper somewhere, to cross the street on a dedicated pedestrian crossing

Hypothetically...

 

Quote

but if you get hit by a truck, that "right" is meaningless!

...then that you "got hit by a truck" is the meaningless bit, since exercising your rights in no way insulates you from any consequences that might arise from doing so.

 

The entire analogy is meaningless, based on a fundamental flaw of understanding what a "right" is, and basic logic.

 

Regardless, even if anything you claim were true or made any sense, it still in no way means that "right" is meaningless at all

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Magilla

[L00b]

40 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Once, maybe, but might has always been "right", and pure Western "might" once had free reign to impose their values on any nation, virtually unopposed.

Nonsense. There have been innumerable hot wars since the democratisation of western nations, many a time by proxy  (and never less so than through the decolonisation period post-WW2), and still today, that attest to this unending opposition to western-style democratic values and social model, the world over.

 

Putin’s attack of Ukraine is one such war, clearly intended to stop Ukraine from gravitating further towards western values and model - that’s worked so well in the past 30 years for all other ex-USSR vassals.

 

Yet you don’t see western nations e.g. imposing their values on Taiwan, or reimposing them on Vietnam or Northern Africa, do you?
 

But you do see them defending Taiwan from Chinese imperialistic rethoric and geopolitical designs, and lending the occasional hand to democratic uprisings when the dictatorship’s repression starts to turn genocidal, in Serbia or Libya.

 

Maybe think on that.

40 minutes ago, trastrick said:

 “Rights" are not absolute. They are only obtained, and maintained, in direct proportion to a nation's willingness to fight to the death for them.

You post that with a straight face, after all your posts in here arguing for abandoning Ukraine to Putin’s fascistic steam roller? 

Edited November 29, 2022 by L00b

[Magilla]

31 minutes ago, L00b said:

You post that with a straight face, after all your posts in here arguing for abandoning Ukraine to Putin’s fascistic steam roller? 

Looking forward to the reams of ludicrous, jumping through convoluted illogical hoops to avoid the obvious, that are surely coming though.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Magilla

[trastrick]

59 minutes ago, L00b said:

Nonsense. There have been innumerable hot wars since the democratisation of western nations, many a time by proxy  (and never less so than through the decolonisation period post-WW2), and still today, that attest to this unending opposition to western-style democratic values and social model, the world over.

 

Putin’s attack of Ukraine is one such war, clearly intended to stop Ukraine from gravitating further towards western values and model - that’s worked so well in the past 30 years for all other ex-USSR vassals.

 

Yet you don’t see western nations e.g. imposing their values on Taiwan, or reimposing them on Vietnam or Northern Africa, do you?
 

But you do see them defending Taiwan from Chinese imperialistic rethoric and geopolitical designs, and lending the occasional hand to democratic uprisings when the dictatorship’s repression starts to turn genocidal, in Serbia or Libya.

 

Maybe think on that.

You post that with a straight face, after all your posts in here arguing for abandoning Ukraine to Putin’s fascistic steam roller? 

As I said. The World has changed, and the Western Colonialist Mindset needs to recognize that fact.

 

Yes, the West used its military might to overcome Fascism and Communism, and (edit) the West tried to impose their democracy on Korea, VietNam, Africa, Middle East, with varying results, mostly negative.

 

If they fail to use ALL the resources at their disposal to banish today's  assorted Totalitarians, Fascists, Communists, Islamists they will just have to live with them.

 

And no, sending  a brave few Ukrainians to do the job for you, won't hack it either! 

 

Today's Western "diverse" populations include elements of all these political leaning adherents, so the old "us against those foreigners, and commies" no longer applies, and there's no will to eradicate them militarily.

 

Let's apply today's societal standards to the World at large! You apparently manage to get on with your communists.

 

Let's hear it for peaceful co-existence with our differing cultures, and embrace what we have in common, and learn to live with them!

Edited November 29, 2022 by trastrick