Ukraine (30 Viewers)

[Sailorsaint]

This why it's so hard to have intelligent debate/discussion on topics.

Here we have a reply that literally, in the 3rd sentence, peddles an absolute proven lie.

"Many folks in Congress...."

Congress voted 96-0 in 2004.

"...and around the world in Europe"

Only one opposed. Russia

I don't know how you propose to have discussion on a topic in which you are doing zero research in support of your comments. If you did, you would see that opening statement is not fact.

NATO was, is and will continue to be a purely defensive alliance. It was never once determined to be an aggressive alliance. It was to defend democracy of burgeoning old Soviet satellites.
Russia didn't fear invasion, they feared isolation. When it became clear they were isolated, they embraced and Putin rose to power.

I would advise that you watch a documentary on Putin. Who he once was, how he became President of Russia, and just what has transpired over the last 25 years under his rule.

Your facts aren't even 50% accurate.

Yep, they didn't fear invasion, they feared their ability to expand by forced invasion was being hampered. They could have easily formed a friendly alliance with those countries even after they joined NATO. What they did was lash out and accuse the West of bullying them and threatening their sovereingty. Projection and confession, which sounds really familiar.

 

[Bayouboy]

This why it's so hard to have intelligent debate/discussion on topics.

Here we have a reply that literally, in the 3rd sentence, peddles an absolute proven lie.

"Many folks in Congress...."

Congress voted 96-0 in 2004.

"...and around the world in Europe"

Only one opposed. Russia

I don't know how you propose to have discussion on a topic in which you are doing zero research in support of your comments. If you did, you would see that opening statement is not fact.

NATO was, is and will continue to be a purely defensive alliance. It was never once determined to be an aggressive alliance. It was to defend democracy of burgeoning old Soviet satellites.
Russia didn't fear invasion, they feared isolation. When it became clear they were isolated, they embraced and Putin rose to power.

I would advise that you watch a documentary on Putin. Who he once was, how he became President of Russia, and just what has transpired over the last 25 years under his rule.

Your facts aren't even 50% accurate.

I did do some reading yesterday which prompted my response above. Bernie Sanders was the senator that vehemently opposed adding the Baltic states. There were opposition in Europe to adding these countries according to the articles I read. I will admit that I did not "deep dive" and only read a few articles that came up on a google search.

You can shove your tone and demeanor. You act as if you're some sort of US diplomacy expert. Get the fork out of here.

 

[efil4stnias]

I did do some reading yesterday which prompted my response above. Bernie Sanders was the senator that vehemently opposed adding the Baltic states. There were opposition in Europe to adding these countries according to the articles I read. I will admit that I did not "deep dive" and only read a few articles that came up on a google search.

You can shove your tone and demeanor. You act as if you're some sort of US diplomacy expert. Get the fork out of here.

Whoa...dude. YOU POSTED FAKE INFO. Not partially inaccurate. It's not "I'm not 100% accurate". It was 100% false. So your ending reply is indicative of your defensive stance after being corrected.




As to US re Lithuania/Estonia etc

There was debate waaaay back in late 90s within Congress rgarding their acceptance , but by 2004, it was 96 to 0.


So don't get mad at me when you get your facts completely wrong and subsequently proven to be wrong.

My tone and demeanor is one of fatigue having to listen to constant false fact about this topic from folks who haven't done a lick of research. There are plenty of documentaries available for you to watch.

Where on this board have I "acted like some diplomacy expert"?? Show me.

All I do is post what I have read and researched over the last 3 years. I've long been interested in Europe and Russia since my immediate family is both European and Easten European ( my Grandfather emigrated to US in 1917 from Ukraine, my grandmother from Geeece in 1949 father side). My mother came in 1967 from Switzerland...where her parents were Italian and French )

Sorry you got your feeling hurt.

I'm not looking to post you as some gotcha moment. I'm posting to make sure your disinformation stops right there. And subsequently, hopeful you will pay more attention to the veracity of your comments in the future.

If you want links to some, let me know and I'll gladly post here for you.


Or, don't. Up to you.

 

[Bayouboy]

I didn't time stamp my comment to 2004 that there was opposition in the US (congress) and Europe to the Baltic states gaining access to NATO. Late 1990's into the turn of the century did have opposition to adding them (due to potentially upsetting Russia). Just regular common sense tells you there will never be 100% acceptance of any geopolitical idea or decision.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

LONDON (AP) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer rallied his European counterparts Sunday to shore up their borders and throw their full weight behind Ukraine as he announced outlines of a plan to end Russia’s war.

“Every nation must contribute to that in the best way that it can, bringing different capabilities and support to the table, but all taking responsibility to act, all stepping up their own share of the burden,” he said.

Starmer’s exhortation to 18 fellow leaders that they need to do the heavy lifting for their own security comes two days after U.S. backing of Ukraine appeared in jeopardy when President Donald Trump lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and said he wasn’t grateful enough for America’s support.

UK's Starmer says Europe is at ‘crossroads in history’ as leaders agree to steps to Ukraine peace

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the U.K. will use 1.6 billion pounds ($2 billion) in export financing to supply 5,000 air defense missiles for Ukraine.

apnews.com

I guess it is now part of our national interest for European nations to seek out proliferation of nuclear arms. That is the inevitable conclusion to our withdrawal from being the Leader of the Free World and its staunchest defenders of Democracy.

 

[SystemShock]

My facts were not 100% accurate, but the premise was. NATO moved in right on their borders. Many folks in Congress and around the world in Europe did not want to add these countries to NATO in fear of provoking Russia. As I referenced before, that's what killed the "decent" relations with Russia. I conceded we were never truly "friends", but the tension and threat of nuclear annelation was no where near Cold War levels. So there was a chance that the two countries could close the gap in international relations. Adding those countries to NATO in 2004 closed that door.

I'm no expert on the area in the early 2000, and neither are any of you. My position is the United States did not help relations by helping add those countries to NATO in 2004. I do not blame the US for failed diplomacy.....I understand who and what Russia is, but to pretend we did not have a hand in it all is naive and homerism. The US did it because we could and Russia was weak at the time. I just wonder if things happened differently if the world would be different today. Nobody knows that. Russia could have invaded the Baltic region if they don't get included into NATO.......or a more general peace could have happened between the US and Russia.

The United States as had a hand in so many things on the world stage since the end of WWII. Most are good and were well intentioned. Some are vile and we should be ashamed. I guess the batting average is pretty good, tho.

And my position is that Russia didn't help relations by threatening to take back Latvia and Estonia, which prompted Latvia and Estonia to ask to be included in NATO.

Your facts (I thought they were your FB friend's facts?) were very far off, and without the context of Russia wanting to get back Latvia and Estonia by force, or the geography of the area.

 

[DaveXA]

I did do some reading yesterday which prompted my response above. Bernie Sanders was the senator that vehemently opposed adding the Baltic states. There were opposition in Europe to adding these countries according to the articles I read. I will admit that I did not "deep dive" and only read a few articles that came up on a google search.

You can shove your tone and demeanor. You act as if you're some sort of US diplomacy expert. Get the fork out of here.

We've been talking about this subject on the regular in this thread for nearly 3 years and 3k pages. Your "facts" weren't accurate and he was right to correct them. Not sure what tone and demeanor you're referring to though. If you can't handle being fact-checked, maybe some self reflection is warranted.

 

[efil4stnias]

I didn't time stamp my comment to 2004 that there was opposition in the US (congress) and Europe to the Baltic states gaining access to NATO. Late 1990's into the turn of the century did have opposition to adding them (due to potentially upsetting Russia). Just regular common sense tells you there will never be 100% acceptance of any geopolitical idea or decision.

So from 1998/99 you had some in Congress opposing ( Sanders you said and not sure who else).
2004 they voted 96-0.

So any idea what happened between 1998 and 2004 to make every single US senator vote yes?

'Welcome To Hell, Part II': The Second Chechen War

Twenty years ago, as Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin launched a military operation in Chechnya that would come to define his rule and haunt it.

www.rferl.org

Then solidified by

Russo-Georgian War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Russia is imperialtistic thru and thru.

Putin has long wanted the return of old Soviet borders. Stated as much. Publicly.

Putin admits Ukraine invasion is an imperial war to “return” Russian land

By abandoning all pretense and comparing himself to Peter the Great, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has confirmed that he is waging an old-fashioned imperial war of conquest with the goal of annexing Ukrainian land.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

There is a ton of history in this region. But more importantly, self identity of peoples that simply want to live in a free, peaceful society, devoid of an autocrat/dictator who gets to decide their fate.

I have more links if needed.

Putin sees western democracy as a threat. Not NATO. A threat to what the communist party before him built, trained him to die for, and once he rose to power, to what he wanted to build Russia into. Russia, under Putin was never going to adopt western values, democracy or freedoms because that meant the end of the Russian empire as he knew it.

 

[rail]

Norway rethinks €1.7 trillion sovereign fund to boost support for Ukraine - Euractiv

The Nordic country has so far spent €3.35 billion on aid to Ukraine, paling in comparison to its Nordic counterparts Denmark and Sweden.

www.euractiv.com

 

[Saintman2884]

We've been talking about this subject on the regular in this thread for nearly 3 years and 3k pages. Your "facts" weren't accurate and he was right to correct them. Not sure what tone and demeanor you're referring to though. If you can't handle being fact-checked, maybe some self reflection is warranted.

There was some debate and objections in Congress and Senate about potentially expanding NATO, even if warranted as a necessary stop-gap against future Russian bullying and aggression due to the fact that Russia, in the late 90's and even early 2000's under Putin was significantly weaker militarily and economically then what it became or is now. If Russia wasnt a significant threat or stood to become one again from some geopoliitical experts standpoints of 1997-98, why expand NATO just because we're concerned of what Russia might evolve into over the next 10-15 years?

From the context of late 90's and also given added factors that Russia was still severely weak recovering from economic sanctions, a brutal seperatist campaign/civil war going on in Chechnya, then Georgia, plus its leader in the Kremlin was a tired, old and very corrupt former Soviet apparatchik Boris Yeltsin who was soon retire on New Years Eve, 1999. why add on to NATO if its long-feared, Historical oppressor wasnt going to be a potent socio-economic threat for some time to come? By 2004, things were dramatically different but 6-7 years earlier, a very select few in Western intelligence community had that far-sighted expectations or grim assessments.

Remember, this is before Putin and how he viciously and cold-bloodedly changed the nature of the game as the 2000's wore on.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

If those Eastern European states didn't join NATO, they would have ended up dysfunctional kleptocratic autocracies that were effectively client states of Russia, like Belarus. And thats the best case. The worst case you would have had repeats of what happened in Chechnya. The whole notion they could have remained "neutral" was a pipe dream

Russia had a chance to reform and join the West but they chose the path of rebuilding regional hegemony

Also I would note, the military spending of NATO, at least in Europe, nosedived after the Cold War ended. After 9/11 there was a bit of a bump, but not much. So how does that align with the notion of them being some threat to Russia?

 

[DaveXA]

There was some debate and objections in Congress and Senate about potentially expanding NATO, even if warranted as a necessary stop-gap against future Russian bullying and aggression due to the fact that Russia, in the late 90's and even early 2000's under Putin was significantly weaker militarily and economically then what it became or is now. If Russia wasnt a significant threat or stood to become one again from some geopoliitical experts standpoints of 1997-98, why expand NATO just because we're concerned of what Russia might evolve into over the next 10-15 years?

From the context of late 90's and also given added factors that Russia was still severely weak recovering from economic sanctions, a brutal seperatist campaign/civil war going on in Chechnya, then Georgia, plus its leader in the Kremlin was a tired, old and very corrupt former Soviet apparatchik Boris Yeltsin who was soon retire on New Years Eve, 1999. why add on to NATO if its long-feared, Historical oppressor wasnt going to be a potent socio-economic threat for some time to come? By 2004, things were dramatically different but 6-7 years earlier, a very select few in Western intelligence community had that far-sighted expectations or grim assessments.

Remember, this is before Putin and how he viciously and cold-bloodedly changed the nature of the game as the 2000's wore on.

I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong, but there’s a lot more to it than simply adding on to NATO. These are countries that wanted and asked for protection. None of them were forced to join. And the Soviets/Russia were never our friends at any point, and certainly not after Poots, a former KGB agent and a man who’s vision was and is a return to Soviet dominance in the region. Make no mistake about it, Russia would take all of Ukraine in a heartbeat if they could, and set their sights beyond without question.

The fact that our foreign policy has been turned on its head in a matter of weeks and basically has undone everything we’ve built over the last 70+ years is nothing short of alarming. And the fact that too many of our leaders are allowing this insanity is nothing short of treasonous.

 

[Saintman2884]

If those Eastern European states didn't join NATO, they would have ended up dysfunctional kleptocratic autocracies that were effectively client states of Russia, like Belarus. And thats the best case. The worst case you would have had repeats of what happened in Chechnya. The whole notion they could have remained "neutral" was a pipe dream

Russia had a chance to reform and join the West but they chose the path of rebuilding regional hegemony

Also I would note, the military spending of NATO, at least in Europe, nosedived after the Cold War ended. After 9/11 there was a bit of a bump, but not much. So how does that align with the notion of them being some threat to Russia?

Sadly, some of them have turned into dysfunctional, kleptocratic autocracies like Hungary, or have flirted with it (Moldova, Romania) or have very flawed democracies like Poland while Serbia remains a staunch pro-Russian ally due to the disintegration of Yugoslavia and 1990's Balkan Wars in spite of NATO, E.U. or American economic and military support. Many of these above-mentioned countries have had to endure centuries of direct/indirect Russian control, hegemony, invasion, Kremlin-backed coups, failed uprisings, and nationalist movements and those ties and contacts aren't easily broken.

Russia doesn't want to really reform and adopt a more 21st-century post-imperialist International cooperative stance of collaboration because due to it long being a economic and cultural backwater (seldom wasn't officially abolished until 1861) that didnt begin heavily industrializing until Stalin's brutal 5-year plans of the 1930's, plus they were mostly cut off and culturally isolated for centuries, their overall foreign policy mindset remains stuck somewhere in the mid-late 19th century phase. Given that their one of the world's largest countries and still formidable Soviet-era nuclear arsenal, that's an instant recipe for constant worry, suspicion and fears of geopoliitical bullying, threats and invasions.

 

[Saintman2884]

I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong, but there’s a lot more to it than simply adding on to NATO. These are countries that wanted and asked for protection. None of them were forced to join. And the Soviets/Russia were never our friends at any point, and certainly not after Poots, a former KGB agent and a man who’s vision was and is a return to Soviet dominance in the region. Make no mistake about it, Russia would take all of Ukraine in a heartbeat if they could, and set their sights beyond without question.

The fact that our foreign policy has been turned on its head in a matter of weeks and basically has undone everything we’ve built over the last 70+ years is nothing short of alarming. And the fact that too many of our leaders are allowing this insanity is nothing short of treasonous.

Per your second paragraph, the settings and reasons are a little more complicated for why some in Congress/Senate are a little more willing and tolerant of upending nearly 70+ years of hard-earned, difficult and cautious defensive alliances and its due to U.S. being involved in two, seemingly endless, "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years, one of which ended in complete failure and another desperate, Saigon 1975 series of moments of NGO's, Western diplomats, essential personnel, missionaries and friendly, pro-Western/American Afghans pleading at our embassy to get out. For many U.S. lawmakers and citizens, this caused a strong, neo-isolationist movement to form where we try to and remain as aloof and distant from world affairs as possible. It occured for several years after Vietnam ended under Pres. Carter which some have argued helped lead to Iranian hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan damaging our credibility even further.

After our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, this new mood or sense of neo-isolationism or non-interventionism got hijacked and exploited by bad political actors who are trying to use it for alternative purposes. I think with the current administration they believe if they can keep ignoring, deny, re-direct, or pretend these serious existential international problems don't exist, it'll eventually all just go away. I know that sounds completely and totally absurd but their ignorance, lack of awareness of the complexities behind these current issues plus its significance for Europe's and even U.S. long-term internal security tells me their that clueless or inept. They assume the world is a lot bigger and larger then it really is.

 

[efil4stnias]

Per your second paragraph, the settings and reasons are a little more complicated for why some in Congress/Senate are a little more willing and tolerant of upending nearly 70+ years of hard-earned, difficult and cautious defensive alliances and its due to U.S. being involved in two, seemingly endless, "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years, one of which ended in complete failure and another desperate, Saigon 1975 series of moments of NGO's, Western diplomats, essential personnel, missionaries and friendly, pro-Western/American Afghans pleading at our embassy to get out. For many U.S. lawmakers and citizens, this caused a strong, neo-isolationist movement to form where we try to and remain as aloof and distant from world affairs as possible. It occured for several years after Vietnam ended under Pres. Carter which some have argued helped lead to Iranian hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan damaging our credibility even further.

After our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, this new mood or sense of neo-isolationism or non-interventionism got hijacked and exploited by bad political actors who are trying to use it for alternative purposes. I think with the current administration they believe if they can keep ignoring, deny, re-direct, or pretend these serious existential international problems don't exist, it'll eventually all just go away. I know that sounds completely and totally absurd but their ignorance, lack of awareness of the complexities behind these current issues plus its significance for Europe's and even U.S. long-term internal security tells me their that clueless or inept. They assume the world is a lot bigger and larger then it really is.

Their ignorance, lack of awareness of the complexity of the issues bleed into the citizenry unfortunately.

We all want "simple" so narratives get spun to make things simple, but leave out so much info that would otherwise upend the "simplicity "

It's certainly complex (how we got here), but make no mistake that is relatively simple to see what Putins goal is. All you have to do is pay attention. The proof is all around.