The Swedes cleared the crime scene & won't share any info with anyone incl Swedish citizens or their German 'allies'.
They recently created a new law to prosecute anyone who leaks information that harms the state or that of their 'allies'.
Nordic countries have joined Canada, Australia, Japan and Germany in being completely cucked by the yanks.
(1 vote)
Comments
(Old Spike)
Not that i agree with it all, but maybe you have not heard that there is a war between the west and east.
I am sure destroying the north stream is part of the economic boycott on Russia.
The Americans and Russians started it, Europe is just in the middle, supporting one of their neighbours Ukraine
(Site Administrator)
"there is a war between the west and east"
even if that was the case (it's not) the terrorist attack was against Germany's industrial infrastructure. Terrorist attack on a western state's critical assets by other western states isn't justified by some vague notion of east v west war.
"part of the economic boycott on Russia"
this could be achieved by Germany simply deciding to stop purchases - aka a boycott.
terrorism =/= boycott
"Europe is just in the middle"
yep
"supporting one of their neighbours Ukraine"
nope. Supporting US imperialism & getting further cucked in the process.
(Old Spike)
I am, and it looks strange in any way that Russia did not join NATO at any time in the past, their economy or just trade and foreign investment would be trough the roof by now, it is the distrust between both sides that makes war, there are only a few ways to stop it and unite both sides.
But they have to be open minded.
What is most important, being strong economically or have the power to destroy the world?
(Site Administrator)
There's a trust deficit with the US for good reason. For starters they promised in 1991 to not expand NATO "one inch" to the East. They've since doubled the membership & have pushed NATO to Russia's borders. They were told clearly in 2008 that NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia were red lines for Russia's security but they kept pushing anyway. This and a host of other evidence makes it obvious they were keen for this conflict to take place. I'm quite cynical about US warmongering & even I'm surprised Sleepy Joe went ahead with it. I'm not surprised the Europeans cucked out & put up no resistance to US plans for conflict in their backyard.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Nobody is forced to join NATO, they join if they want some assurance that someone got their back if Russia starts acting up. Given the NATO expansion, I think it says quite a lot about who they don't trust.
The US doesn't rule NATO as you like to frame it. As we can see Finland and Sweden want to join in and the US is all for it, but they can't do shit about it unless every member state agrees with it.
(Site Administrator)
What does it mean when you say you won't expand a political-military grouping "one inch" to the East and then you expand it hundreds of miles East right up to the border of the supposed "enemy"?
does it mean countries "are forced to join" that group ?
because that's what you've read it as..... for the sake of some kind of straw man reasoning ig.
and what kind of outcome do you expect when you expand a political-military grouping right up to the border of an "enemy" nation, ignoring their protests & their attempts to negotiate a stable & sustainable security framework, overthrowing regimes that get in the way & even pushing the group thru the back door into countries that aren't even a party to it yet.... a peaceful outcome or something else?
we don't even need to mention the war crimes this military political grouping carries out while it's doing this expanding to see how the expansion itself isn't inducive to peace or stability.
"The US doesn't rule NATO"
lol
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I'm not saying it's a good idea to expand NATO, I'm only saying why it has been expanding and in the near future will likely expand more. Trust in Russia hasn't exactly gone up in the last year.
"The US doesn't rule NATO
lol"
Doesn't the US want Finland in? 830 miles of new NATO border with Russia. Should be easy for a "ruler" to ratify it ASAP.
(Site Administrator)
"Should be easy for a "ruler" to ratify it ASAP. "
yeah because how you frame something for the sake of your argument is totally honest, objective & a precise reflection of the situation.
"they join if they want some assurance that someone got their back if Russia starts acting up"
Yeah that's the primary & only reason countries join NATO. There's no coercion of any kind in order to drag countries into the "defensive" alliance. What even is US imperialism. Never heard of it. The CIA is a conspiracy theory. Who's Victoria Nuland? There's no profit motive involved in expanding NATO. NATOstan is a block of completely independent & sovereign countries. NATO is organised as a democracy & it's the only thing preventing
StalinKrushchevBrezhnevGorbachevYeltsinPutinMedvedevPutin from rolling his tanks across Europe because he's just like Hitler. NATO expansion good. Russian security baaad.edit: just thought of one more - we don't know who blew up Nord Stream. Once we find out who attacked Germany's industrial infrastructure, NATO's gonna swing into action, & if it doesn't the members themselves will demand accountability because nobody rules them!
:D
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"yeah because how you frame something for the sake of your argument is totally honest, objective & a precise reflection of the situation."
I frame it that it's obvious that the US doesn't call all the shots. It might be the big guy in the club, but even that has limits and every NATO state has its own agreement with the alliance on how and what they are obligated to do if the shit hits the fan.
The US does it's part in propaganda to get allies, I'm sure, but currently, thats really not needed as Russia is providing a real-world example. The US is gonna spin this for the next few decades, but I guess Putin has calculated it was worth it.
(Site Administrator)
"it's obvious that the US doesn't call all the shots"
that's just being naive/pedantic. It calls the ones that matter.
it just carried out a huge terrorist attack against the industrial infrastructure of a NATO member & that NATO member, nor any others are saying or doing a thing about it. Some even helped. It's against Europe's interests to have this proxy war in Ukraine & yet it's happening & it took the US (and UK) a lot of effort to make it happen. Feel free to name a NATO member who's made any serious moves against any US warmongering/destabilizing schemes (you have a lot to choose from). None of them have any backbone. Turkey's the only one who has a shred of independence. The net gain it gets from supporting US schemes is nil though. That's about the best Finland can hope for as a budding NATO vassal & even that's a pipe dream.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"that's just being naive/pedantic. It calls the ones that matter."
Choosing member states doesn't matter? Ukraine would have been in a long time if it was up to the US.
"it just carried out a huge terrorist attack against the industrial infrastructure of a NATO member & that NATO member, nor any others are saying or doing a thing about it."
I know, it was kind of a dick move. But ultimately I think many will look at it as a positive. It's a big middle finger to Russia and one more reason to move away from Russian gas. Hopefully someone will plant more bombs.
"It's against Europe's interests to have this proxy war in Ukraine & yet it's happening"
Yes it is. War is never good, but someone decided to invade Ukraine so here we are.
"Turkey's the only one who has a shred of independence."
I'm sure :D For any pro-Russian, it's good that it's halting Finland from joining.
I'm not that keen on getting into NATO, so I might actually agree with you. I just don't know how delusional Putin has got so I'm on the fence. You know Finland used to be part of Russia, so he might get some ideas....
(Site Administrator)
> "Ukraine would have been in a long time if it was up to the US"
that's just speculation (based on what?) and just because US doesn't completely dictate the membership application process doesn't mean NATO isn't controlled by the US & a tool of western imperialism, which is controlled by them.
> "Hopefully someone will plant more bombs"
Wonder what German industrial players think about the bombs. Germany lost about 150 billion Euros in the past 12 months caused by the US proxy war in Ukraine. You think Finland is somehow immune to having their economy sacraficed for US imperial designs?
> "someone decided to invade Ukraine"
yeah they did, I wonder why. Nothing to do with the civil war going on in Ukraine since 2014 when the Kyiv govt was overthrown with US backing...or anything to do with NATO encroachment & dismissal of Russia's vital security interests.
"Turkey's the only one who has a shred of independence."
> "I'm sure :D For any pro-Russian, it's good that it's halting Finland from joining."
Turkey milking your vasalization isn't what I had in mind. There are countless times Turkey acts as an independent nation. It's the only NATO member who does & they get away with it in part due to geography.
> "You know Finland used to be part of Russia, so he might get some ideas"
that's just paranoia & a total disregard for the reality of the security situation there imo. Russia doesn't even hint at breaching the peace with Finland. The thing in Ukraine doesn't have to change anything but is being milked by pro-US idiots there. They're gonna destroy what's left of Finland's neutrality & paint a target on its back, seems like.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"that's just speculation (based on what?)"
Try Google, look for stuff before the invasion.
"Wonder what German industrial players think about the bombs. Germany lost about 150 billion Euros in the past 12 months caused by the US proxy war in Ukraine. You think Finland is somehow immune to having their economy sacraficed for US imperial designs?"
Of course, they don't like it. I think everyone would have preferred to continue with cheap gas, but again someone had to invade. NOBODY is winning here. Even if Putin gets his way and the war ends, theres no going back for a long time. He will get his buffer at a high cost. Not a good cost-benefit ratio IMO.
Fortunately, Finland's gas usage is almost 0. Of course, the economic impact will be seen here too, its effects are global. The ones that have it the worst are those who are dependent on Russia's gas and Russia itself.
You might see this as US imperial building, but most countries (especially those with borders with Russia) see it as defending one's independence and sending a message that invasions won't come cheap. You know, not just rolling over and dying when Russia says "This is mine now!".
"yeah they did, I wonder why. Nothing to do with the civil going on in Ukraine since 2014 when the US helped overthrow the govt in Kyiv...or anything to do with NATO encroachment & dismissal of Russia's vital security interests."
Russia should take some notes from the US on soft power. There are other ways to achieve things than a full-on invasion, but Russia only knows brute force (being the bear that it is). If the US was able to overthrow the government from the other side of the globe, why is Russia so helpless in its own backyard?
"That's just paranoia & a total disregard for the reality of the security situation there imo."
Yes, it is paranoia. That's what war does to people, they start getting paranoid. We have a history of defending our country from Russia and the Ukraine situation has a lot of parallels to our past, so naturally, people are worried despite how unlikely it is that Russia would come rolling over the border.
(Site Administrator)
"Try Google"
that's not even valid as a cop out let alone an answer to my q.
"I think everyone would have preferred to continue with cheap gas, but again someone had to invade"
you're saying that Russia invading Ukraine was the reason the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up & implying that (like all things bad apparently) it was Russia's fault.... are you retarded?
"...Not a good cost-benefit ratio IMO. "
History will judge whether this gamble works out or not.
"You might see this as US imperial building, but most countries...see it as defending one's independence"
Oh boy I think you actually believe that one. It's not easy to tell with you.
"Russia should take some notes from the US on soft power. There are other ways to achieve things than a full-on invasion, but Russia only knows brute force"
Comparing Russia & the US and summizing that Russia is the one that uses brute force more readily is objectively retarded. Have you had your head buried in sand for the past 25 years or ...?
"Yes, it is paranoia. That's what war does to people, they start getting paranoid."
your country hasn't been forced into a war in your lifetime. It's joined a few of the US's imperial adventures around Asia though...do you have any clue how many millions have died as a result?
At least we can agree that it is paranoia. Where the line is before it becomes self-defeating &/or retarded/contrived paranoia is probably where we'd disagree. I don't see there being any Russian threat to Finland whatsoever. If you'd like to explain some indicators other than "they invaded Ukraine for no reason at all so they're evil/crazy & we could be next" I'm all ears. Not even the western propaganda spin doctors tried hard to sell Putin as irrational, it's obvious he's not.
Militarily speaking Russia probably should have gone into Ukraine in 2014 & nipped this shit in the bud but there are many considerations, neither you nor I are privy to them all. You act like you don't see a whole bunch of stuff though when it's right in front of your face. For instance Russia's efforts to resolve the Ukraine issue thru dialogue right up until the point they sent in their forces, while the US was ignoring their overtures the entire time. Russia begging for peaceful settlement while US cranks things up until there's war - is this what you call American soft power? Obviously Ukriane was setup as a trap for Russia and the Russians were left with no better option than to spring it, as far as they could tell at least. Could be something you might wanna spend some of your paranoia on - if Ukraine is resolved & the yanks want another angle to attack Russia from what's gonna stop them from setting Finland up in a similar way? Finland's soon-to-be-extinct political independence?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"that's not even valid as a cop out let alone an answer to my q."
If you honestly haven't heard that the US wanted Ukraine in NATO, then I don't know what to tell you.
If that idea was never on the table, why are you fuzzing about NATO expansion to the east all the time?
"you're saying that Russia invading Ukraine was the reason...."
To put it simply. Gas prices go up because of war.
"Oh boy I think you actually believe that one."
You don't think a nation would want to defend it's independence and other countries would support that?
"Comparing Russia & the US and summizing that Russia is the one that uses brute force more readily is objectively
retarded."
Both use it obviously. Just boggles the mind how Russia is so ineffective at it, when we're talking about a state that has deep roots with Russia and a good chunk of its population is Russian. How couldn't they turn it around.
"do you have any clue how many millions have died as a result?"
As a result of Finnish soldiers joining in?
"If you'd like to explain some indicators other than "they invaded Ukraine for no reason at all so they're evil/crazy & we could be next" I'm all ears. Not even the western propaganda spin doctors tried hard to sell Putin as irrational, it's obvious he's not."
Theres no reason, logically speaking but if your neighbor has shown it can and will act with force there is always that doubt. You have to understand the mentality of Finns. Finland always preferred (some sources say forced) to stay neutral, to keep Russia at ease. We've been living under the shadow of USSR / Russia for a long time. They were always a potential threat, less so after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After that, relations have been relatively fine, but now we've taken quite a step back.
"For instance Russia's efforts to resolve the Ukraine issue thru dialogue right up until the point they sent in their forces, while the US was ignoring their overtures the entire time. Russia begging for peaceful settlement while US cranks things up until there's war"
Can you give me some sources about these negotiations before the war?
"Could be something you might wanna spend some of your paranoia on - if Ukraine is resolved & the yanks want another angle to attack Russia from what's gonna stop them from setting Finland up in a similar way? Finland's soon-to-be-extinct political independence?"
I'd say the core reason for the war is paranoia. What do you think are the odds of US / NATO attacking Russia unprovoked? I'd say much lower than the odds of Russia attacking Finland. Maybe Putin is just paranoid? Cooped up in his castle thinking whos plotting against him and how to stay in power for one more decade.
(Site Administrator)
"If you honestly haven't heard that the US wanted Ukraine in NATO, then I don't know what to tell you."
agree to disagree ig because I reckon I've paid far more attention to you & am being tempted to call you retarded again.
"If that idea was never on the table..."
oh so it's been relegated to an "idea on the table" now... ok. You seem confused.
"You don't think a nation would want to defend it's independence and other countries would support that? "
You don't think joining into a political-military alliance with countries far more powerful than your own is going to undermine your country's independence?
We shouldn't need to mention how coercive the leader of the alliance is, against "enemies" and "allies" alike but in your case I think a lot needs to be explained. You do realize the Nord Stream pipelines were destroyed, right?
"How couldn't they turn it around. "
hmmm.... maybe a 150 billion dollar war effort from US/NATO plus all the intelligence, covert forces, etc working against them could have something to do with it. You could just as easily ask why Russia with their $60 billion military budget is able to go toe-to-toe with NATO and not lose.
"As a result of Finnish soldiers joining in?"
yes, they contributed. As military support as well as the political commitment which is the bigger reason the US squeezes "allies" to send troops to help out in their war crimes. As accomplices.
"Theres no reason, logically speaking but if your neighbor has shown it can and will act with force there is always that doubt."
So Mexico should join China in a military alliance after witnessing what US has been doing in all their invasions, occupations & atrocities?
"After that, relations have been relatively fine, but now we've taken quite a step back."
yeah it's understandable for Finland to be alarmed at Russia's actions in Ukraine but being hysterical & making decisions based on paranoia is historical mistake imo. Russia has shown no interest & arguably has nothing to gain by making any moves on Finland. It's already become a de facto NATO member with all the US miltiary hardware there but the relationship with Russia has remained stable. One of Russia's biggest issues with Ukraine was that it was becoming a de facto NATO member. They've not made the same complaints about Finland - so for this & other reasons the idea that "they attacked Ukraine so they could attack Finland" has no grounding imo. Notice how they didn't even make a fuss about Finland joining? Because it really makes no difference to them. If Finland allows a massive expansion of American military installations on their territory Russia will have a problem with it & then you'll find a bunch of Russian military hardware pointed at Finland. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up happening. If there are politicians standing in the way of it, there are ways of dealing with them. If the US wants it to happen they'll make it happen & joining NATO only makes it easier for them to treat Finland as a pawn at their disposal.
"Can you give me some sources about these negotiations before the war?"
Russia offered a treaty with the US in December 2021, it was basically ignored. It was an effort to create a comprehensive security stabilizing action between US/NATO and Russia.
https://news.antiwar.com/2021/12/17/russia-publishes-details-of-security-proposals-sent-to-us-and-nato/
The US dragged things out by failing to even meet the 2 week deadline for a formal response & then submitting something completely dismissive, while hyping everything up & helping their puppets in Kyiv with a huge military buildup aimed at the Donbass, one which western propaganda utterly ignored but was a real threat to the stability of the an area right on Russia's border, to people who mostly consider themselves as Russia & who wanted to be annexed by Russia since 2014 but were being attacked by a western-backed corrupt regime & a bunch of fucking nazis goons. Now I'm ranting. How did you even miss Russia's peace proposal in December 2021 if you take any of this stuff seriously. It was a big deal & the US wasn't even pretending to care about peace. It was plain as day they wanted this war to happen. I still didn't think Russia would pull the trigger as I said at the time because it's such a big gamble & Putin has always been quite risk averse & conservative.
/rant
"I'd say the core reason for the war is paranoia. What do you think are the odds of US / NATO attacking Russia unprovoked? I'd say much lower than the odds of Russia attacking Finland. Maybe Putin is just paranoid? "
nah that's a misread of how things work imo.
Russia has security concerns & one is that they don't want to be surrounded by NATO. Trying to cuck a nuclear power & P5 member like Russia is extremely reckless in the first place but par for the course with the yanks.
Not wanting to be surrounded by NATO, an institution that's a relic of the Cold War & has always treated Russia as their numebr one enemy is not unreasonable if you consider things from Russia's point of view.
You have to be honest & take into account not only the military aggression NATO has beein responsible for but also (more importantly imo) the relentless subversive operations the US & their poodles conduct. They tried to topple the Belarus govt just a couple of years ago for example. Geopolitical struggles are far more than just when 2 states have a traditional war so framing it as if that's the main consideration is far too narrow.
fkn hell that was a long reply.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"agree to disagree ig because I reckon I've paid far more attention to you & am being tempted to call you retarded again."
Heres one article I Google for you. Goes back a few presidents. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia
"You don't think joining into a political-military alliance with countries far more powerful than your own is going to undermine your country's independence?"
If a nation wants to join NATO it's their choice and ultimately depends what agreement they come to. Point is that's an independent decision, unlike getting invaded and being told what to do.
"hmmm.... maybe a 150 billion dollar war effort..."
I mean before the war.
"yes, they contributed."
Going to need some sources.
"So Mexico should join China in a military alliance after witnessing what US has been doing in all their invasions, occupations & atrocities?"
If they want.
"yeah it's understandable for Finland to be alarmed at Russia's actions in Ukraine but being hysterical & making decisions based on paranoia is historical mistake imo."
We will see.
"How did you even miss Russia's peace proposal in December 2021 if you take any of this stuff seriously."
Maybe because it's not a peace proposal but the same demands they've had for at least over a decade (see the article in the first post). A full-on invasion started when Russia's demands weren't met. Basically, a pre-emptive strike to try and prevent an imagined future war with the west.
"Russia has security concerns & one is that they don't want to be surrounded by NATO."
I get that, but the current action of Russia has the opposite effect.
(Site Administrator)
"If a nation wants to join NATO it's their choice and ultimately depends what agreement they come to. Point is that's an independent decision"
it's not that simple. The backbone of stability in Europe for decades has been the Helsinki accords and in it there's language about indivisibile security. That is where you can't enhance your own security at the detriment of the security of other nations. This obliges the parties to the accords to take Russia's security concerns into account. It makes sense - if you just ignore the security concerns of your neighbours it only makes things more unstable. This is what's been going on with respect to Russia as NATO & US puppet states both have expanded right up to their border. Russia, the US and European states are all parties to the Helsinki accords but the US-led regimes have been ignoring the indivisible security clause as they've seen fit. The biggest breach before recent years was when NATO attacked Serbia. The next largest I'd say was NATO helping to overthrow the government in Kyiv & then building up forces in Kyiv. Russia made no secret of the fact that this was a red line for them. Years before it happened theyspelt it out clearly.
"Going to need some sources."
lol, what? Finland sent military forces to occupy countries invaded by the US. Do you honestly need sources to prove that?
"So Mexico should join China in a military alliance after witnessing what US has been doing in all their invasions, occupations & atrocities?"
> "If they want."
And what do you think the US reaction would be - to just accept it?
"A full-on invasion started when Russia's demands weren't met. Basically, a pre-emptive strike to try and prevent an imagined future war with the west. "
No. NATO had already sent forces into Ukraine if you're framing this as NATO v Russia. In the days just prior to Russian sending in the tanks, the NATO/Kyiv forces were bombing the shit out of Donbass. In the weeks/months leading up to said bombing, they were building up a huge invasion force along the frontlines at Donbass. Russia sent forces into Ukraine after a lot of NATO fuckery which you either are ignorant of or you pretend didn't happen.
"Russia has security concerns & one is that they don't want to be surrounded by NATO."
> "I get that, but the current action of Russia has the opposite effect."
We'll see. When the dust settles on this conflict (could be years away) there's likely to be a different global dynamic & if you're lucky a fresh & stable security framework in Europe. If Europe (incl Russia) can't work this out, neither Finland or any state in that region will be as secure as before the US created this proxy war. You don't need to be a history expert to know that Russia has grit & isn't going to roll over. You gotta be delusional to go along with the western propaganda that was predicting Russia's collapse/regime change/whatever. Russia's political stability is fine, the people there who care mostly back the war effort. They aren't gonna run out of able-bodied men or the will/resources to keep fighting. Can't say the same for the US/NATO proxy in Kyiv. For this conflict to end, at least some of Russia's demands will have to be met. I'd guess that with Ukraine, if Russia can't secure a valid commitment for them not to join NATO then it'll just be ground down into a rump state with no coastline so that it can't threaten Russia's vital security interests. There's no end in sight yet tho so it's quite early for predictions. Maybe China will want to help Russia keep this shit going & come out on top because they know US/NATOstan's focus will be on them as soon as this bullshit dies down. The US war machine is relentless & it's gonna be years before they stop trying to fuck with China. They probably will never stop trying to fuck with Russia. If Finland does end up in NATO it's making a big bet on American hegemony & I doubt it's going to pay off because by 2040 it'll be history. What's to prevent the Americans just deciding they no longer want to play "world police" as they like to call it, or if things change & they're unable to "project power" as they also like to call it.... trashing Finland's relationship with Russia might not actually be the smartest move in the medium or long term, despite how you think things are going right now.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"That is where you can't enhance your own security at the detriment of the security of other nations. This obliges the parties to the accords to take Russia's security concerns into account."
You could just easily argue that the existence of NATO is a detriment to Russia's security.
We could think this the other way around too. If Ukraine did somehow snuck into NATO, this war would have been avoided. Russia would not have the balls to do it and that really is the point of NATO, to deter attacks.
All Russia could do was sit there being all paranoid about the inevitable NATO attack on Russian land /s
"lol, what? Finland sent military forces to occupy countries invaded by the US."
No, sources on how Finnish soldiers directly contributed to the killing of millions.
"And what do you think the US reaction would be - to just accept it?"
They wouldn't let it get that far in the first place, as it's their own backyard. They would snuff out the flames before it's a problem.
Thats what Russia failed to do in Ukraine.
"No. NATO had already sent forces into Ukraine if you're framing this as NATO v Russia. In the days just prior to Russian sending in the tanks, the NATO/Kyiv forces were bombing the shit out of Donbass"
We went from Russia sending a "peace proposal", to Ukraine already being infiltrated with NATO troops.
Going to need some sources. Preferably with some number on how many Russian-backed troops there were in Ukraine before the invasion.
(Site Administrator)
"You could just easily argue that the existence of NATO is a detriment to Russia's security."
This is true, and it's true for every non-NATO nation (ask Libya etc) but there are levels to it. Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) has always been NATO's main enemy/target & expanding NATO right up to Russia's borders while blocking any offers from Russia to negotiate a more mutual & stable security arrangement goes beyond anything reasonable & is too destabilizing to be considered remotely in-line with the Helsinki accords. Buffer states have been a thing for centuries & where they don't exist & you have 2 large powers right up against each other it causes too much shit. Both sides have to be paranoid about each other & waste resources on security, then the security apparatus gets powerful & starts calling shots etc etc etc. If you want war it's a good way to go but if you prefer peace it's better to find another way. For the yanks they have their motivations which have nothing to do with preserving peace in Europe & they're the ones pushing this bullshit. The Brits & Poles are pretty enthusiastic about it all too but they're not shot callers.
"No, sources on how Finnish soldiers directly contributed to the killing of millions. "
I've already explained to you how Finland's contribution works & didn't use the word "directly" so give it a rest.
"They wouldn't let it get that far in the first place, as it's their own backyard. They would snuff out the flames before it's a problem.
Thats what Russia failed to do in Ukraine."
> their own backyard
So US has a backyard & Russia doesn't - is that how it works?
they both have around the same number of nukes, both are P5 members. Is the US afforded this "back yard" for something to do with political ideology or is it more that they've got only 2 neighbours & both have already been infiltrated to a point where they can't pose a threat? Plz explain why one huge military power gets a back yard & the other doesn't.
"We went from Russia sending a "peace proposal", to Ukraine already being infiltrated with NATO troops.
Going to need some sources. Preferably with some number on how many Russian-backed troops there were in Ukraine before the invasion."
huh?
I don't know what you're getting at & these homework assignments you like to dish out are a waste of my time. You also put words in my mouth, I never said "NATO troops" in Ukraine because I know how NATO simps like to get pedantic about what that means. There were 3 main bases staffed with about 9,000 NATO "trainers", CIA up the ass of the regime in Kyiv & no doubt loads of US & other NATO spec ops goons rolling around the place & NATO countries were sending weaponry into the puppet regime in Kyiv since 2015 as it was in a civil war with its Russian minority pepole in the East using NATO-trained neo-Nazis & whatnot to terrorize them. Essentially they were backing a pretty filthy proxy war against civilians & militia in Donbas since right after the 2014 coup which neocon Victoria "fuck the EU" Nuland was helping organize & is back on duty today fucking the world in the best ways she knows how. The US Brits & yanks had been grooming neo-Nazis since they took over the Nazi stay behind networks in the late 1940s. You can have sources on that if you'd like, just ask.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"For the yanks they have their motivations which have nothing to do with preserving peace in Europe & they're the ones pushing this bullshit."
Yanks want Ukraine on the side of the west. Don't see why it would be of any benefit to them to do it by war, if they could achieve it by more subtle means and not needing to pump billions into the war.
"I've already explained to you how Finland's contribution works & didn't use the word "directly" so give it a rest."
Well you didn't but I'm assuming you're referring to some peacekeeping missions Finnish troops have been on.
"So US has a backyard & Russia doesn't - is that how it works?"
Ukraine is Russia's backyard. Much more so than Mexico is to the US.
"I don't know what you're getting at & these homework assignments you like to dish out are a waste of my time. "
Well you don't have to talk to me if you don't want to. You tend to write walls of text but now it becomes a problem? Besides posting a link isn't that hard, saves you the work of typing. Also, I've said before, that I can't take anything you say at face value due to you being clearly pro-Russian.
"You also put words in my mouth, I never said "NATO troops" in Ukraine because I know how NATO simps like to get pedantic about what that means.""
I don't know the difference between NATO troops and NATO forces but I guess that is relevant somehow.
"There were 3 main bases staffed with about 9,000 NATO "trainers", CIA up the ass of the regime in Kyiv & no doubt loads of US & other NATO spec ops goons rolling around the place & NATO"
Ok, but can we start with some reliable sources with this? Also, do you have any info on how many Russian-backed troops were in Ukraine at that time or from the start of the conflict since 2014
(Site Administrator)
"Yanks want Ukraine on the side of the west."
disagree
they want to use Ukraine as a tool to fuck with Russia, also some in the west want to use Ukraine as a laundromat. Using subversion & other mechanisms to pull Ukraine politically to the west is just part of the "fuck with Russia" tactic. There's nothing of worth in that country. The only thing of value it really has is some strategic geography.
"Well you didn't but I'm assuming you're referring to some peacekeeping missions Finnish troops have been on."
Yeah I did. You must have missed the part about political contribution. Go back & take a look.
"Well you don't have to talk to me if you don't want to."
I don't mind talking but I'm not going to dig up sources for you. You can go look for yourself if you can get past western propaganda & find some real info - something that's becoming increasingly difficult with Google etc. unless you know where to look. It's much easier to keep up with things as they happen by keeping an eye on decent sources of objective takes.
"I don't know the difference between NATO troops and NATO forces but I guess that is relevant somehow."
I didn't say "NATO forces" either. The situation was as I've described - around 9k NATO trainers plus all the covert ops goons supporting what amounts to a NATO proxy during a civil war in Ukraine targeting a Russian-speaking ethnic minority. Neo-Nazis were included amongst those NATO was arming & training, if that's relevant somehow. I would have thought it would be but NATO simps have a knack for burying their head in the sand when it comes to uncomfy details.
"Ok, but can we start with some reliable sources with this? Also, do you have any info on how many Russian-backed troops were in Ukraine at that time or from the start of the conflict since 2014"
sigh. I don't know what you consider "reliable sources". If you don't believe what I'm saying idc.
Russian-backed troops .... it depends what you mean by that. There were militia-men in Donbass who organised resistance to the coup government & I don't know a lot about how they received support from within Russia. None was formal afaik. It was all fairly minimal & Russia's strategy seemed to be doing just enough to prevent them from being rolled over while trying to settle the situation thru diplomacy but that failed, largely because the French & Germans are too weak to resist Anglo-American schemes.
(Site Administrator)
revisiting this:
> "As a result of Finnish soldiers joining in?"
yes, they contributed. As military support as well as the political commitment which is the bigger reason the US squeezes "allies" to send troops to help out in their war crimes. As accomplices.
> "sources on how Finnish soldiers directly contributed to the killing of millions"
Here's a source so you can get a better idea on the political role of Finland's contribution to the American war adventures in Asia....... it all is contribution to the killing of millions & also Finnish troops did directly killed people there. No Finland didn't kill millions of people by itself. I didn't say that before you try to act like I did.
- from a report by the Finnish govt-backed Finland Institute for International Affairs...
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"they want to use Ukraine as a tool to fuck with Russia"
Well of course that comes as part of the package. Now with the war going on it's more about not letting Russia take what it wants by force and it's actually more likely to fall into the hand of the west as it would have been without the war.
"You can go look for yourself if you can get past western propaganda & find some real info"
Thats really my point here. To see what you consider as real info? You seem to have this ability to find info that isn't tainted by western propaganda.
"I didn't say "NATO forces" either."
Heres what you said: "NATO had already sent forces into Ukraine..."
I don't know how this should be interpreted. NATO sent forces that weren't NATO forces?
"sigh. I don't know what you consider "reliable sources". If you don't believe what I'm saying idc."
It's really a matter of what you consider reliable. This info doesn't just pop into your head. You read it somewhere.
"Here's a source so you can get a better idea on the political role of Finland's contribution to the American war adventures in Asia....... it all is contribution to the killing of millions...."
Thanks for the source. This is why it's good to have them because you have a tendency to frame things in a particular way.
Heres my pick from the report. Make of that what you will.
Based on government reports and other public documents, Finland’s primary aim was to stabilize and support Afghanistan to enhance international peace and security. The proclaimed objectives highlighted Finland’s responsibility as part of the UN-led international community and its efforts to support the development of good governance and the rule of law and promote the rights of women and girls in particular.
Finland participated in the international stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan for nearly 20 years, contributing around 2,500 soldiers and 140 civilian crisis management experts.
(Site Administrator)
"they want to use Ukraine as a tool to fuck with Russia"
> "Well of course that comes as part of the package"
nah man, that is the package. That is the reason for US interference in Ukraine since the 1940s. There's a shitload of documentation about it in the CIA archives for the stuff during the Cold War & it's never stopped. That is the primary reason for US/UK fuckery in Ukraine. There's bugger all in the way of economic interests there besides using it as a laundromat. It's an ag-based economy that competes with US in the grain market. And don't pretend like the US has some altruistic motivation. That "freedom and democracy" stuff is propaganda for idiots. They backed fascists to overthrow the govt & then armed them while they slaughtered thousands of ethnic minorities. It's their usual play of installing fascist govt that does their bidding, it's happened too many times to count. They always say some shit about freedom & democracy & always do the opposite.
"You seem to have this ability to find info that isn't tainted by western propaganda."
it's taken years of effort to be able to filter it out as well as keeping up with what's going on. It's not something I'm particularly proud of but it is what it is. As things are these days it's getting near impossible to use the mainstream search engines to seek out decent info. Especially re: Ukraine. It's the most immense propaganda effort I've ever seen.
"Heres what you said: "NATO had already sent forces into Ukraine...""
Oh, I couldn't find that with my search. Well yeah they did. Arms & trainers - this isn't a secret. There was no doubt other secret stuff going on. That goes without saying but harder to prove & tie directly to the NATO organisation itself. Tying covert stuff to member states is easier, if you can dig that stuff up.
"you have a tendency to frame things in a particular way."
Yeah how I framed it is how the reality is man. Trying to quantify the military involvement of Finland in the US war crimes across Asia is missing the point. The main point is more the political contribution that comes with sending those forces. The report by the Finland Institute for International Affairs backs up what I was saying but if you know how geopolitics works behind the scenes it's kind of obvious. Nobody needed those 2,500 Finish troops in Afghanistan, militarily speaking. It's primarily political. I've watched NZ's dance with the yanks for years going back to NZ's involvement in Iraq - how & why it was demanded & the threats that came NZ's way when it initially refused to take part. The NZ military is a joke, nobody needed it there for military reasons. It's more about political loyalty, earning brownie points in the empire. It's likely more easy for the yanks to solo these missions but politics requires them to build symbolic "coallition" forces.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"nah man, that is the package"
What kind of package is Russia offering, besides level cities and killing people, for the sake of acquiring their buffer zone?
"You seem to have this ability to find info that isn't tainted by western propaganda."
"it's taken years of effort to be able to filter it out as well as keeping up with what's going on. It's not something I'm particularly proud of but it is what it is."
Then were only left with Russian propaganda. Are you good a filtering that out? I bet you are.
"Yeah how I framed it is how the reality is man."
Heres the original quote from you. How this is framed it's quite clearly misleading.
"Trying to quantify the military involvement of Finland in the US war crimes across Asia is missing the point."
No, quantifying military involvement was the point, given your original assertion.
What political implications this had, I doubt not very much. Maybe some friendship points from the US and warming up possible NATO relations for the future.
(Site Administrator)
"What kind of package is Russia offering, besides level cities and killing people, for the sake of acquiring their buffer zone?"
Before the coup in 2014 Russia was offering 15 billion in funding to get Ukraine out of their financial jam and they'd been selling massively discounted gas to Ukraine for a long time. Occasionally the Ukrainians wouldn't even pay the bill & sometimes the gas was turned off, sometimes the debt was just written down. They were also offering peace & cooperation. And were Ukraine's largest trade partner.
What is it the US was offering again?
Oh yeah, proxy war aimed at weakening Russia, IMF debt slavery & weaponized fascist thugs in the streets to keep things moving in the right direction.
"Then were only left with Russian propaganda."
Nope. That's a false dichotomy. There are analysts & journos around who report & assess things objectively. There's also the ability of individuals to monitor things - actions, statements etc & make their own assessments. The trick is to filter out propaganda & just get the raw info/facts. This is what's becoming increasingly difficult to do with something like Google as your starting point. Russian propaganda barely gets any space on the regular western internet portals at all. I think Tass might be listed on Google News but that's about it, and it's drowned out by all the noise from the western propaganda outlets.
"What political implications this had, I doubt not very much"
It was Finland's unequivocal support for the US invasion & occupation of Afghanistan. Coupled with their support for the proxy terror war in Syria & tacit support for the invasion & occupation of Iraq... they were & are a partner in crime with this shit, just not a major one.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Before the coup in 2014 Russia was offering 15 billion in funding to get Ukraine out of their financial jam and they'd been selling massively discounted gas to Ukraine for a long time. Occasionally the Ukrainians wouldn't even pay the bill & sometimes the gas was turned off, sometimes the debt was just written down. They were also offering peace & cooperation. And were Ukraine's largest trade partner."
Sound like a good deal, but now it seems to be the opposite. Blowing up all the infrastructure. No gas, no electricity.
So much for that brotherly Slavic love.
"What is it the US was offering again?"
Maybe protection from Russian invasions?
"Nope. That's a false dichotomy. There are analysts & journos around who report & assess things objectively. There's also the ability of individuals to monitor things - actions, statements etc & make their own assessments."
Ok then :D I'll just leave you with this quote.
Oh boy I think you actually believe that one. It's not easy to tell with you.
"It was Finland's unequivocal support for the US invasion & occupation of Afghanistan. Coupled with their support for the proxy terror war in Syria & tacit support for the invasion & occupation of Iraq... they were & are a partner in crime with this shit, just not a major one."
Sounds very serious. Also heard that the Finnish civilian crisis workers used harsh language that was not appreciated.
So again, what were the political implications this had for Finland?
(Site Administrator)
"Sound like a good deal, but now it seems to be the opposite. Blowing up all the infrastructure. No gas, no electricity.
So much for that brotherly Slavic love. "
yep... although it's a bit more nuanced because the people of Donbass are being liberated from that fascist puppet regime in Kyiv.
"What is it the US was offering again?"
"Maybe protection from Russian invasions?"
So the US creates a situation where Russia is left with little choice but to use force & while offering to "protect" the country from said force, except they didn't because they wanted to create a war, not prevent one..... while doing the rest of the things I've mentioned that you've ignored - hijacking the economy & society, generally making everything worse for everyone other than their puppets & people connected to them.
"what were the political implications this had for Finland?"
I've already gone over it & even linked a source you can read, you're just being a dumbass now. Final chance to go have a read - https://www.fiia.fi/en/publication/finland-in-afghanistan-2001-2021 - or you can just scroll up to where I've already answered that question & summarized the main relevant points from the report.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"So the US creates a situation where Russia is left with little choice but to use force & while offering to "protect" the country from said force, except they didn't because they wanted to create a war"
Russia was forced to attack because they insist on having a buffer zone. It's fueled by paranoia.
Why would the US want to create a war, if they could do it in a more subtle manner? War is expensive as hell, it's messy and fucks up the country.
"I've already gone over it & even linked a source you can read, you're just being a dumbass now"
I've read what you wrote, but all I get from you is hyperbole. You said: "The main point is more the political contribution that comes with sending those forces". So really what I'm after is what are the political consequences? What is now different because Finland sent the troops?
The link is vague on that front too. It's an analysis of the mission itself, mainly why Finland participated, what it achieved, and what it can do in the future.
(Site Administrator)
"Why would the US want to create a war, if they could do it in a more subtle manner?"
I don't know what you mean by "do it". Their goal is obviously to weaken Russia. The day after Russia rolled in Hillary Clinton was on TB giddy with delight about the prospect of giving Russia another Afghanistan. There are a bunch of ways the US stands to benefit from the situation. Primarily they're seeking to weaken a geopolitical rival.
"War is expensive as hell"
For the trillion dollar war machine who has massive political power in the US, this is a feature, not a bug. Just look at Raytheon/Lockheed stocks this past year.
"...it's messy and fucks up the country."
Which country? Ukraine? Why would that be a problem?
"So really what I'm after is what are the political consequences? What is now different because Finland sent the troops?"
Jesus man. It's spelt out in that link I gave & quoted. Read:
"...why Finland participated, what it achieved, and what it can do in the future"
It participated to enhance its ties to the Atlanticist bloc. The people running the show in Helsinki seem to think it's better to cuck to the US than to retain neutrality & independence, for whatever reason. Personally I think it's a mistake but that's just my 2c.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"I don't know what you mean by "do it"."
Gain influence in Ukraine whatever that may entail.
"War is expensive as hell
For the trillion dollar war machine who has massive political power in the US, this is a feature, not a bug. Just look at Raytheon/Lockheed stocks this past year."
It's not just the expenses of the war, the US isn't immune to the effects of the war on the economy, especially when we're still getting out of the slump the pandemic created. Basically, most of the world is losing here.
"Which country? Ukraine? Why would that be a problem?"
Not much of an ally if the country is in ruins. If the US takes this war, just wait and see how much money they're going to pump in for rebuilding. Would be a lot cheaper to set up camp in a country that wasn't stripped of all its infrastructure.
"Jesus man. It's spelt out in that link I gave & quoted. Read:
So with all this back and forth, that was the point you wanted to make. I pretty much said this a few posts back.
"What political implications this had, I doubt not very much. Maybe some friendship points from the US and warming up possible NATO relations for the future"
"The people running the show in Helsinki seem to think it's better to cuck to the US than to retain neutrality & independence, for whatever reason."
Well Finland is a small player and I guess we have a need to prove we can hang out with the big kids. I think the main reason is still that Russia is our neighbor and we want back up in case the shit hits the fan.
(Site Administrator)
"Gain influence in Ukraine whatever that may entail."
They already overthrew the govt in Kyiv & have had full influence there since.
The first call of business, as is always the case, was hooking them up to th IMF debt trap, which comes with austerity measures for the masses. Not a great situation for the people when the regime is so corrupt. It's standard issue for the US to do this tho. The more corrupt the better. It creates a pyramid of loyalty there with them at the top holding the purse strings. If you study any of their other coups/regime change ops you see the same thing play out every time. They dress it up in the media as something virtuous & then guys like you call it "soft power". It's extremely fukt tbph.
"...most of the world is losing here"
it's relative though. The US has gained a lot of political influence & economic leverage over Europe in the process. They've really tightened up their bloc of subservient states. Before Feb 2022 NATO had been scratching around for a purpose for years, this is no longer the case. For the US I'd say they've broken even, over all & enhanced their grip over their vassals at least for now. The biggest loser is Western Europe imo. Politically & economically. If you view this proxy war in terms of great power competition which primarily involves US, Russia & China I don't think any have lost much. US and China may have gained in some ways. China only in the sense that some resources that otherwise would be used for attacking them are currently tied up. Some factions in the US aren't happy about this delay.
"Not much of an ally if the country is in ruins"
Ukraine's purpose was not as some kind of ally. The US doesn't need (or have) allies. They're quite capable of defending themselves. They seek subordinates. And Ukraine's use, as I've mentioned was as a way to fuck with Russia, as well as a laundromat. It's serving that purpose well.
"If the US takes this war, just wait and see how much money they're going to pump in for rebuilding. Would be a lot cheaper to set up camp in a country that wasn't stripped of all its infrastructure."
I don't get what you mean by this. Rebuilding is an opportunity to take over a country, just look at Germany & Japan. The capital that's used to rebuild Ukraine, at least from the US, will be leveraged for making it into a puppet. Private capital coming from the US is not as "free" as what it's made out to be, it's subject to conditions & closed door negotiations. Govt-to-govt (or IMF-to-govt) loans are a huge win for the US because they print the world currency. They basically put a country into debt servitude to them for free.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"The first call of business, as is always the case, was hooking them up to th IMF debt trap, which comes with austerity measures for the masses. Not a great situation for the people when the regime is so corrupt."
We will just have to see what happens. Will the living standards and economy go up if the yanks win this?
"Ukraine's purpose was not as some kind of ally. The US doesn't need (or have) allies. They're quite capable of defending themselves. They seek subordinates."
Sure it was, allies are always more effective than subordinates because you have a common cause and they have plenty of anti-Russia and pro-west in western Ukraine. I'm sure the numbers grow each day.
If you don't want allies but subordinates you do what the Russian are doing now. Invade and pretend to be saviors while killing the people. Maybe even throw a big anniversary party after 1 year of doing that to make it seem legit.
"I don't get what you mean by this. Rebuilding is an opportunity to take over a country, just look at Germany & Japan."
And just a few paragraphs ago, you said: "They already overthrew the govt in Kyiv & have had full influence there since."
So do they have full influence there or not, or are you just making shit up as you go?
Germany & Japan aint done too shabby since WWII even though the evil yanks put their hands on their country. Maybe Ukraine will become a similar economical powerhouse.
(Site Administrator)
"We will just have to see what happens. Will the living standards and economy go up if the yanks win this? "
We've seen what's happened in Ukraine since 2014. Nine years, a president that was elected in 2019 who ran on a peace with Russia ticket, an economy that's continued to be looted & gone sideways. Living standards are in the gutter in what once was an industrial heartland of the USSR. The place had huge potential & now it's screwed beyond recovery, being used as a battleground between major powers and going into debt that the great grand children of this generation will be paying off.
"Sure it was, allies are always more effective than subordinates because you have a common cause and they have plenty of anti-Russia and pro-west in western Ukraine."
That isn't a counter to what I was saying - the topic was what the US is doing in Ukraine, not what drives the ideologies within Ukraine...the ideological discussion is a can of worms, you'd need to look at what drives the different ideologies there, whether pro-west, pro-Russia, pro-peace etc. As I said above, the election in 2019 was one for making peace with Russia so obv there are plenty of people there who aren't fascist pro-west tools.
"If you don't want allies but subordinates you do what the Russian are doing now"
You're trying to imply that the US wants allies rather than subordinates. This is extremely naive.
"Maybe Ukraine will become a similar economical powerhouse."
Yeah, sure. Jeezus. I think we're done here. Your head's too far up your ass.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Living standards are in the gutter in what once was an industrial heartland of the USSR"
Well the country's industry is run by oligarchs, so what do you expect? A direct result of the fall of the soviet union. Everyone with a little power takes a slice, just like in Russia.
"the topic was what the US is doing in Ukraine, not what drives the ideologies within Ukraine"
The topic actually was, does the US want allies or subordinates. What I'm saying is of course they want allies because it's more effective and there's plenty of them already. Russia is shooting itself in the foot (again), by creating more US allies. No propaganda needed.
"You're trying to imply that the US wants allies rather than subordinates. This is extremely naive."
If you have a common enemy, forming allies is easy.
"I think we're done here."
Agreed. It was interesting to get a Pro-Russian view on things.
(Site Administrator)
"Well the country's industry is run by oligarchs, so what do you expect? A direct result of the fall of the soviet union. Everyone with a little power takes a slice, just like in Russia."
Yes & also a direct result of the privatization which the US economists recommended at the time & continue to insist on via things like the IMF. The scheme isn't obvious until you learn how it works by reading outside of western propaganda sources.
"Russia is shooting itself in the foot (again), by creating more US allies"
Yeah it was Russia who overthrew the govt in Kyiv in 2014 with the help of neo-Nazis. Genius analysis.
"[some more naive shit incorrectly using the word allies]"
okay
"[bonus shitlib ad hom]"
haha. Get fucked NATOcuck. This convo has spelt out how little you know aobut how shit works & how willingly you swallow Atlanticist propaganda. Enjoy your serfdom.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Yes & also a direct result of the privatization which the US economists recommended"
But the privatization never really happened. Just changed from the state to a small group of people, which means nothing really changed. Some former Soviet states did it right or rather the people weren't swindled by the oligarchs.
"Get fucked NATOcuck"
So emotional. Sorry if I disagree with "Victory to Russia"
(Site Administrator)
"But the privatization never really happened. Just changed from the state to a small group of people"
lmao
"So emotional. Sorry if I disagree with "Victory to Russia" "
no emotion here but ad hom should be returned in kind, it's only fair.
if you had any clue what you were talking about, or even if you were less duplicitous, what you agree or disagree with might mean something...but it would still just be an opinion which is fine regardless of what you know, so long as it's real. Curious that you take an interest in my opinion, I don't think you got what you were looking for in this convo though, whatever it was. At least you held back on the obvious games this time & only sprinkled some in. The denial it takes to hold up your talking points is fairly obvious, ngl. Just remain (or act) oblivious to almost everything that happened before & after Feb 24, 2022 & you're good to go! "what coup?", "what neo-nazis?", "what agreement not to expand nato?", "what minsk accords?", "what helsinki accords?" and on & on
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Well my reasoning is simple. I'm not for invading other countries, no matter what the reasoning. And yes, this includes what the US has done.
Also the fact that Finland has been in a similar situation where Russia wanted Finland as a buffer and took part of our land.... it doesn't exactly inspire sympathy to Putins cause.
(Site Administrator)
Russia also liberated Finland from Sweden, so doesn't that cancel out what Stalin did?
Besides, that's quite far back in history, you're painting the Russian Federation with the reputation of the USSR under Stalin, during which time Finland was playing footsie with the Nazis - the Nazis made no secret of their genocidal intentions towards commies at that time. The Russian Federation & the USSR are quite different states. RF isn't interested in re-taking the former territories of the Russian Empire but the USSR was. I don't see much at all to be worried about in terms of the Putin version of Russia & Russian imperial designs. They want some insurance that they're not going to be surrounded by puppets of the US, which is fair enough imo. If Russia was to become unstable then maybe there's more to worry about because there are some imperial ideologues there but the current regime just wants to be treated with a minimum of respect. I don't think their request/demand is unreasonable at all. NATO & the cunts in Washington have an obvious global domination agenda though, hence the proxy war in Ukraine & the narratives you're fed about Russia being some dangerous state you need protection from. Emboldening NATO in that region though only helps towards the goal of destabilizing Russia...if it was successful yeah maybe Finland could have something to worry about, considering their cooperation with the yanks.
"I'm not for invading other countries, no matter what the reasoning. And yes, this includes what the US has done."
Does it include Finland's occupation of Afghanistan?
(srs q)
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Russia also liberated Finland from Sweden, so doesn't that cancel out what Stalin did?"
Hard to say what would be Finland s situation if Russia didn't liberate Finland. What we do know is that Russia has been fucking around with Finland since the 16th century. "Rusky hate" has some deep roots.
"you're painting the Russian Federation with the reputation of the USSR. They're quite different states."
Different states, same motives. Things haven't changed that much. Russias politics is rooted in history. Mainly the paranoia of constant invasion on their land.
(Site Administrator)
"Different states, same motives. Things haven't changed that much. Russias politics is rooted in history. Mainly the paranoia of constant invasion on their land. "
Yeah I don't disagree with that.
Russia is home to the most natural wealth of any country in the world, by quite a bit. They really made the most of the age of imperialism & have kept a lot of what they gained, unlike the other European powers. It's possible there might come a time when Russia gets froggy again but as I've said I don't see it within this Putinocracy they have there. Trying to hem them in to a point where they must submit or start WWIII isn't the smartest way to go either though and for Finland it's pretty dangerous since it would be one of the first places on the target list, especially if the yanks can put there the kind of hardware they put in Poland - missile "defense" systems "to guard against Iran's ballistic missiles". Pfft, yeah right.
You skipped over giving your opinion on Finland's role in the occupation of Afghanistan, that was my follow-up question to your "both sides" type argument about Russia & US, which I don't agree with in the slightest but can't be bothered arguing about it. You've lived thru this past 25 years as I have so there's no excuse to equate the 2, it's just willful ignorance to try & make that argument. Russia's sent military forces into foreign territory against the will of the rightful govt exactly the same number of times these past 25 years as Finland has. Once. US on the other hand has been on a never-ending global murder rampage, not just with their own military but with other kinds of warfare that kills people by the truckload, eg. economic war, proxy war, backing terrorist, backing death squads, installing & propping up dictators, etc. .. this is the side Finland is choosing by joining NATO. Regardless of the ethical nature of the decision, which I haven't really been judging (in this thread), I still think it's a sketchy move for Finland to cuck to them, considering it wouldn't take much effort to continue sitting in a pocket of relative independence while maintaining enough security to get by, and considering how desparate they're getting to maintain their global dominance with Russia rejecting it & openly working against it now.
Also you should be clear-eyed about Russia's attempts to avoid this war in Ukraine if you want to make a decent judgement of their potential future behaviour imo. AND the reason they are there, which is imo not because they insist on having influence there but because they have a bottom line with their security which is not to be surrounded by NATO - a CIA-groomed neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine while NATO is moving in there thru tha back door wasn't something they can accept. They didn't pretend they would accept it but tried to avoid it coming to this, possibly for too long.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"You skipped over giving your opinion on Finland's role in the occupation of Afghanistan"
In short. I think we should stay away from all military conflicts that don't directly concern us. We can provide humanitarian help and thats also what they did.
"US on the other hand has been on a never-ending global murder rampage, not just with their own military but with other kinds of warfare that kills people by the truckload, eg. economic war, proxy war, backing terrorist, backing death squads, installing & propping up dictators, etc. .. this is the side Finland is choosing by joining NATO"
Finland wants to join NATO because of Russias invasion. Thats really all there is to it. A NATO membership would have been a hard sell for Finnish people just a few years ago for the very reasons you mentioned.
"Also you should be clear-eyed about Russia's attempts to avoid this war in Ukraine if you want to make a decent judgement of their potential future behaviour imo."
Don't think so. Putin thought this would be over in a matter of weeks. I bet he would have chosen differently if he knew what he was getting into. Might have just tried harder to avoid a war and look for other avenues for a solution.
(Site Administrator)
"Putin thought this would be over in a matter of weeks"
that's pure speculation.
"Might have just tried harder to avoid a war and look for other avenues for a solution."
once again you seem to be oblivious to what's been going on for the past decade there. Does Minsk Accords ring any bells? How about Russia's offer to US & Europe of a better security arrangement they put forward in December 2021? (the one the warmongers in DC scoffed at)
"I bet he would have chosen differently if he knew what he was getting into."
I don't.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"that's pure speculation."
It is, but it's quite clear things haven't gone as planned. He should shoot his generals like Stalin did.
"Does Minsk Accords ring any bells?"
Maybe just respect some older agreements like the Budapest Memorandum.
"I don't."
Because the cost-benefit is looking so good now?
(Site Administrator)
"Maybe just respect some older agreements like the Budapest Memorandum."
Helsinki Accords (read it some time) predate the Budapest Memorandum, if you're going to prioritize things on a scale of older = more important. HA calls for indivisible security as well as outlawing foreign states from messing with internal affairs of others. US helping overthrow the elected govt in Kyiv in 2014 is a breach of that agreement & NATO's expansion up to Russia's borders while ignoring Russia's attempts to negotiate a more stable security arrangement is likewise a breach of the HA. As was their turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO state, threatening the security of Russia & scoffing at Russia's attempts to negotiate. Even Budapest Memorandum was signaled to be breached by that fool Zelensky just weeks before the invasion when he started talking shit about getting nukes - something that wouldn't be difficult at all for Ukraine to acquire do to the tech they have from the Soviet era. That opened the door for a (sketchy) legal argument to be made that Russia's invasion was pre-emptive & defensive. Not that I'd make that argument.... it is the standard the US (a signatory to HA & BM) uses though, in their war of aggression against Iraq & their economic/terror war against Iran to name a couple examples.
"Because the cost-benefit is looking so good now?"
How's it looking for the G7's economic war against Russia?
In a world where they don't just obey US diktats, do you think they'd have "chosen differently if [they] knew what [they were] getting into"? (other than the US who arranged this entire hair-brained scheme & has fuck all to lose, by design)
The economic war was supposed to be the ace in the hole for the Atlanticist wankers, the way the US & their Eurocuck partners would bring Russia to heel - "Ruble to rubble", remember? They're not able to do it on the battlefield, obv. They'll spend every able-bodied Ukrainian pretending they can though. Then what?
The military & economic war is still only secondary to Russia's actual goal with this operation, imo. The actual thing they're going for is a shift in the global power dynamic & although this is harder to quantify & difficult to argue about, imo they've really made some inroads on that front. This is a real can of worms & you'd need to actually be someone who takes a keen interest in international affairs to evaluate it..... but since that's something I do I wlil give my opinion - Russia is not losing by any stretch. They've not made as much progress as they'd have liked in every way but they have made some progress - shoring up relations with key players & exposing the US globally. It's also given China some breathing space which is helping to shift the dynamic. I'll stop there because I could write a great wall of text about it if I don't.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"HA calls for indivisible security as well as outlawing foreign states from messing with internal affairs of others."
So not that different from the Budapest Memorandum but it actually binds keeping the current borders as they are, which includes Ukraine.
HA was done during the Soviet Union and BM after it's collapse, you can decide which is more reflective of the current power structures.
"How's it looking for the G7's economic war against Russia?"
Not good. As I've said before, everyone is losing.
Putin of course doesn't care what happens to the rest of the world but should care what happens to Russia. People feeling the country to avoid a draft is also not a good look in the long run.
"They'll spend every able-bodied Ukrainian pretending they can though."
This is always a nice spin on things. Like the west is forcing them not to surrender :D
"The actual thing they're going for is a shift in the global power dynamic & although this is harder to quantify & difficult to argue about, imo they've really made some inroads on that front."
I'll just quote you again: Your head's too far up your ass.
Really hard to take you seriously, the Pro-Russia is coming through strong. Russia's image on the world stage is at an all-time low. They turned half of the world against them. No matter which way the war goes, the damage is done.
(Site Administrator)
"So not that different from the Budapest Memorandum"
Spoken like someone who hasn't read either. Go read them.
"Not good. As I've said before, everyone is losing."
Everyone in Europe is losing something including Russia.
"People feeling the country to avoid a draft is also not a good look in the long run."
There have been plenty of things that have not looked good for everyone involved. The guys who ran to nearby states aren't really a net L for Russia. In terms of looks, public perception is a slippery thing & doesn't really matter a great deal. It's very much divided too, there's the west (about 14% of the global population) and there's the rest (76% of global population). Outside the west Russia about 2/3 of people have a favourable opinion of Russia & a little more than that for China. The difference is night n day & is mostly a result of media. Nobody actually gets to vote on foreign policy issues though so it makes barely any difference to anything.
"This is always a nice spin on things. Like the west is forcing them not to surrender :D"
It's obvious but it's not "the west" it's the US pulling the strings.
"Russia's image on the world stage is at an all-time low."
No it's not.
"They turned half of the world against them."
No they didn't.
"No matter which way the war goes, the damage is done."
You ought to focus it on some actual data, and pay more attention to things that happen outside the west, before making a fool of yourself. I don't even know what "the damage is done" is supposed to mean but this isn't over & it seems to me Russia's just getting warmed up. Outside the western bloc there has barely been any shift in relations with Russia, and the trend is positive, if anything. West Asia, Africa, East Asia (minus laptogs ROK & Japan who are politically wetern & reluctantly towing the US line), SEAsia ,... all governments understand that the US set up this shit in Eastern Europe but they do prefer it would stop, mainly because it's dangerous to global stability & survival of our species/planet. The US/G7/EU master stroke was supposed to be crushing Russia's economy & that failed miserably. There are already murmers in Europe wondering wtf to do next, quietly wondering whether to cut a deal with Russia to stabilize things. They're too cucked to resist US pressure though. It's likely this will be over when the US loses interest, or if some faction in Kyiv can step around the corrupt tools & break things up for the sake of Ukraine, making a deal with Moscow & chasing away the CIA & their goons - a tiny chance of this happening rn but still a possibility.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Spoken like someone who hasn't read either. Go read them."
I've read the main points.
How about you, did you read the Budapest Memorandum? Did Russia follow it or not?
"There have been plenty of things that have not looked good for everyone involved."
Sure but if people start leaving their country because the leader's decision, it's pretty bad.
Maybe you could apply for Russian citizenship and balance it out a bit? You would live in a place where all the rules and regulations would be to your liking. Who knows maybe you could get to the front lines to help out.
"No it's not"
Maybe it has been worse, but point is, it's not good now.
"No they didn't."
They invaded, and the western media did the rest. You of all people should know this.
"You ought to focus it on some actual data, and pay more attention to things that happen outside the west, before making a fool of yourself."
Even if the war ended tomorrow, it's going to take a while before relations warm up again. EU being one of Russia's biggest trade partners it's going to have an impact.
Maybe if Putin kicks the bucket it will blow over faster, but were back to a cold war kind of situation either way.
(Site Administrator)
"How about you, did you read the Budapest Memorandum?"
Yeah but I don't think it's particularly important tbh. Russia hasn't really recognized the Kyiv govt's sovereignty properly since 2014 when it was overthrown & a puppet regime put in its place. The Helsinki Accords is a far more important doc imo as it relates to the bigger picture stuff & was the basis of peace & stability in Europe.
"Did Russia follow it or not?"
No they didn't. You're gonna call this whataboutism but that would be a mistake.... Russia has been quite tolerant imo holding back while the US shitting all over both those agreements. Should Moscow just keep watching the US break every rule in the book to get an advantage over them until there's just a nub left of the Russian Federation?
"Maybe you could apply for Russian citizenship and balance it out a bit? You would live in a place where all the rules and regulations would be to your liking. Who knows maybe you could get to the front lines to help out. "
Don't be a wanker.
"Maybe it has been worse, but point is, it's not good now."
Says who?
This is the 2nd time you've tried to make this point & I'm calling bullshit. I've already refuted it but you're not bringing anything new to the table. Gib sources or at least some reasoning for this because I say it's just your western bubble delusion.
"They invaded, and the western media did the rest. You of all people should know this."
You're over-estimating the influence of western media outside of the political west.
"Even if the war ended tomorrow, it's going to take a while before relations warm up again. EU being one of Russia's biggest trade partners it's going to have an impact."
Russia's done with Europe. They're looking East now. They'll trade what they can with Europe, sure, but they're not gonna rely on it & are gonna put more resources into building relations elsewhere.
"Maybe if Putin kicks the bucket it will blow over faster, but were back to a cold war kind of situation either way."
By my estimation this isn't something you should hope for. Putin is quite steady & conservative in his approach to international affairs. For a long time he was trying to build better relations with the west & lobbying to become part of it but the US empire needs its monsters to fight.... and small nordic/eastern european countries to gobble up.
Edit: Okay I'm feeling generous again because you've mostly behaved yourself in this thread... here is some actual data on global opinion of Russia. Yes Russia's reputation has suffered immensely in the West but you need to put that into perspective & remember this bloc is less than 15% of the global population & its political & economic influence is decreasing as the developing world gains strength. Something else to remember is that nobody gave a shit about Ukraine before 2022 & for most of the world that is still the case. People care about their own interests - inflation & in some cases they may worry about WWIII... of those that worry about this stuff a lot of them blame the US & are more clear-eyed about who is causing this shit in Europe. NATO expansion / US imperialism isn't something you can wish away or insist "it's Ukraine's sovereign right to choose allies", ignoring everything else. It's a real issue that obviously has a lot to do with the mess in Ukraine. Dammit I'm ranting again. Okay here's the data..
And here's an example of the situation in action just for trolling purposes (it's gone viral in Germany):
https://twitter.com/RueDaungier/status/1632045039986659329
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Yeah but I don't think it's particularly important tbh"
Respecting the border of countries is not important? Well, this is where we disagree.
"Helsinki Accords is a far more important doc imo"
Again, done in Soviet times. The power structures were totally different. Not saying you should wipe your ass with HA, just that it's not actually representing the big picture as there is no Soviet Union ATM.
"Should Moscow just keep watching the US break every rule in the book to get an advantage over them until there's just a nub left of the Russian Federation?"
As far as I'm aware Russia's borders have not been challenged by the US for a long time.
"Says who?
This is the 2nd time you've tried to make this point & I'm calling bullshit."
You kinda answered this for yourself with the graphs.
"Yes Russia's reputation has suffered immensely in the West"
Thanks for the graphics. Hadn't actually looked at the number but a sharp decline as I suspected. It's in the developed countries so it's a large chunk of the global economy that Russia is potentially being left out of.
(Site Administrator)
"Respecting the border of countries is not important? Well, this is where we disagree."
I said the Budapest Memorandum wasn't that important. Don't try to twist my words to form a straw man, it's boring & pointless. I also said the US didn't respect the HA or BM, which you've conveniently ignored, as with about a dozen other points I've made in this thread. Here's a question: What should Russia do when faced with a US empire that doesn't even pretend to respect these important treaties, to the detriment of Russian security? Just keep playing nice & become surrounded by missile installations pointed at Moscow, western-backed rabid neo-nazis on their border ready to pop off & increasingly hostile relations with neighbors due to US psyops & political manipulation..? Doesn't sound very sustainable or stable to me. Why not just return thet favour & disregard said treaties to re-balance the equation *shrug*
"Again, done in Soviet times. The power structures were totally different. Not saying you should wipe your ass with HA, just that it's not actually representing the big picture as there is no Soviet Union ATM. "
I don't know how you consider this a valid argument. The Russian Federation inherited a lot of stuff from the Soviet Union, including most treaties & practically all the debt, including that of the satellite states. It's a direct lineage & the treaties still in force are no less valid.
"You kinda answered this for yourself with the graphs."
You need to get better at reading graphs &/or understanding what global opinion actually is. Pro-tip: it's not the opinion of a brainwashed western public.
"It's in the developed countries so it's a large chunk of the global economy that Russia is potentially being left out of."
I don't know what that means. Care to elaborate? (left out of what?)
Outside the political west (less than 15% of the global population) Russia's reputation is fine. You didn't specify that their prestige had nosedived in the west only, or I might have somewhat agreed. You said globally, which is just not the case. It's a common misperception in the west that our bubble is the global consensus. It's not. You have to go out of your way to see what's happening in the increasingly important developing world & hardly anyone in the west does.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"I said the Budapest Memorandum wasn't that important. Don't try to twist my words to form a straw man, it's boring & pointless."
I'm not twisting your words. That's what it says in the Budapest Memorandum.
"I also said the US didn't respect the HA or BM, which you've conveniently ignored"
I fully acknowledge it goes both ways.
"What should Russia do when faced with a US empire that doesn't even pretend to respect these important treaties, to the detriment of Russian security?"
I guess invade Ukraine and start leveling cities and killing people.
"I don't know how you consider this a valid argument."
Because the Soviet Union was bigger and stronger then, with all its states and military.
"You need to get better at reading graphs &/or understanding what global opinion actually is. Pro-tip: it's not the opinion of a brainwashed western public."
Yeah, the sharp decline is only in the developed countries:
United States, Japan, Turkey, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, South Korea, Spain, Canada, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Republic of China (Taiwan), Romania, Netherlands, Belgium, Czechia, Greece, Sweden, Portugal, Hungary, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Norway, New Zealand, Ireland, Kuwait, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Brunei.
"I don't know what that means. Care to elaborate? (left out of what?)"
Left out of trade with the developed countries, which consists of a good chunk of the global economy.
(Site Administrator)
> "Respecting the border of countries is not important?"
> "That's what it says in the Budapest Memorandum."
What it says is "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine"
How was the US respecting Ukraine's sovereignty when it facilitated a coup detat to overthrow the elected government in 2014?
And before you cry "whataboutism", see my previous rant asking you whether you believe Russia should be the only one adhering to a treaty while the US shits all over it, to the detriment of Russia's security & economic interests.
"I fully acknowledge it goes both ways. "
You say that but you never actually do, all you want to do is point fingers at Russia with a double standard.
"I guess invade Ukraine and start leveling cities and killing people. "
See - you can't actually discuss it without being duplicitous.
This is an important point, one of the main points at the heart of why Russia's involved in the conflict in Ukraine. If they stand back & do nothing while the US shits all over international norms, treaties & legal obligations, things just get worse & worse for them.
Let me know why you think Russia should be held to a different standard than the US, at its own detriment, in its own neighbourhood, while Russian people are being killed by neo-Nazis. I don't think you can but it would be good to see you at least try, or simply acknowledge the shitty situation they had been put in.
"Because the Soviet Union was bigger and stronger then, with all its states and military. "
That has no bearing on the validity of legal documents.
"Left out of trade with the developed countries, which consists of a good chunk of the global economy."
Economic warfare is a 2-way street. For example Finland's GDP growth this year is projected to be 0.5% while consumer prices will grow by 3.5%. Bummer.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"And before you cry "whataboutism""
I won't cry about it. Just say that at least the borders stayed the same. It's not like Russia hasn't been meddling with Ukraine for god knows how long. And I'd be fine with Russia throwing a counter-coup, I'd prefer it over the war.
"You say that but you never actually do, all you want to do is point fingers at Russia with a double standard."
I'm not here trying to defend the US, too many skeletons in their closet to do it even if I wanted to.
Do you want to defend Russia?
We can call it quits and just agree that both of these world powers are kind of assholes. What do you think?
"I guess invade Ukraine and start leveling cities and killing people. "
See - you can't actually discuss it without being duplicitous."
But thats whats happening. Theres not sugar coating it, which is basically all you try to do.
"Let me know why you think Russia should be held to a different standard than the US, at its own detriment"
I don't. Most wars the US has fought are bullshit -> Spreading freedom and democracy with guns.
" If they stand back & do nothing while the US shits all over international norms, treaties & legal obligations, things just get worse & worse for them."
The treaties which both countries seem to brake? The only thing I can be sure of is that this war won't fix it, no matter how it pans out. It makes things worse for all parties involved. It's a step back in every way.
The only positive I can think of is that maybe we will learn something from it and act wiser the next time around.
(Site Administrator)
"I'd be fine with Russia throwing a counter-coup, I'd prefer it over the war"
The problem with that idea is the US already had their hooks well into Ukraine since 2014. This prevents any organized resistance that could counter-coup the govt, especially when they have neo-Nazi thugs in the streets killing & maiming people who try to resist. There's been a brutal foreign-backed quasi-fascist regime ruling Ukraine since 2014, just as the US likes to install & has done so many times before. Counter couping these types of regimes is extremely bloody. Korea in the late 1940s and early 1950s is a classic example. Vietnam from the 1950s to 1970s is another. When the yanks get their hooks in they don't let go. This is one of the reasons I don't agree that Finland joining NATO, or even trying to lean so far West, is a smart move. There's no going back, the security situation doesn't call for it, and it's just better off trying to maintain some balance/independence/sovereignty imo (strategcally speaking, not some emotional hot take). If you look at Finland's behaviour in the past decade or so, they've already made up their mind but joining NATO seals the deal, especially with Russian relations but possibly in the future with relations with China or other countries that they might want to maintain decent relations with. A country the size of Finland joining NATO is asking to be a pawn & you never know when they can backfire. Safer to stay on the fringe I'd say. Anyway, /rant.
"We can call it quits and just agree that both of these world powers are kind of assholes. What do you think?"
I think the US is the asshole that caused the conflict in Ukraine, with help from UK & some other bit players. Russia is not without blame but the core of the problem stems from Anglo-American imperialism, the facts are irrefutable on this imo. The way you refuse to acknowledge 95% of the points I make backing up this argument kind of drives home the point. All you seem to have is "muh borders", ignoring the long history of US shitting all over Ukraine sovereignty in other ways which are also illegal under international law & which caused Russia to eventually take this step of invasion (as the US actions were designed to do).
"But thats whats happening. Theres not sugar coating it, which is basically all you try to do."
what a reach. Refusing to condemn something on command is not sugar coating it. When did I glorify Russia's decision to invade? It's an unfortunate situation. I'm not gonna pretend I care so much about Ukrainians though, they're on the other side of the world aren't blameless either. They never managed to get their shit together since the 1990s, like a bunch of ex-Soviet states. Bummer they never had a Putin come along & at least get things functional & do some basic housecleaning. It's another episode in US imperialism which was totally avoidable & fucking sucks. Russia is not blameless but if you wanna point fingers look at the causes with clear eyes. You'll find the same bullshit that caused the Iraq war, Afghanistan invasion, destruction of Libya, the ongoing genocidal wars against Syria & Yemen. The bombing in Somalia.... I think they call it "full spectrum dominance". Look to what shapes US foreign policy & has done since the 1990s - they regard themselves as the global dictator & will do whatever it takes to prevent a near-peer rival from getting anywhere close to them. Their decision makers have fuck all in the way of humanity & rely on brute force not as a last resort but as a readily available option which they weild anywhere in the world they think they might gain from doing so. This is who Finland is kissing up to & what's more, the hegomonic nature of the empire, which it relies on quite a lot, is dying. The conflict in Ukraine is accelerating it. Womp womp.
"Most wars the US has fought are bullshit -> Spreading freedom and democracy with guns."
Try all, at least since WWII. They've initiated over 80% of the wars in the world since WWII & always lied their way into wars they've been directly involved with. Russia didn't lie its way into this war, they tried for years to avoid it, to their own detriment because they could (should?) have moved in 2014 when the govt was overthrown & Russians inside Ukraine started getting slaughtered by CIA's special little brownshirt helpers. They have their reasons for delaying the military action, possibly they needed to prepare their economy & also were obviously trying to avoid this scenario, as I've said.
Trying to "both sides" US and Russian imperialism is gay. Waging war is built into the US economic-political-media ponzi scheme. Russia has baseline security concerns in their immediate vicinity which ultimately they will do what it takes to protect. There's no equivalence between the US & Russia in terms of waging war. For brevity I won't start ranting about the P5, its role in international stability & how UK/France/USA on one side have done the vast majority of the war mongering since WWII in comparison to Russia & China on the other. One more point - I'm not blind to Soviet/Russian imperialism, I just think "both sidesing" Russia & US in 21st century is a hollow argument, even in the context of Ukraine.
"The treaties which both countries seem to brake? The only thing I can be sure of is that this war won't fix it, no matter how it pans out. It makes things worse for all parties involved. It's a step back in every way. "
Several things here ..... firstly the US broke it first, and directly caused Russia to take action that eventually broke the security treaties (after years of practically begging for negotiations with EU/US to create a more stable framework & a last ditch effort in December 2021 offering to do serious negotiations & about this outcome, which the US ignored).
"war won't fix it, no matter how it pans out"
We'll see. Russia is on a mission to upset the global dynamic and I think they've made progress. The jury is still out.
"It makes things worse for all parties involved"
there are winners & losers in lots of areas. You'd have to narrow it down a bit to say who is worse off imo.
"It's a step back in every way"
haha I don't see it that way & am not just being argumentative. It's a step back in several ways, eg. Russia's regional relations on their Western flank. But it's a big country that spans from Europe all the way across Asia. The Indians for example are making bank refining Russian oil & selling it to Europeans & Americans at a profit. Their public have become more pro-Russia, as have the Chinese. Between those 2 that's more people than the population of the entire political west including the lapdogs in NE Asia.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"The problem with that idea is the US already had their hooks well into Ukraine since 2014."
Yes, as I've said before Russia didn't look after it's own backyard. Would think that is a priority if Ukraine is so important.
"This is one of the reasons I don't agree that Finland joining NATO, or even trying to lean so far West, is a smart move."
The war has it's consequences. This is one of them.
"Bummer they never had a Putin come along & at least get things functional & do some basic housecleaning."
LoL. Maybe Putin should have cleaned those Yanks out before it became a problem.
"I'm not blind to Soviet/Russian imperialism, I just think "both sidesing" Russia & US in 21st century is a hollow argument, even in the context of Ukraine."
If you need to pick a side, then thats what you need to do.
"We'll see. Russia is on a mission to upset the global dynamic and I think they've made progress. The jury is still out."
If you want to measure it that way (global dynamics). I'd measure it in terms of people killed, the millions of refugees (btw which are plentiful just in my town), cities leveled, and just the overall cold war similarities where countries boost military spending and prep for a possible war.
None if it's good if you're the kinda person that values peace over this dick-measuring contest.
(Site Administrator)
"Yes, as I've said before Russia didn't look after it's own backyard. Would think that is a priority if Ukraine is so important."
It's a violation of the Helsinki accords & the Budapest Memorandum for the US to have done that. You need to make up your mind whether violating these agreements is okay or not because you're being inconsistent by citing BM as something Russia should respect when it comes to overt military forces but seemingly in no other way.
This is getting down to the meat & potatoes of your argument / our disagreement imo. You can't cherry pick which parts of which agreements you're outraged about Russia violating while giving the US a free pass in the same theatre but waving your hand at the rest of the crimes the US commits just to acknowledge them for the record.
The US (along with France, UK and Canada) was training & equipping Ukrainian military forces since 2015 during a civil war there, with the neo-Nazis on the side of the NATO goons. They were bombing cities, just as Russia has been doing, and according to what I've seen they did it with far more malice. This stuff all gets disregarded when Russia sent tanks across the border because........?
"The war has it's consequences. This is one of them."
It didn't have to be. The Finnish ruling class are ushering it in as quick as possible without much due process. Taking Finland's future into their hands while there's some hype to change course.
"Maybe Putin should have cleaned those Yanks out before it became a problem."
Yeah for sure it was Putin's fault the US spent billions stirring political turmoil & then backed a vilent coup d'etat in Kyiv. Putin should have put on his superman cape & prevented it, obviously.
"If you need to pick a side, then thats what you need to do. "
This is overly dramatic BS. Your country is not at war nor under any direct threat. You're not forced to turn your thinking brain off & offer 100% loyalty to the yanks, even to the point where you'll be arguing their case in a seedy corner of the internet like this. Jesus.
"If you want to measure it...."
Any way you measure it, they're not in the same ballpark. That goes for the Cold War & post-Cold War periods. I don't think you have a good enough grasp on history since WWII to have a decent idea of the numbers or of what's been taking place, otherwise you wouldn't be making that argument. During their 20 year war of aggression (based on lies) against Vietnam alone the yanks & their helpers tortured over 400,000 civilians to death & killed around 5 million people. This was just one of their many major war crimes but it makes the combined war the Soviets & Russian Federation have conducted (since WWII) pale in comparison.
War itself is an obvious thing to measure but there's also all the imperialism that's not actually hot war. And again the yanks are way out in front, in their own universe. They even write laws & policies as if they're the country to rule them all. They've overcooked it, are becoming increasongly desparate to retain their global hegemony & now is a terrible time to become one of their pawns.
They have you thinking they actually care about Ukraine when they were the ones who staged everything for Ukraine to be sacrificed like a piece on a chessboard. The facts don't lie. Politicians, corporations & their propaganda do. Not tryna fearmonger but what makes you so sure Finland isn't to be sacrificed if that's what they decide is in their interest? Those pathetic Atlanticist leaders you have in Finland aren't even giving assurances that no nukes will be placed in Finland.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"You need to make up your mind whether violating these agreements is okay or not because you're being inconsistent by citing BM as something Russia should respect when it comes to overt military forces but seemingly in no other way."
As we have established both have broken the treaties. So your saying Russia just didn't do anything about it because they were respecting the treaties?
"You can't cherry pick which parts of which agreements you're outraged about Russia violating while giving the US a free pass"
I'm not doing that, as said both have breached them. In this instance I'd say not respecting the borders is the bigger evil, though.
"It didn't have to be."
No, I don't think so, if the war hadn't broke out.
"Yeah for sure it was Putin's fault the US spent billions stirring political turmoil & then backed a vilent coup d'etat in Kyiv. Putin should have put on his superman cape & prevented it, obviously."
Just an observation. It's easier to deal with it earlier than later.
"This is overly dramatic BS. Your country is not at war nor under any direct threat."
I was talking about you, not Finland.
If you want to support Russia, you can do that. Could be that Finland is joining NATO soon, but that doesn't mean I stand behind US policies personally but I do fully understand why it has come to this.
"Jesus"
Praise the lord.
"They have you thinking they actually care about Ukraine when they were the ones who staged everything for Ukraine to be sacrificed like a piece on a chessboard."
I'm just looking at who is doing the invading and killing here.
(Site Administrator)
"As we have established both have broken the treaties. So your saying Russia just didn't do anything about it because they were respecting the treaties? "
No, I didn't say Russia didn't do anything about it. I gave you a reason why your "Russia should just organize a counter coup" is not a very valid idea. Russia tried to get Ukraine to stop the civil war & act like a decent neighbour in general. It didn't work. AFAIK Russia was respecting the treaties with the exclusion of their taking Crimea back, which is a legal can of worms. Russia's legal argument about taking back Crimea was never made in any kind of court. In practical terms it was the right thing to do. Crimea is Russian & has never ever been Ukrainian, despite ending up in the national boundaries of an independent state called Ukraine.
"I'm not doing that, as said both have breached them. In this instance I'd say not respecting the borders is the bigger evil, though. "
"evil" ................ is this a religious lesson?
"No, I don't think so, if the war hadn't broke out."
war or no war, Finland joining NATO is a choice & not a necessary or smart one imo.
"It's easier to deal with it earlier than later. "
So Russia should have in invaded in 2014 rather than 2022?
"If you want to support Russia, you can do that."
I wasn't asking for permission to hold any views or your evaluation of what/who you think I "support".
"Could be that Finland is joining NATO soon, but that doesn't mean I stand behind US policies personally but I do fully understand why it has come to this."
I doubt that.
"I'm just looking at who is doing the invading and killing here. "
well let's see..... there's a long list of countries who are parties to this war, including Finland.
If you were to be honest about it you'd recognize this simple fact.
Not that it really makes any difference how you want to frame anything as "evil" or whatever. You don't have a legal argument to make against Russia because their invasion was a reaction to illegal behaviour of the NATO side. So it's all about what happened on Feb 24, 2022 to you. And Russia might invade Finland next because .... reasons. It's not very logical in the end. If you want to condemn Russia for taking that step last year, go for it.... but don't pretend like that's the only thing that's happened or that it's all about that thing. This thread & other readily available information contradicts that narrative too hard.
And to get your feet back to Earth a bit, plz explain what you think Russia should have done different, assuming there was no way for them to organize a counter-coup in Kyiv (also an illegal act that could end up very bloody). You've acknowledged the peaceful efforts Russia made to resolve the situation once but you're more than willing to paint them as the most "evil" in the situation. The US & its vassals pushed for this war as a way to weaken Russia. Does that count as "evil"?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Russia tried to get Ukraine to stop the civil war & act like a decent neighbour in general."
How did they try to do that? I hope that they didn't send troops or back up separatists and meddle with Ukraine's business.
"Crimea is Russian & has never ever been Ukrainian, despite ending up in the national boundaries of an independent state called Ukraine."
Obviously if you take Putin's word for it.
""evil" ................ is this a religious lesson?"
Yes, We already talked about Jesus and how violence is never the answer.
"Finland joining NATO is a choice & not a necessary or smart one imo."
Finland is forced to take action to secure its borders & security. We can't just stand by and look as Russia tries to expand it's sphere of influence. Sound familiar?
"So Russia should have in invaded in 2014 rather than 2022?"
No, prevent from it ever coming to that. Ukraine is already taken over by the US, and they didn't have to invade to accomplish that.
"I wasn't asking for permission to hold any views or your evaluation of what/who you think I "support""
Just saying I don't hold it against you if thats your thing.
""Could be that Finland is joining NATO soon, but that doesn't mean I stand behind US policies personally but I do fully understand why it has come to this."
I doubt that."
I'm sure you do. My reasoning as a Finn might differ from a pro-russian.
"If you want to condemn Russia for taking that step last year, go for it.... but don't pretend like that's the only thing that's happened or that it's all about that thing."
I don't, this has going on way longer than 2014 though.
"plz explain what you think Russia should have done different, assuming there was no way for them to organize a counter-coup in Kyiv"
All I can say is my solution wouldn't be war, because it has the opposite effect.
As I've said, Russia should have been taking care of business in Ukraine way before it ever got to this point (+20 years ago), if Ukraine is so important for their security. If the US can control Ukraine from the other side of the globe, it's a massive failure on part of the Russians if they can't do it from next door. Now trying to do it with force, they might be gaining a buffer zone but in the process gaining more enemies or at the very least a paranoid Europe that is stocking on military hardware as a consequence.
(Site Administrator)
"How did they try to do that? I hope that they didn't send troops or back up separatists and meddle with Ukraine's business. "
They tried via the Minsk accords, they rejected the requests from Donbass to unify with Russia for 8 years, they tried for years to negotiate with the puppeteer, USA (the source of the problem), and their minions in Europe, along with the govt in Kyiv.
You should learn & acknowledge the reality of the situation rather than centering everything around the mythical idea of Russia being irrational & dangerous.
"Obviously if you take Putin's word for it."
You can learn the history yourself, it's not that hard. Obsessing over Putin makes people stoopid, but that was part of the objective of the propaganda. Be smarter.
"Finland is forced to take action to secure its borders & security. We can't just stand by and look as Russia tries to expand it's sphere of influence. Sound familiar?"
Yes, this sounds like the ravings of someone caught up in hype & manufactured fear. I see this kind of crap often, especially in western propaganda & from people who believe that nonsense.
"No, prevent from it ever coming to that. Ukraine is already taken over by the US, and they didn't have to invade to accomplish that."
So your answer to what Russia should have done was to prevent the coup in 2014 from taking place..... how would you advise they do that?
"Just saying I don't hold it against you if thats your thing."
Okay and whether you do or don't makes no difference. If I want your opinion on your perceived version of my opinions I'll ask. Don't hold your breath.
"My reasoning as a Finn might differ from a pro-russian."
haha the old faithful ad hom. Pathetic.
"I don't, this has going on way longer than 2014 though."
True. The Brits & yanks were fostering ultra-nationalists since they inherited the stay behind networks from Nazi Germany. 2014 & beyond was their harvesting of all their prior work & launching an anti-Russian state for their own geopolitical interests (to weaken Russia). I wonder what their goals are with Finland.
"All I can say is my solution wouldn't be war, because it has the opposite effect."
That would depend on what effect you're looking for. AFAIK Russia sees the problem primarily coming from the US & to do with the global order. The Ukraine shitshow is just an expression of it. They're looking to use this conflict to tip the scales & from what I've seen they've made some headway along these lines. You could call it imperialism but it doesn't take much to see how this can be regarded as a defense strategy by Russia, if you're willing to look at things from their POV.
"Russia should have been taking care of business in Ukraine way before it ever got to this point (+20 years ago), if Ukraine is so important for their security"
Russia spent most of the past 30 years trying to get along with the West & follow the rules, for the most part. It's not just Ukraine but the former Soviet states & everything East of Germany, which the yanks promised not to expand NATO into. Ukraine was the straw that broke the camel's back.
"If the US can control Ukraine from the other side of the globe, it's a massive failure on part of the Russians if they can't do it from next door. Now trying to do it with force, they might be gaining a buffer zone but in the process gaining more enemies or at the very least a paranoid Europe that is stocking on military hardware as a consequence."
Yeah I don't disagree with this but what the US has done to Ukraine is completely unacceptable to me. That is the original sin that has caused these flow on effects. Not to absolve Russia from the guilt of using violence as their solution but I've yet to hear any worthwhile alternatives besides "Russia should have meddled harder than the US did in Ukraine" - a breach of Ukrainian sovereignty & independence & also a tall order considering the resources available to each nation & the ruthlessness of the yanks. Also you need to acknowledge the untouchability of the yanks - the coup they organised in 2014 was sealed due to their overwhelming political influence in the west.... Russia does not have this. Should Russia resort to these kind of tactics they would suffer the same kind of economic warfare as has happened to them since 2014 when they took back Crimea. One side can get away with literal murder & the other can't. Russia wants to change this global dynamic .... on this point I say виктория в россию .... your answer seems to be "well we better join hands with the most ruthless & powerful & pretend like the other guys are the evil ones".
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"They tried via the Minsk accords, they rejected the requests from Donbass to unify with Russia for 8 years, they tried for years to negotiate with the puppeteer, USA (the source of the problem), and their minions in Europe, along with the govt in Kyiv."
So everything was done "by the book" by the Russians? No military support, just politics?
"You can learn the history yourself, it's not that hard."
I thought borders have some meaning, but that's just me.
"Yes, this sounds like the ravings of someone caught up in hype & manufactured fear."
Maybe this would be different if Russia never attacked us, but it's a big part of our history. Mainly because our grandparents managed to fend off the attack against all odds.
"haha the old faithful ad hom. Pathetic."
Why do you consider this an ad hom? As I said I don't hold it against you if your Pro-Russian
"Yeah I don't disagree with this but what the US has done to Ukraine is completely unacceptable to me. That is the original sin that has caused these flow on effects."
What do you think, does geography and cultural lines play any part in this or it's all just US doing?
Meaning West Ukraine might by default lean more toward Europe / west and east Ukraine towards Russia.
And really it's not that difficult decision for many in what direction they rather go when you compare Russian living standards and income to Europe.
(Old Spike)
you are right about the US imperialism, but this is not Europe's view they are just helping a neighbour, the view you have of Europe supporting US imperialism is wrong, look at Germany they wanted to stay out, now they are in because of public opinion.
They hold voting polls on the street, then in congress, that is how democracy works, and we know how to critically think, most our news is regulated to prevent biased news, even then we question our government, and protest whenever we dislike something, we decide as the ppl.
(Site Administrator)
"now they are in because of public opinion"
disagree. They're in because they have a weak regime now & Merkel didn't do enough to prevent this outcome. France & Germany are signatories to the Minsk accords but kowtowed to US pressure not to press Kyiv to implement them, even though it was in their own interest to do that. It's the same with US sanctions on Iran - the Europeans would be better off resisting US pressure & doing business with Iran but they don't because they're too beholden to the yanks in various ways.
It's a common mistake to think foreign policy is driven by public opinion. It's the other way around. The policy comes first & the people are dragged along with propaganda. Most people are just believing whateve the bulk of the media is telling them & it's been blanket support for the proxy war since Russia entered Ukraine last year. The media is insanely biased & most people don't know any better & are too trusting in the propaganda.
The line in the western media that this conflict is all the fault of Russia & that it began in Feb 2022 is so dumb but with all the rest of the spin & emotional manipulation people just go along with it. On some level people like to have a boogeyman, one reason is they want to feel righteous. It's just ignorance a lot of the time. Mixed with other things like tribalism, ego, competitiveness etc.
The Finns crack me up how they have some kind of racial idea about Russia in order to look down their nose at them. It's total horse shit but people like to invent narratives that make them feel better than others.
(Old Spike)
propaganda exists on both sides
(Site Administrator)
yeah it does & you're too "free" to be allowed to watch propaganda that's not western these days & you have a lot of trouble identifying western propaganda for what it is
(Old Spike)
Why do you think i have trouble with it?
I am not anti Russian, neither i am anti Nato, i WAS anti Illuminati
(Site Administrator)
because of the things you say & upload on here.
I was using the proverbial "you" though, you & most westerners have trouble recognizing western propaganda for what it is.
(Old Spike)
But the beautiful part is no one is reporting what realy happened, the truth is in the shadow, the Illuminati was had corrupt pawns, that is what started it all, i was in the middle of it, the illuminati war might be still going on, i don't even know even though i am the piece that (started) that war, i am in a psychiatric nursing home waiting for good news that may not come ever.
I can't go outside right now, they come to get me if they need something but any help from their part is none existent because i am dangerous, and that comes from the ppl on my side :) as i see it, the world is in serious trouble.
They think they know but they only care about themselves, what do you expect from abandoned orphans or the rich and powerful, believe it or not but they call the shots.
Putin was a part of it, i even chose him as president of Russia.
He was KGB standing next a military official, and i chose him because he had civilian clothes on.
A person of the ppl for the ppl.
If it wasn't for his jeans and raggedy leather jacket, he would never been president.
The Illuminati is sick and weak and moronic, it is rotting, if we don't take the rotten ones out the basket now then i see no good future.