It's never, ever enough. Solid video update; Alex gets to Turkey to EU toward the end.



He's also on the Duran report from yesterday, about Putin's comments at the Gazprom HQ;

OPAG said:

---

Typical BS. trying to strain a gnat to play the gotcha card and totally ignore 98% of the truth.

Anyone who has followed this for more than few months knows what really happened here and has been building up for long time.

The truth is the neocons, Clinton's, Obama's, Bushes, Bidens are all on the same team. They really want a New World Order they have all said it repeatedly.

The US has been engaging through various agencies, a lot of nefarious stuff and they still are.

Russia truly did inquire about joining NATO themselves and that was soundly rebuffed by the Neocon/MIC and the deep state. This is truth.

But you go head and cling to your idea that we did not give any assurances to the Russians concerning an agressive expansion of Nato and strategic weapons that it represents on the Russian border.

So when China starts doing the same in Mexico, (they have already started) your good with it right?

---

Here's how Russia inquired about joining NATO...

Quote:

---

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line "with a lot of countries that don't matter", according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.
George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. "They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time," he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. "Putin said: 'When are you going to invite us to join Nato?' And [Robertson] said: 'Well, we don't invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.' And he said: 'Well, we're not standing in line with a lot of countries that don't matter.'"

---

Well, would you look at that. NATO doesn't actively "expand". Countries apply because they WANT TO JOIN.

And Russia didn't want to apply...

Russian talking points getting whack-a-mole'd a lot lately

Yep the request for more is coming and the warhawks will celebrate

Actually rumor is and according to a few sources Putin asked if Russia could join in the early 2000's ....and was told to pound sand

Thank the Lord I never even remotely considered supporting, or funding, Nuland and Obama's globalist anti-Trump war.

The Joker burned $millions in Batman, but you weirdos (war pron lovers) support burning 1/4 $Trillion for a war those of us in the know predicted in spring 2020. Steal an election via MIB as a result of the plandemic you unleashed, and then start a proxy war to facilitate & usher in communism in the US.

It's an unwinnable war, and it's why Russia (after decades) has declared the US an ENEMY.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Actually rumor is and according to a few sources Putin asked if Russia could join in the early 2000's ....and was told to pound sand

---

Well, if the RUMOR says that, then by all means ignore the person in charge of NATO that Putin talked to...

On false flags and purposes:

Quote:

---

NATO countries are now say they support Ukraine's use of long range weapons inside Russia. This means major metropolitan areas of Ukraine will be on the the table for Russia's own long range strikes, a measure which they have avoided for the most part. Also watch for the potential use of thermobaric bombs (vacuum bombs) by Russia; these are massively destructive weapons that have so far been absent from the battlefield (aside from unverified reports).

The west is sending Russia the message that they will not allow Ukraine to lose, they will not pursue diplomatic solutions and if Russia begins gaining significant ground, anything goes. Does this include nukes? It's hard to say.

My suspicion is that the establishment wants to create a scenario in which Russia is led to overreact to an event, or, the public is led to believe Russia is a legitimate nuclear threat to the west. There is also the outside possibility that Russia is being blocked from monitoring a future ballistic incident in the Middle East.

---

As Trump leads in the polls vs. war party led by demented angry man, UN chief sounds nuclear war alarm.

This is fine. Everything's fine. Forever war!

nortex97 said:

---

On false flags and purposes:

Quote:

---

NATO countries are now say they support Ukraine's use of long range weapons inside Russia. This means major metropolitan areas of Ukraine will be on the the table for Russia's own long range strikes, a measure which they have avoided for the most part. Also watch for the potential use of thermobaric bombs (vacuum bombs) by Russia; these are massively destructive weapons that have so far been absent from the battlefield (aside from unverified reports).

The west is sending Russia the message that they will not allow Ukraine to lose, they will not pursue diplomatic solutions and if Russia begins gaining significant ground, anything goes. Does this include nukes? It's hard to say.

My suspicion is that the establishment wants to create a scenario in which Russia is led to overreact to an event, or, the public is led to believe Russia is a legitimate nuclear threat to the west. There is also the outside possibility that Russia is being blocked from monitoring a future ballistic incident in the Middle East.

---

As Trump leads in the polls vs. war party led by demented angry man, UN chief sounds nuclear war alarm.

This is fine. Everything's fine. Forever war!

---

If Russia is striking Ukraine with weapons launched from Russian territory, then Ukraine should have every right to strike those Russian assets in Russian territory.

And, here's todays notice that this entire thing could end if Putin stops and pulls his troops out of Ukrainian territory.

You are correct. Any weapons they paid for themself they should use. If they were given them by begging they can too but we shouldn't give any more. You agree?

backintexas2013 said:

---

You are correct. Any weapons they paid for themself they should use. If they were given them by begging they can too but we shouldn't give any more. You agree?

---

a) I know I'm correct. Thanks for the affirmation.

b) Why not?

nortex97 said:

---

On false flags and purposes:

Quote:

---

NATO countries are now say they support Ukraine's use of long range weapons inside Russia. This means major metropolitan areas of Ukraine will be on the the table for Russia's own long range strikes, a measure which they have avoided for the most part. Also watch for the potential use of thermobaric bombs (vacuum bombs) by Russia; these are massively destructive weapons that have so far been absent from the battlefield (aside from unverified reports).

The west is sending Russia the message that they will not allow Ukraine to lose, they will not pursue diplomatic solutions and if Russia begins gaining significant ground, anything goes. Does this include nukes? It's hard to say.

My suspicion is that the establishment wants to create a scenario in which Russia is led to overreact to an event, or, the public is led to believe Russia is a legitimate nuclear threat to the west. There is also the outside possibility that Russia is being blocked from monitoring a future ballistic incident in the Middle East.

---

As Trump leads in the polls vs. war party led by demented angry man, UN chief sounds nuclear war alarm.

This is fine. Everything's fine. Forever war!

---

Lol - yes they've "avoided" it because Ukraine has continuously shot down missiles that have targeted civilians in their western cities. In the meantime Russia continues to murder plenty of civilians across the rest of Ukraine.

Of course, if Putin doesn't like their defense systems getting targeted he can end all attacks in Russia whenever he wants to, which is why Ukraine is attacking in the first place (and not for the continued absurd "escalation" accusations).

Because they are begging saying we want to defend our land. You can't cry about wanting more then just decide let's use it for something else.

I know most will disagree because they love sending money over there. Which is fine. It's their pet project. When people want money for a pet project they disagree with they will cry about us not being able to afford it and we shouldn't do it.

And are you correct if the rest of my statement is correct. Are they only using weapons they paid for themself? You left off the most important part

Quote:

---

And Russia didn't want to apply...

---

This is first class naivety, It just shows you have absolutely no political savvy or experience at all in this field. Everything you get is from MSM/Neocon sources. everything.

nortex97 said:

---

On false flags and purposes:

Quote:

---

NATO countries are now say they support Ukraine's use of long range weapons inside Russia. This means major metropolitan areas of Ukraine will be on the the table for Russia's own long range strikes, a measure which they have avoided for the most part. Also watch for the potential use of thermobaric bombs (vacuum bombs) by Russia; these are massively destructive weapons that have so far been absent from the battlefield (aside from unverified reports).

The west is sending Russia the message that they will not allow Ukraine to lose, they will not pursue diplomatic solutions and if Russia begins gaining significant ground, anything goes. Does this include nukes? It's hard to say.

My suspicion is that the establishment wants to create a scenario in which Russia is led to overreact to an event, or, the public is led to believe Russia is a legitimate nuclear threat to the west. There is also the outside possibility that Russia is being blocked from monitoring a future ballistic incident in the Middle East.

---

As Trump leads in the polls vs. war party led by demented angry man, UN chief sounds nuclear war alarm.

This is fine. Everything's fine. Forever war!

---

And get ready everybody. Just like the UNIPARTY New World Order - elites= Neocon/cabal/Clinton/Obama/Bush/Gates/Soros/BigTech/BigPharma/MIC/WHO-UN have tried to do repeatedly they will seek to do it again. And what is that

Launch another Russia/Russia/Russia false flag.

Think about it, really use your brain if you can.

When Trump won the last election what did the Uniparty/Cabal try to do. They ran this massive scam about Russia interfering with the elections, remember Mueller? It was a total lie, a scam. Just like the Covid Scam they created as well.

Who was really interfering with the election? It was the PRE Uniparty (the Uniparty didn't come into being until Trump pissed off the Rino - (Bush/Rominy republicans and went after corruption in Ukraine) they create the now complete Uniparty. The Pre Uniparty created a false flag to try to pin things on Russia, remember. It was a lie. How about the Jan 6th Insurrection. Come on people get your head out!

So now they are going to do it again, book it. There will be some strike, bomb, hit that they will do to try to pin on Russia to justify committing troops to the situation. Just like Pearl Harbor or the Gulf of Tonkin. or "WMD'S" in Iraq.

It is coming, for sure and soon, before the election. They must meddle up this election, it is classic distract through partiotism. Got to have an outside enemy, China has done if for years with Taiwan. Wake the frick up!

The effect of subliminal messaging amongst degreed Aggies blows me away. Obama has their brains wrapped around a sinking boulder of failure, and they don't realize it. They are like Hunter Biden saying their cause is "winning."

It's unreal.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

On false flags and purposes:

Quote:

---

NATO countries are now say they support Ukraine's use of long range weapons inside Russia. This means major metropolitan areas of Ukraine will be on the the table for Russia's own long range strikes, a measure which they have avoided for the most part. Also watch for the potential use of thermobaric bombs (vacuum bombs) by Russia; these are massively destructive weapons that have so far been absent from the battlefield (aside from unverified reports).

The west is sending Russia the message that they will not allow Ukraine to lose, they will not pursue diplomatic solutions and if Russia begins gaining significant ground, anything goes. Does this include nukes? It's hard to say.

My suspicion is that the establishment wants to create a scenario in which Russia is led to overreact to an event, or, the public is led to believe Russia is a legitimate nuclear threat to the west. There is also the outside possibility that Russia is being blocked from monitoring a future ballistic incident in the Middle East.

---

As Trump leads in the polls vs. war party led by demented angry man, UN chief sounds nuclear war alarm.

This is fine. Everything's fine. Forever war!

---

Lol - yes they've "avoided" it because Ukraine has continuously shot down missiles that have targeted civilians in their western cities. In the meantime Russia continues to murder plenty of civilians across the rest of Ukraine.

Of course, if Putin doesn't like their defense systems getting targeted he can end all attacks in Russia whenever he wants to, which is why Ukraine is attacking in the first place (and not for the continued absurd "escalation" accusations).

---

If Ukraine hits one of Russia's early nuclear detection systems with US provided weapons

Then that gives Russia every excuse to escalate and not just against Ukraine, against NATO and possibly the US as well.

Early defense systems are an essential part lf the delicate nuclear balance.

Any attempt to undermine another nuclear country's ability to defend itself from a nuclear strike is grounds for retaliation and if US or NATO supplied weapons are used then we are culpable.

You REALLY want to trust Ukraine not to do something so dumb.......

If u want a surefire way to drag us further into this....giving Ukraine weapons and letting them strike into Russian territory is a surefire way to do that.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Because they are begging saying we want to defend our land. You can't cry about wanting more then just decide let's use it for something else.

I know most will disagree because they love sending money over there. Which is fine. It's their pet project. When people want money for a pet project they disagree with they will cry about us not being able to afford it and we shouldn't do it.

And are you correct if the rest of my statement is correct. Are they only using weapons they paid for themself? You left off the most important part

---

Russians are shooting from RUSSIA.

When Ukraine fights back, they should be able to shoot back at RUSSIA where the Russians are firing from.

No. They're using weapons we and others have given them.

Sorry I'm not an isolationist like you.

peacedude said:

---

The effect of subliminal messaging amongst degreed Aggies blows me away. Obama has their brains wrapped around a sinking boulder of failure, and they don't realize it. They are like Hunter Biden saying their cause is "winning."

It's unreal.

---

HAHAHA...

Yeah...

It's because of Obama. And Hunter.

That's it.

That has to be one of the best arguments I've seen.

The Ukrainians should logically allocate limited resources at militarily significant targets, imho, but are (As being used as a proxy) targeting spiking energy prices (again, a global commodity) and nuclear conflagration to get other parties involved, is the point.

Tuberville says the quiet bits out loud;

Quote:

---

Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville (https://t.me/Media_Post_UA/18653) made a loud statement that runs counter to the generally accepted position of the American authorities, Mediate reports.
In a recent interview with political activist and former top Trump adviser Stephen Bannon, he said Putin doesn't need Ukraine because Russia already has "enough land."
Answering the question about whether there is a possibility that Russia will give up Donbass or other territories, the senator emphasized that the current conflict is primarily a failure of the Biden administration, which "does not have any diplomatic skills."
"How many videos of fights in Ukraine have you seen? Zero in the last six, seven, eight months? This is a one-sided approach. … He (Putin) doesn't need Ukraine. He doesn't need Europe. Damn it, he already has enough land of his own. He just wants to make sure that there are no United States weapons in Ukraine aimed at Moscow," Tuberville is sure.
That's right, Putin wants to make sure that there are no American weapons in Ukraine. And if Putin does not take all of Ukraine into Russia, then American weapons will inevitably appear in Ukraine. These weapons are already there now and they are striking Russia, as you know.

---

I guess we logically can't blame him for that, seeing the celebratory notes about 'striking Russia.'



But…Russians are everywhere:

🇺🇸🇷🇺🚨‼️ Narratives …

2022: “Russia is done, they use dishwashers to build weapons and fight with shovels”

2024: “Russians are everywhere, in space, in cyber, in Africa, in …” pic.twitter.com/rJahA6yiHH

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 8, 2024

Respect the narrative, forever war!

Back to the point; support for the proxy war is a niche minority of the population in the US and Europe, especially the notion of 'weakening Russia.'

Those numbers are absolutely unbelievable and show how much at odds Western so-called "democratic" leaders are with their populations on Ukraine.

It's a survey compiled by the Institute for Global Affairs, part of @EurasiaGroup, one of the leading American political risk… pic.twitter.com/snZAaAOPNR

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) June 7, 2024

Quote:

---

It's a survey compiled by the Institute for Global Affairs, part of @EurasiaGroup, one of the leading American political risk consultancies.

An incredible 94% of Americans and 88% of Western Europeans believe that "NATO member countries [should] push for a negotiated settlement for the war in Ukraine". And only a tiny minority in both countries (less than 20%) believe that the West should prioritize goals like "Weakening Russia" or "Restoring the pre-2022 borders of Ukraine", instead vastly favoring goals like "avoiding escalation" and "avoiding direct war between nuclear armed powers".

I always had the distinct feeling that most of the populations in the West were opposed to their governments' policies on Ukraine, but I never expected such overwhelming numbers. This says so much about Western "democracy" today, and also about the media class which tells us continuously how important fighting Russia is: not only do they not represent the voice of the people, but they really don't convince them either...

---

Rybar Live: Special military operation, June 7
Mikhail Zvinchuk, head of the Russian think tank Rybar: «Last night, Ukrainian formations launched drones in the direction of the Crimean bridge and the Rostov region» pic.twitter.com/oNrpd4Jzsb

— Rybar Force (@rybar_force) June 8, 2024

🚩 @PM_ViktorOrban on Kossuth Radio: It is only leaders of the left who want this war, and they are doing it because they are carrying out the orders of their masters who finance them. 💰 pic.twitter.com/H2Rni5Zosg

— Zoltan Kovacs (@zoltanspox) June 7, 2024

If Putin surrendered the territory won the Ukrainians would still be shelling/striking Russians and Russia and he would be deposed. He also lamented the demise of democracy yesterday.

pic.twitter.com/L2EwLjxlG5

— Bradley McCarrasco (@BradMcCarrasco) June 7, 2024

What a joke.

Quote:

---

If Putin surrendered the territory won the Ukrainians would still be shelling/striking Russians and Russia and he would be deposed.

---

Based on what? When did Ukraine strike Russia prior to Russia invading?

Ag with kids said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Typical BS. trying to strain a gnat to play the gotcha card and totally ignore 98% of the truth.

Anyone who has followed this for more than few months knows what really happened here and has been building up for long time.

The truth is the neocons, Clinton's, Obama's, Bushes, Bidens are all on the same team. They really want a New World Order they have all said it repeatedly.

The US has been engaging through various agencies, a lot of nefarious stuff and they still are.

Russia truly did inquire about joining NATO themselves and that was soundly rebuffed by the Neocon/MIC and the deep state. This is truth.

But you go head and cling to your idea that we did not give any assurances to the Russians concerning an agressive expansion of Nato and strategic weapons that it represents on the Russian border.

So when China starts doing the same in Mexico, (they have already started) your good with it right?

---

Here's how Russia inquired about joining NATO...

Quote:

---

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line "with a lot of countries that don't matter", according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.
George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. "They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time," he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. "Putin said: 'When are you going to invite us to join Nato?' And [Robertson] said: 'Well, we don't invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.' And he said: 'Well, we're not standing in line with a lot of countries that don't matter.'"

---

Well, would you look at that. NATO doesn't actively "expand". Countries apply because they WANT TO JOIN.

And Russia didn't want to apply...

---

I actually found this article damning against NATO. When the one country you exist to combat fails and reboots, like Russia did, and wants to make amends and join the fold then you don't put up red tape. You pursue negotiations to determine how you can reconcile and bring them into overall European alignment. Why in the world would you work the current bureaucratic process when you have an opportunity to suddenly solve the very reason you exist?

How incredible would it have been to have Russia align more to the west and become at least a loose ally? The lost opportunity here is almost unmeasurable.

But instead, they throw application forms at Putin and then admit a bunch of other countries that, frankly, do not matter compared to Russia considering the lone impact Russia would have had joining NATO. If that's how this played out, then this is either (1) one of the most strategic blunders by the West we've ever seen, or (2) more likely here....they were never going to even consider admitting Russia because that would unwind and make moot their reason for existing at the time. All that money and power would no longer be necessary when your reason for existing is now an ally.

What an absolute indictment of NATO and the West, if that's how this played out.

Or 3, that Russia never intended to be a member of NATO in good faith. Nah, it's definitely the west being the baddies again and forcing poor Russia to act out.

GAC06 said:

---

Or 3, that Russia never intended to be a member of NATO in good faith. Nah, it's definitely the west being the baddies again and forcing poor Russia to act out.

---

So we just assume that and not talk to him at all about it?

Here are your forms, Putin. Get in line.

We could have had a massive ally to combat and contain Islamic extremism. A shared, common enemy.

We might not now have China + Russia teaming up.

How strategically stupid and short-sighted.

Sounds like they did talk about it, and Russia wasn't serious about joining NATO

GAC06 said:

---

Sounds like they did talk about it, and Russia wasn't serious about joining NATO

---

From that article, I'm gathering that Putin didn't think that Russia should have to be an equal partner.

GAC06 said:

---

Sounds like they did talk about it, and Russia wasn't serious about joining NATO

---

Putin addressed this topic directly.

Quote:

---

Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom, let's not reason in such terms. And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of "civilized nations," nothing like this happened. You tricked us (I don't mean you personally when I say "you", of course, I'm talking about the United States), the promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times, there were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that, we were trying to persuade them, we were saying: "Please don't, we are as bourgeois now as you are, we are a market economy, and there is no Communist Party power. Let's negotiate." Moreover, I have also said this publicly before (let's look at Yeltsin's times now), there was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States, remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words: "God bless America." Everything he said were signals -- let us in.

---

Quote:

---

TUCKER CARLSON: Were you sincere? Would you have joined NATO?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: Look, I asked the question, "Is it possible or not?" And the answer I got was "no." If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership's position was....

TUCKER CARLSON: But if he had said "yes," would you have joined NATO?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: If he had said "yes," the process of rapprochement would have commenced and eventually it might have happened if we had seem some sincere wish, on the other side, of our partners. But it didn't happen. Well, "no" means no. Okay, fine.

TUCKER CARLSON: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know, you're clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: You said I was bitter about the answer. No, it's not bitterness, it's just a statement of fact. We're not the bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it's not about those kinds of matters in such circumstances. We just realised we weren't welcome there, that's all. Okay, fine. But let's build relations in another manner, let's look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leader. I can only guess why: too big a country, with its own opinion and so on. And the United States -- I have seen how issues are being resolved in NATO.

---

More at the link, as usual. Whatever one's other opinions of Putin are, he's very candid about his position/history on this stuff.

Ag with kids said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Sounds like they did talk about it, and Russia wasn't serious about joining NATO

---

From that article, I'm gathering that Putin didn't think that Russia should have to be an equal partner.

---

Quote:

---

Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato "if and when Russia's views are taken into account as those of an equal partner".

---

Well, he directly says he wanted to be. Putin also had a point that it made no sense to screw around with other countries in the queue if the very country you exist to counter now wants to join the team.

It's the very essence of stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.

Objectively stupid for the world to not pause the queue and pursue negotiations with him back then. If you find out during the course of it that he's full of ****, then by all means resume the traditional counter Russia path.

nortex97 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Sounds like they did talk about it, and Russia wasn't serious about joining NATO

---

Putin addressed this topic directly.

Quote:

---

Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom, let's not reason in such terms. And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of "civilized nations," nothing like this happened. You tricked us (I don't mean you personally when I say "you", of course, I'm talking about the United States), the promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times, there were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that, we were trying to persuade them, we were saying: "Please don't, we are as bourgeois now as you are, we are a market economy, and there is no Communist Party power. Let's negotiate." Moreover, I have also said this publicly before (let's look at Yeltsin's times now), there was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States, remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words: "God bless America." Everything he said were signals -- let us in.

---

Quote:

---

TUCKER CARLSON: Were you sincere? Would you have joined NATO?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: Look, I asked the question, "Is it possible or not?" And the answer I got was "no." If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership's position was....

TUCKER CARLSON: But if he had said "yes," would you have joined NATO?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: If he had said "yes," the process of rapprochement would have commenced and eventually it might have happened if we had seem some sincere wish, on the other side, of our partners. But it didn't happen. Well, "no" means no. Okay, fine.

TUCKER CARLSON: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know, you're clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: You said I was bitter about the answer. No, it's not bitterness, it's just a statement of fact. We're not the bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it's not about those kinds of matters in such circumstances. We just realised we weren't welcome there, that's all. Okay, fine. But let's build relations in another manner, let's look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leader. I can only guess why: too big a country, with its own opinion and so on. And the United States -- I have seen how issues are being resolved in NATO.

---

More at the link, as usual. Whatever one's other opinions of Putin are, he's very candid about his position/history on this stuff.

---

Ok...

So, do I believe the head of NATO or Putin?

We know what you choose...

I'll respectfully choose the head of NATO.

Ag with kids said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Sounds like they did talk about it, and Russia wasn't serious about joining NATO

---

Putin addressed this topic directly.

Quote:

---

Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom, let's not reason in such terms. And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of "civilized nations," nothing like this happened. You tricked us (I don't mean you personally when I say "you", of course, I'm talking about the United States), the promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times, there were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that, we were trying to persuade them, we were saying: "Please don't, we are as bourgeois now as you are, we are a market economy, and there is no Communist Party power. Let's negotiate." Moreover, I have also said this publicly before (let's look at Yeltsin's times now), there was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States, remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words: "God bless America." Everything he said were signals -- let us in.

---

Quote:

---

TUCKER CARLSON: Were you sincere? Would you have joined NATO?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: Look, I asked the question, "Is it possible or not?" And the answer I got was "no." If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership's position was....

TUCKER CARLSON: But if he had said "yes," would you have joined NATO?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: If he had said "yes," the process of rapprochement would have commenced and eventually it might have happened if we had seem some sincere wish, on the other side, of our partners. But it didn't happen. Well, "no" means no. Okay, fine.

TUCKER CARLSON: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know, you're clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: You said I was bitter about the answer. No, it's not bitterness, it's just a statement of fact. We're not the bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it's not about those kinds of matters in such circumstances. We just realised we weren't welcome there, that's all. Okay, fine. But let's build relations in another manner, let's look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leader. I can only guess why: too big a country, with its own opinion and so on. And the United States -- I have seen how issues are being resolved in NATO.

---

More at the link, as usual. Whatever one's other opinions of Putin are, he's very candid about his position/history on this stuff.

---

Ok...

So, do I believe the head of NATO or Putin?

We know what you choose...

I'll respectfully choose the head of NATO.

---

The question is exactly WHY you would choose to trust the word of the head of NATO?

Who benefits MOST from Russia remaining isolated?
WHY WOULD RUSSIA WANT TO REMIAN ISOLATED?
They had just literally had a revolution to end their isolation and try to rejoin the world at large. And suddenly they are going shift course and demand to revert back to the same isolationist philosophy that created poverty in their country and the cold war to begin with?

Does that REALLY mesh well with the course they had been trying to take over the past 10 years?

Or does it make MORE sense that they would make overtures to continue to rejoin world organizations that would open up their country and continue the course they had begun with a revolution?

We have seen time and time again beaurocrats and military and scientists and the alphabet agencies sabotage peace and prosperity so that they can profit.

Scientists falsifying global warming data.
Alphabet agencies falsifying satellite images to initiate an illegal war in Iraq.

Time and time again they have shown a willingness to spend lives, sabotage peace, and create panic in the interest of keeping their jobs, remaining relevant, and making money

So the question remains:

Who benefits most in this scenario?

If Russia is lying about wanting to join NATO and being rebuffed what do they gain from the lie?
Nothing

If Russia is telling the truth and NATO is lying what did the head of NATO gain?

The entire purpose of NATO is to serve as a counter to Russia.

If Russia joins NATO then what purpose does NATO serve?

Does it even serve a purpose?

If Russia uses its military to help NATO counter Islamic extremism then Russia the #2/#3 power in the world then has a say in endless wars and military contracts being doled out to Mercs in the middle east.

Heck with Russia helping NATO out, and installing dictators like Assad, most Islamic extremism would probably be taken out.

But that is not in the interests of the military industrial complex.

Keeping the status quo allows a western monolopoly on military contractors, suppliers, and the military industrial complex to continue to fund these wars.

If Russia is a part of NATO suddenly the western beaurocrats in power now have to share power with an almost equal partner.

Can't have that.

As always, follow the money.

You ASSUME that the people in charge want to stop wars, create peace.

My question- what in the past 30 years indicates that the people in charge in the west actually want peace?

Especially when everyone in charge seems to profit off of war.

Russia joining NATO throws the traditional Military Indistrial Complex out of balance and threatens their piece of the war pie.

So for me when looking at this scenario....

I don't trust Russia.

I certainly don't trust the head of NATO.

I just ask myself- who wins if Russia doesn't join NATO?

I follow the money and the power......and look at how NATO and the people in charge behave when given a path for peace and de-escalation.

They reject it every time.
And they have a vested interest in war.
And they have a vested interest in keeping a belligerent Russia as an enemy.

Only two things happen if Russia joins NATO
1) NATO becomes irrelevant and all the people and money tied to NATO become irrelevant and lose their power and money.
2) Russia takes a significant piece of the war pie, and reduces the power and money going to the people in charge of NATO.

I respectfully believe the head of NATO......

and the people in charge always act in their own self interests and Russia joining NATO would have hurt their interests....and so they blackballed Russia.

Quote:

---

If Russia is lying about wanting to join NATO and being rebuffed what do they gain from the lie?
Nothing

---

I stopped reading after this whopper. They gain justification for their invasion, as shown by people here buying into their story. What does Russia have to gain by lying about assurances against NATO expansion, even though the Russian who supposedly negotiated the deal said it wasn't discussed? And still we have people here parroting that lie to this day.

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

If Russia is lying about wanting to join NATO and being rebuffed what do they gain from the lie?
Nothing

---

I stopped reading after this whopper. They gain justification for their invasion, as shown by people here buying into their story. What does Russia have to gain by lying about assurances against NATO expansion, even though the Russian who supposedly negotiated the deal said it wasn't discussed? And still we have people here parroting that lie to this day.

---

Russia gains barely anything.

If they are lying this does not suddenly justify war in Ukraine nor does it strengthen their claim to Ukrainian land. Noone who believes this suddenly is rooting for russia to win in Ukraine.

This idea that NATO and the US Military Indistrial Complex would NEVER concoct reasons to murder, go to war and enrich themselves and would NEVER manipulate world events to create wars out of thin air has been proven false time and time again.

And yet alot of you people when faced with the option of believing men who we KNOW have lied and murdered and started wars for such things and have a motive to do such things

Still choose to believe them.

The level of absolute programming and denial you have to be in is epic.