Ags4DaWin said:

---

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.

---

Wow...

That is quite a diatribe.

And after all that, I'm supposed to believe the KGB agent...

If you don't believe Putin over NATO and Gorbachev, then…

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

The irony is thick.

GAC06 said:

---

If you don't believe Putin over NATO and Gorbachev, then…

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

The irony is thick.

---

Keep in mind (for others reading), our proxy war commander's familia is the one who was paid 6 figures by the widow of the mayor of Moscow, and has met every Soviet/Russian premier/president since 1973, with a crack head son who's laptop/proclivities was not, after all, Russian 'disinformation' but was/is kompromat.

And Peepaw also claims to have known Putin when the latter was working as a KGB agent, 40 years ago.

No KGB/globalist connections at all, trust the narrative, and forever war!

Yeah Biden sucks, and almost certainly corrupt. His claim about knowing Putin is about as likely to be true as his claims about graduating at the top of his class, about getting an appointment to the naval academy, about attending an HBCU, about his son dying in Iraq, about getting arrested with Mandela, about driving 18-wheelers, about his wife getting killed by a drunk driver, and on and on and on.

However, even if it's true, what's the implication you're going for? Putin and Biden and in cahoots to destroy Russia's military and spend a few extra percent per year for the MIC?

nortex97 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

If you don't believe Putin over NATO and Gorbachev, then…

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

The irony is thick.

---

Keep in mind (for others reading), our proxy war commander's familia is the one who was paid 6 figures by the widow of the mayor of Moscow, and has met every Soviet/Russian premier/president since 1973, with a crack head son who's laptop/proclivities was not, after all, Russian 'disinformation' but was/is kompromat.

And Peepaw also claims to have known Putin when the latter was working as a KGB agent, 40 years ago.

No KGB/globalist connections at all, trust the narrative, and forever war!

---

The fact that you let your hate for Biden overrule common sense about Russian intentions is sad...

Dude. We all agree Biden sucks balls.

That doesn't mean Putin is not an ******* that is causing this entire war. And that helping Ukraine is not a good thing to do.

Quote:

---

Dude. We all agree Biden sucks balls.

---

I'll respond this one last time today, sorry, trying to keep this discussion viable and respectful/civil etc.

To both previous posts, I don't 'let myself' analyze situations based on an individual. My position is simply that the Biden White House (and our intelligence apparatus) is compromised by the CCP/Russia, who are benefiting (at a state/oligarch level) from this conflict. It's that simple. And it's absurd to claim this is 'weakening or financially impairing' those folks running China and Russia, period.

My contempt for the Biden familia itself and their treason is something I can set aside, just as my personal opinions about Putin/Russia (about which I don't feel a need to layer into other's personal hatred/vitriol) don't really factor in.

If the commander is compromised, which is the case in Nulandia, Brussels, and Washington DC, the 'cause' is compromised in its execution/planning/conduct/objectives. It really, again, is nothing more. I prioritize my care for America, and our interests, as well as those globally who are paying/will pay the price for the conflagration if it continues.

Quote:

---

CCP/Russia, who are benefiting (at a state/oligarch level) from this conflict

---

Well as long as they're all in it together to prolong the war, I guess the good news is we can stop worrying about "escalation". After all, that's not in the grand conspiracy's interest.

Russia Collusion: hoax
Ukraine Impeachment: hoax
200+ agents telling us hunters laptop is disinformation: hoax

But they stopped lying to us after all that and now we can trust what they say? Naive!

Quote:

---

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.

---

Absolutely 100% spot on truth there, YouBet.

Almost 8 years ago I wrote up a thread here on Ukraine, when the Russia, Russia, Russia Neocon NWO freaks were starting to drum up their false flag attack then.

I was in Russia during the time of the collapse, I know well what they wanted even then. It is what they have always wanted. To be an accepted and respected part of the west. This is historical fact.

And as usual it was the West, that refused it and tried to force Russia to beg and grovel. It was wicked arrogance, plus the reality that the NWO/Neocons (really a pack of antichrist) that did NOT WANT Russia as allies, why? Well as you said, The MIC and greedy selfish elites, GOT TO HAVE AN ENEMY to justify their budgets and to maintain power and control.

Just like China, needs Taiwan to have some enemy to point their people to, to distract from the massive issues at home. Like we have now, an invasion of our homeland from our southern boarder. What a pack of fools some of us are. Russia, Russia Russia. it's sad.

This time we are going to pay a heavy price. And unfortunately much Team Uniparty wants us (the average non elite American) to pay that price. It's the only way they can survive this coming election. Divide us over outside things that have no real impact on us except a negative one.

They are going to try hard to get us into a real shooting war with Russia. That is their way.

GAC06 said:

---

If you don't believe Putin over NATO and Gorbachev, then…

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

The irony is thick.

---

My position is one developed by logic deduction and using known past actions that are verifiable facts to inform myself about the motives of people and organizations.

Your position isWell its NATO! They would never submarine attempts at deescalation and the formation of a lasting peace and then LIE about it!

^^even though they have done so multiple times over the past 3 decades^^

So yeah.....ur programmed to believe certain individuals in the face of facts and logic refuting what those individuals are telling you

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command..." - George Orwell

Left, right it doesn't matter to the men who profit off of war and human suffering. They roll both sides of the board and the men getting rich off the cold war just couldn't lose that revenue stream once the cold war ended.

Unfortunately that is who runs the show in the west now....and has since Kennedy was offed.

Agree. We had an opportunity to make an ally of Russia and 41 wasted it.

The decisions were made above 41's head but yes. And the decisions to refuse to integrate post-war with Russia were steady over a period of 15+ years.

This really is just sad:

People are already crackling jokes about these pics of evidently elderly men being mobilized by Ukraine, but the reality is that these men are captive to the state and their willingness to fulfill their own particular conception of duty is tragically honorable. I hope they live. pic.twitter.com/lYuFV7LFck

— Big Serge ☦️🇺🇸🇷🇺 (@witte_sergei) June 9, 2024

🚨🇺🇸🇺🇦MASSIE: THE UKRAINE WAR IS CIA PROPAGANDA GAMES

Rep. Thomas Massie:

“I've been in classified settings with the CIA, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense.

They’re bragging about how many Russians have died and been injured.

I asked them how many… pic.twitter.com/p2wdU1EgJx

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) June 8, 2024

I have zero doubt that what he claimed there is true. The blob (IC/State) runs this war much more than any politicians who then are trained/taught what to go out and publicly say about it.

Follow the money:

NEW: Subpoenaed bank records reveal Biden family (Hunter/Jim/Sara/Hallie/Biden grandchild) hauled in $18 mil+ from foreign sources since Biden VP, incl:
--$3.99m from Ukraine
--$7.28m from China
--$3.5m from Russia
--$1.04m Romania
--$1.04m Panama
--$1.17m Kazakhstan/Mexico/Syria

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 9, 2024

For the folks who are just all-in on Ukraine no matter what.....take that out of the picture for a second and look back at what happened. An article was posted as a way to show Putin didn't want to play nice and all it did was validate that NATO had no realistic intention of letting Russia into the fold. Straight from former NATO officials quoted in the article.

So, it seems like we could all agree that the West made a decision based on money and power and not based on what was best for the world. It's clear as day and essentially quoted in that Guardian article. Never mind that we warned by President Eisenhower of the MIC on his way out. He saw it happening and knew what we would face. In the decision to blackball Russia, you saw the culmination of MIC money and power outweigh the greater good. Conversations were not even entertained by NATO, apparently. That's an indictment.

All this bull**** talk by the West to pursue diplomacy first over war. They had the opportunity of a lifetime then and decided to continue pursuing an aggressive pact against an enemy we had utterly defeated at the time who then wanted to reconcile. Indictment.

So here we are 30 years later and Russia is now invading a neighbor after NATO has steadily grown towards them AFTER Russia extended the olive branch. I don't agree with Russia invading Ukraine and I have no illusions about Putin, but to scoff and laugh off all of the historical events that led to this is naive, arrogant, and wrong.

We can acknowledge that the US led West f'ed this up 30 years ago either out of incompetence or on purpose and that Russia invading Ukraine is wrong. Both can be true.

Or perhaps the notion that Russia intended to join NATO in good faith and be part of an alliance with the west and the states they formerly subjugated, based on Putin's word (which we should know not to trust since he's already a documented liar about NATO expansion) is naive.

GAC06 said:

---

Or perhaps the notion that Russia intended to join NATO in good faith and be part of an alliance with the west and the states they formerly subjugated, based on Putin's word (which we should know not to trust since he's already a documented liar about NATO expansion) is naive.

---

So is it your position that NATO/West did everything right?

GAC06 said:

---

Or perhaps the notion that Russia intended to join NATO in good faith and be part of an alliance with the west and the states they formerly subjugated, based on Putin's word (which we should know not to trust since he's already a documented liar about NATO expansion) is naive.

---

We will never know, will we? Because we decided to black ball Russia to maintain the status quo.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to acknowledge that we couldn't share some blame here? We are a duplicitous country against other countries and our own people. We've lived it out in the open since 2016 within our own country. We have multiple examples from the past of our country doing nefarious things against its own citizens but we are 100% innocent here?

Again, I'm not saying Putin is a good person and I'm not excusing invasion of Ukraine, but Russia came to us hat in hand and we rebuff them outright? That is negligence considering we had utterly defeated the USSR. We had an opportunity to allay and resolve their historical fears of someone being able to walk into their country and invade from the west.

Its been going on at least since the Gulf of Tonkin

Perhaps blackballing a state still intent on dominating Eastern Europe from your defensive alliance that exists to deter said state makes sense. In 90-92 Russia was still following their playbook in Moldova with "volunteers" from Russia helping "separatists" with the familiar complaint that Russian isn't the official language anymore. They were, and still are who we thought they were. The idea that Russia was about to align with the west and join NATO is revisionist propaganda straight from Putin himself to help justify their current aggression.

GAC06 said:

---

Perhaps blackballing a state still intent on dominating Eastern Europe from your defensive alliance that exists to deter said state makes sense. In 90-92 Russia was still following their playbook in Moldova with "volunteers" from Russia helping "separatists" with the familiar complaint that Russian isn't the official language anymore. They were, and still are who we thought they were. The idea that Russia was about to align with the west and join NATO is revisionist propaganda straight from Putin himself to help justify their current aggression.

---

I'm not justifying Ukraine as Ive already stated I was against it. My main opposition to Ukraine, to date, is that I simply dont care about it until we fix our own border.

I'm just pointing out the lost opportunity we had all those years ago that could have put us on a different path.

It's baffling you won't even acknowledge it as a possibility.

GAC06 said:

---

Perhaps blackballing a state still intent on dominating Eastern Europe from your defensive alliance that exists to deter said state makes sense. In 90-92 Russia was still following their playbook in Moldova with "volunteers" from Russia helping "separatists" with the familiar complaint that Russian isn't the official language anymore. They were, and still are who we thought they were. The idea that Russia was about to align with the west and join NATO is revisionist propaganda straight from Putin himself to help justify their current aggression.

---

The the US has done similar.
Iran/Contra
The Ukraine Coup of 2014/2015
WMD's post 9/11

The list goes on and on.

Your argument that they wouldn't have accepted membership or wanted it is silly because what Russia did and does is the exact same thing the US does and yet we are the leader of NATO.

The only way your argument makes sense is if we would have refused them membership because we didn't want to share our dominance of the organization with them.

The question is this- if Russia was in NATO would they have been able to, had an excuse to, or felt the need to do what they are doing in Ukraine?

The answer is a resounding no.

Would their membership have hurt NATO?

Probably no more than Turkey's membership.

Would it have helped prevent the Chinese/Russian bloc we are seeing now?

Most definitely.

Would it have been good for the world to have 2/3 of the biggest nuclear powers allied together?

Yes.

YouBet said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Perhaps blackballing a state still intent on dominating Eastern Europe from your defensive alliance that exists to deter said state makes sense. In 90-92 Russia was still following their playbook in Moldova with "volunteers" from Russia helping "separatists" with the familiar complaint that Russian isn't the official language anymore. They were, and still are who we thought they were. The idea that Russia was about to align with the west and join NATO is revisionist propaganda straight from Putin himself to help justify their current aggression.

---

I'm not justifying Ukraine as Ive already stated I was against it. My main opposition to Ukraine, to date, is that I simply dont care about it until we fix our own border.

I'm just pointing out the lost opportunity we had all those years ago that could have put us on a different path.

It's baffling you won't even acknowledge it as a possibility.

---

Not trying to say you're justifying the invasion, I'm saying Russia is pushing the narrative that they wanted to be part of NATO but were rebuffed and that NATO promised not to expand but lied to make it seem like they aren't the aggressor.

Of course no one can know for sure how things could have gone, but I'm not buying that Russia was actually intending to join NATO. The fact that they were still following their playbook they're using now in Ukraine back when they were supposedly pushing peace and harmony backs that up.

Adding Russia would have destabilized or basically destroyed NATO. Thats the point. That's why they never were trying to join in good faith. That's why the entire premise is laughable. If they wanted NATO to cease to exist, the way to do it was to integrate with the west and not invade and threaten to invade their neighbors. Obviously they went the other way.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Or perhaps the notion that Russia intended to join NATO in good faith and be part of an alliance with the west and the states they formerly subjugated, based on Putin's word (which we should know not to trust since he's already a documented liar about NATO expansion) is naive.

---

So is it your position that NATO/West did everything right?

---

I guess your position is that since NATO/West didn't do everything right, Putin isn't a liar.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Perhaps blackballing a state still intent on dominating Eastern Europe from your defensive alliance that exists to deter said state makes sense. In 90-92 Russia was still following their playbook in Moldova with "volunteers" from Russia helping "separatists" with the familiar complaint that Russian isn't the official language anymore. They were, and still are who we thought they were. The idea that Russia was about to align with the west and join NATO is revisionist propaganda straight from Putin himself to help justify their current aggression.

---

The the US has done similar.
Iran/Contra
The Ukraine Coup of 2014/2015
WMD's post 9/11

The list goes on and on.

Your argument that they wouldn't have accepted membership or wanted it is silly because what Russia did and does is the exact same thing the US does and yet we are the leader of NATO.

The only way your argument makes sense is if we would have refused them membership because we didn't want to share our dominance of the organization with them.

The question is this- if Russia was in NATO would they have been able to, had an excuse to, or felt the need to do what they are doing in Ukraine?

The answer is a resounding no.

Would their membership have hurt NATO?

Probably no more than Turkey's membership.

Would it have helped prevent the Chinese/Russian bloc we are seeing now?

Most definitely.

Would it have been good for the world to have 2/3 of the biggest nuclear powers allied together?

Yes.

---

If Russia had joined NATO, they probably would have prevented all of the former soviet satellites from joining...which would allow them to invade with no NATO protection for them. Putin has been trying to get the soviet empire back together since he got there.

Sure.....

Because a country opens itself up to another military and makes itself vulnerable through exposing its own systems to a collection of future enemies so that it can later reinvade the territories it JUST freely released.

Do you even listen to yourself?

The antirussian boys are claiming in one breath that Putin is so stupid that he is engaging in an unwinnable war in Ukraine but that he is ALSO so smart and diabolical that he would join NATO JUST to reconquer the territories his country had just given autonomous governance to after a decade and a half.

We have identified TDS. As irrational and illogical hatred of trump.

I think what we have here is some irrational and illogical Russia paranoia.

RDS

Quote:

---

so that it can later reinvade the territories it JUST freely released.

---

Uh, that's exactly what they actually did do

I was directly responding to the poster above that said if Russia had been let into NATO they would have used it to invade the countries it just released so the rejection of Russia from NATO had no impact on current events.

The opposing argument is that the isolation of Russia and continuous threats of nato advancement upon their territory and impingement upon their ability to defend themselves is what at least in part contributed to the invasion.

Logically if Russia had ALWAYS wanted those countries, why let them go in the first place?

Unless some external factors changed the geo political landscape after they were given autonomy and made Russia feel like they needed them back.

Now I wonder what external factors might have changed in the last 2 decades?

Ags4DaWin said:

---

I was directly responding to the poster above that said if Russia had been let into NATO they would have used it to invade the countries it just released so the rejection of Russia from NATO had no impact on current events.

The opposing argument is that the isolation of Russia and continuous threats of nato advancement upon their territory and impingement upon their ability to defend themselves is what at least in part contributed to the invasion.

Logically if Russia had ALWAYS wanted those countries, why let them go in the first place?

Unless some external factors changed the geo political landscape after they were given autonomy and made Russia feel like they needed them back.

Now I wonder what external factors might have changed in the last 2 decades?

---

Except in 90-92 Russia carved off a chunk of one of their former SSR's under the pretense of protecting a Russian speaking minority population. That was before NATO added any former SSR's. Then over a decade later Russia did it again and invaded and carved off a chunk of Georgia under the same game plan. Then a little under a decade later it invaded and carved off a chunk of Ukraine. Then a little under a decade later they went back to try to take the rest.

It takes a willful suspension of disbelief to buy the Russian narrative. Guess what? I bet there are some Russian speakers in some other Eastern European countries, so it's no wonder why they wanted into NATO.

Oh, and the USSR collapsed. It wasn't something Russia did to be nice.

GAC06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

I was directly responding to the poster above that said if Russia had been let into NATO they would have used it to invade the countries it just released so the rejection of Russia from NATO had no impact on current events.

The opposing argument is that the isolation of Russia and continuous threats of nato advancement upon their territory and impingement upon their ability to defend themselves is what at least in part contributed to the invasion.

Logically if Russia had ALWAYS wanted those countries, why let them go in the first place?

Unless some external factors changed the geo political landscape after they were given autonomy and made Russia feel like they needed them back.

Now I wonder what external factors might have changed in the last 2 decades?

---

Except in 90-92 Russia carved off a chunk of one of their former SSR's under the pretense of protecting a Russian speaking minority population. That was before NATO added any former SSR's. Then over a decade later Russia did it again and invaded and carved off a chunk of Georgia under the same game plan. Then a little under a decade later it invaded and carved off a chunk of Ukraine. Then a little under a decade later they went back to try to take the rest.

---

That really has nothing to do with American policy in 1990-1992. And let's face it, Boris Yeltsin era in the early 90's, to say the Chechen terrorists in the north caucuses didn't need to be 'dealt with' is a complete re-write. The time to bring Russia into the fold was then, as it dealt with the raft of criminality in the post-soviet era, and the oligarchs that would become Biden business partners rose to power, including in Ukraine. A tragic chapter in foreign policy no doubt. The Serbian bombing campaign to establish a nato/American base (and supportive of the muslim population) that followed was only a sub-chapter.

Much of this dialog is great, imho, but I think it narrowly focuses on preferred time frames, and is devolving somewhat again into a 'my team' attitude as such. If one goes to 1945, 1856, 1917, 1878, 1991, 2014, 2022, or the 1700's etc. matters to put it in context, and Russia has been battling the Brits/French over Crimea etc. for well north of a century, so again, I hope we don't get dragged into some damn real direct war with no interests of our own over some European silliness.

99.9 percent of the folks I know couldn't care one whit if Russia 'dominates' Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Chechnya, the 'Donbas' or Armenia. We need to strategically look at how to stop strengthening the BRICS alliance, both in power and wealth, which this proxy war has inexorably done.

I was referring to Russia carving off a portion of Moldova, which they still occupy to this day. The point is that even in the early 90's when revisionists now claim that Russia was extending an olive branch, they were actually just following the exact same game plan they've kept using to this day.

Ok, and none of the Transnistria stuff really imports any kind of 'this is the good side' at the time.

A majority Russian speaking populace (Soviets had put Russians in all kinds of regions to culturally shift them, and some are still on pension plans etc. in places like Kazakhstan), didn't want to be absorbed into Romania under Ceausescu and have their language outlawed so that means…Yeltsin was horribad and long term Russia must be rejected/isolated? Respectfully, that's just nonsense. History is just more complex than that, if nothing else.

And it can again be dismissed as demented gibberish, but Biden claims he knew Putin from at least a period 5 years prior to this, as a KGB agent. How and why? Leadership matters, in all wars. From 1985-1990 Putin worked in a covert role in Dresden Germany. Before that, he was in New Zealand?

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Or perhaps the notion that Russia intended to join NATO in good faith and be part of an alliance with the west and the states they formerly subjugated, based on Putin's word (which we should know not to trust since he's already a documented liar about NATO expansion) is naive.

---

So is it your position that NATO/West did everything right?

---

I guess your position is that since NATO/West didn't do everything right, Putin isn't a liar.

---

No, that is not my position. Helluva straw man though.

What did NATO do that you disagree with?

Updated Uke talking points are out. Who else can remember when it was about "defending democracy"?

Ukraine has trillions of dollars worth of critical minerals in their country.

Vladimir Putin cannot be allowed to access that money and those resources because he will share it with China. pic.twitter.com/gKlSMjSjEK

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) June 9, 2024

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, and none of the Transnistria stuff really imports any kind of 'this is the good side' at the time.

A majority Russian speaking populace (Soviets had put Russians in all kinds of regions to culturally shift them, and some are still on pension plans etc. in places like Kazakhstan), didn't want to be absorbed into Romania under Ceausescu and have their language outlawed so that means…Yeltsin was horribad and long term Russia must be rejected/isolated? Respectfully, that's just nonsense. History is just more complex than that, if nothing else.

And it can again be dismissed as demented gibberish, but Biden claims he knew Putin from at least a period 5 years prior to this, as a KGB agent. How and why? Leadership matters, in all wars. From 1985-1990 Putin worked in a covert role in Dresden Germany. Before that, he was in New Zealand?

---

Ceausescu was executed in December 89, about a year before the war started, so that's not it.

The point is that the idea that Russia was going to join NATO while invading its former SSR is laughable.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Or perhaps the notion that Russia intended to join NATO in good faith and be part of an alliance with the west and the states they formerly subjugated, based on Putin's word (which we should know not to trust since he's already a documented liar about NATO expansion) is naive.

---

So is it your position that NATO/West did everything right?

---

I guess your position is that since NATO/West didn't do everything right, Putin isn't a liar.

---

No, that is not my position. Helluva straw man though.

What did NATO do that you disagree with?

---

I was just playing the same game you played with your comment...which is ALSO a helluva straw man.

I'm sure NATO has done some things wrong. Not any of the propaganda stuff that's constantly posted on here, though...