Russia begins invasion of Ukraine

[hometeam]

You say all this yet it is NATO itself that has kept expanding and getting closer to Russia, (and placing gain of function bioweapons laboratories who experiment with Russian DNA, closer and closer to the Russia border) breaking all agreements in the process, while Russia has followed those agreements.

NATO as an organization has expanded, but you don't see member states expanding their borders like Russia does, like Russia has done for hundreds of years. It is purely a defensive organization with the whole purpose of stopping Russian expansion. And maybe it needs to surround Russia, because otherwise Russia keeps trying to absorb countries around it like it has with Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine.

The Budapest Memorandum basically said if Ukraine gave up their weapons Russia would respect their borders and never attack them:

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now you don't hear about that much today because people know as imperialistic as Russia is they were never going to abide by that and nuclear de-proliferation is more important, but why you would want to hold NATO to any promises of the same era not to surround Russia when clearly the countries surrounding Russia need to band together with security agreements to contain Russian expansion I have no idea. It's not like anyone is trying to take chunks of the Russian border or invade Moscow or stage nuclear weapons from a bordering country here.

 

[MR_Midas]

You say all this yet it is NATO itself that has kept expanding and getting closer to Russia, (and placing gain of function bioweapons laboratories who experiment with Russian DNA, closer and closer to the Russia border) breaking all agreements in the process, while Russia has followed those agreements.

NATO was designed to create a dependency on the USA for security. Our military industrial complex sells weapons. We benefit from this. The Europeans don't benefit from this. They should have their own militaries and their own security.

USA doesn't want Europe to be friendly with Russia. If Russia was an ally of Germany for example, the combination of natural resources and engineering capability would create a new power player, maybe one stronger than the United States. There is no incentive for peace in Europe because peace would harm the USA. The USA is a pimp and mafia boss rolled into one, and if other countries don't play along, they get sanctioned to death or decapitated.

NATO and the supply of weapons, or rather Europe's dependence on US weapons, is part of the policy. The goal is to keep the whole world as puppets. It is not profitable to have strong countries and everything is done for this.

 

[MR_Midas]

One thing to keep in mind here is that Russia as a society is very imperialistic. Hundreds of years of Tsarist expansion and Soviet expansion should probably tell us it’s just too ingrained in their culture. Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Stalin... If Russia could show they are fine with their borders as it is, there would be no need for NATO. But then Russia wouldn’t have such a problem with NATO then either.

If you’re in Finland, Estonia, Latvia or Poland right now you’re probably looking at what’s going on in Ukraine very nervously and feel a need to band together. NATO is purely a defensive organization - an attack on one is an attack on all. It's whole purpose is to stop Russian expansion. You don't see NATO members trying to expand their borders like Russia does.

I saw a recent interview with Alexander Stubb, former Finland PM, and he says one of his biggest mistakes was being soft on Russsia and not recognizing how imperialistic Putin is, and Russian society/culture is, always has been. And as a country who shares a border with Russia this is something they think a lot about:

Is NATO purely defensive? do you seriously think so or it was very subtle sarcasm. NATO was created to contain and destabilize Russia, and in a good way to split it.

 

[Hughinn]

One thing to keep in mind here is that Russia as a society is very imperialistic. Hundreds of years of Tsarist expansion and Soviet expansion should probably tell us it’s just too ingrained in their culture. Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Stalin... If Russia could show they are fine with their borders as it is, there would be no need for NATO. But then Russia wouldn’t have such a problem with NATO then either.

You're absolutely fuckin braindead if you think that Russia is more imperialist than the US.

And you're just plain stupid if you believe NATO is purely defensive.

Just look at the nations they've bombed and the multitudes of US state department coups and color revolutions triggering destabilization and violence all over the world.

The US government is the most aggressive, billigerent and empirical entity on the planet.

They don't need to fly the flag over a country to own it.

If you’re in Finland, Estonia, Latvia or Poland right now you’re probably looking at what’s going on in Ukraine very nervously and feel a need to band together. NATO is purely a defensive organization - an attack on one is an attack on all. It's whole purpose is to stop Russian expansion. You don't see NATO members trying to expand their borders like Russia does.

Again, a braindead idiot.

Russia has not attempted expansion till now, since the fall of the Soviet Union.

NATO on the other hand, has expanded massively in not just military, but economic influence and weaponry

I saw a recent interview with Alexander Stubb, former Finland PM, and he says one of his biggest mistakes was being soft on Russsia and not recognizing how imperialistic Putin is, and Russian society/culture is, always has been. And as a country who shares a border with Russia this is something they think a lot about:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhwfC_Vh4DI


NATO could invade Moscow right now if it wanted to, staged from Estonia or Latvia. Russia has been weakened so much NATO wouldn't need to - Georgia or Kazakhstan probably could too if it wanted to. But containment is the goal here not capitulation.

Taking out Russia's oil refineries would also be a capitulation strategy but NATO isn't allowing Ukraine to go in with mortar teams or jets packed with explosives or ATACMS missiles and do it.

We get it, you've sucked up the propoganda like a mindless bellowing idiot and think the Russian people are some kind of bloodthirsty orc's trying to take over the world in the name of evil and therefore must be crushed at all cost

While at the same time you claim they're inept, weak and unable to defend themselves.

A really special kind of stupid

 

[hometeam]

You're absolutely fuckin braindead if you think that Russia is more imperialist than the US.

Well the main difference, as former Finland PM Stubb gets to in his speech, is with Russia when they take over a territory it's: one language (Russian), one religion (Orthodoxy), one leader (Putin). No compromises. It's always been that way.

Sure, US has invaded and removed leaders hostile to the US, but they don't then force their language, religion and leader on them.

If you look at a list of countries by area you'll see this:

1	Russia	17,098,246 km2​
2	Canada	9,984,670 km2​
3	China	9,596,961 km2​
4	United States	9,525,067 km2​
5	Brazil	8,515,767 km2​
6	Australia	7,692,024 km2​
7	India	3,287,263 km2​

and during Soviet days it was 22,402,200 km2.

Russia actually borders China, Azerbaijan, and North Korea along with about a half dozen other countries.

It didn't get to be this size by mistake. They've had over 300 years of expansionism/imperialism. Without a defensive pact in place like NATO, Russia would just keep going on and on unchecked, which is dangerous when they have nuclear warheads.

And they can cry me a river that this group NATO is including people too close to them so they can't expand like they want to, to make all their neighbors vassal states like Belarus, but maybe Russia should just learn to be happy with the borders it has. It's large enough as it is. Their one language, one religion, one leader isn't the answer to Europe.

Again, a braindead idiot.

Russia has not attempted expansion till now, since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Except for in Georgia, South Ossetia, Crimea, and Chechnya.

 

[hometeam]

Is NATO purely defensive? do you seriously think so or it was very subtle sarcasm. NATO was created to contain and destabilize Russia, and in a good way to split it.

Well here's the founding treaty. I don't see anything offensive in nature about it. Do you? Do you think Finland's goal and Latvia's goal is to destabilize Russia? Or contain it?

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

Article 1​

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2​

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3​

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 4​

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 1​

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Article 7​

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 8​

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

Article 9​

The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

Article 10​

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Article 11​

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)

Article 12​

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13​

After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

Article 14​

This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.

1. The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
3. The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.

TOPICS​

• Founding treaty

OFFICIAL TEXTS​

• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of North Macedonia06 Feb. 2019
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Montenegro19 May. 2016
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Croatia01 Apr. 2009
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Albania01 Apr. 2009
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Republic of Slovenia26 Mar. 2003
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Slovak Republic26 Mar. 2003
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Romania26 Mar. 2003
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Republic of Lithuania26 Mar. 2003
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Republic of Latvia26 Mar. 2003
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Estonia26 Mar. 2003
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria26 Mar. 2003
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Poland16 Dec. 1997
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Hungary16 Dec. 1997
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Czech Republic16 Dec. 1997
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Spain10 Dec. 1981
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Federal Republic of Germany23 Oct. 1954
• Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey22 Oct. 1951

BACK TO TOP

 

[Hcuro]

I’m trying to count how many countries NATO have offensively bombed, I’m stuck on 0, can anyone help?

 

[hometeam]

I’m trying to count how many countries NATO have offensively bombed, I’m stuck on 0, can anyone help?

There have been a couple of times when some or most NATO countries had some bombing campaigns such as Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Serbia under United Nations Security Council Resolution 713 and Libya under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 but they were under the UN flag not NATO. Though NATO as an organization encouraged it and oversaw command of it. There was never a NATO declaration of war until Afghanistan after 9/11 when they were harboring bin Laden and Al Qaeda who attacked the World Trade Center twin towers in NYC.

 

[Hcuro]

Ah, yea, Libya is a good shout.

 

[Hughinn]

Well the main difference, as former Finland PM Stubb gets to in his speech, is with Russia when they take over a territory it's: one language (Russian), one religion (Orthodoxy), one leader (Putin). No compromises. It's always been that way.

"But,but,but ....ok we've invaded far more countries and way more imperialist but,but, Russia is worse because... Putin bad"

you and that Finnish prime Minister, whose just as stupid as you are
Because you just can't admit that the Russian federation, is not the Soviet Union.

Sure, US has invaded and removed leaders hostile to the US, but they don't then force their language, religion and leader on them.

If you look at a list of countries by area you'll see this:

1	Russia	17,098,246 km2​
2	Canada	9,984,670 km2​
3	China	9,596,961 km2​
4	United States	9,525,067 km2​
5	Brazil	8,515,767 km2​
6	Australia	7,692,024 km2​
7	India	3,287,263 km2​

and during Soviet days it was 22,402,200 km2.

Russia actually borders China, Azerbaijan, and North Korea along with about a half dozen other countries.

It didn't get to be this size by mistake. They've had over 300 years of expansionism/imperialism. Without a defensive pact in place like NATO, Russia would just keep going on and on unchecked, which is dangerous when they have nuclear warheads.

So because they have a big landmass that's evidence of their imperialist goals and history?

My god your one dumb fuk.

Look at the UK landmass compared to it's empire.
Portugal
France and it's colonial empire

Etc.

You're slinging shit randomly at the wall hoping it sticks somewhere because you have no clue of what you're talking about.

And they can cry me a river that this group NATO is including people too close to them so they can't expand like they want to, to make all their neighbors vassal states like Belarus, but maybe Russia should just learn to be happy with the borders it has. It's large enough as it is. Their one language, one religion, one leader isn't the answer to Europe.

Europe is closer to being one unified block today than it's ever been.
The euro, the EU banking alliance Etc. Virtually every western European country is a vassal state of the US government and western banking interests

Again, talking out of your ass.

Except for in Georgia, South Ossetia, Crimea, and Chechnya.

Lmfao.. you just can't stop making yourself look stupid.

Georgia started the war with Russia. Probably under orders from the west

South ossetia lmfao. That's where Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers

Crimea is Russia. Crimean people are very predominantly ethnic Russian and choose to join Russia as opposed to the Right sector and sveboda government of Ukraine.

Chechnya still operates as an autonomous country and was not "taken over by Russia"

Besides, the first Chechen war with the Soviet Union. Not Russia
The second Chechen war . In August 1999, Islamist fighters from Chechnya infiltrated Russia's Dagestan region, declaring it an independent state and calling for holy war. Could easily be argued was started by the Chechens themselves.


Again: there is no more of an aggressive, billigerent, hostile, and empirical state today on earth worse than the US government.

That's a fact easily observable and demonstrably true.

Russia is a backwater problematic country operating at the head of a very fragile and volitile federation of loosely allied states with varying ethnic groups and interests (so much for your horseshit of 'one language,one religion... BS).

Russia is not the world empire and has little to no Chance of becoming the world empire. They'll be lucky to hold onto the federation and strengthen it.

Lastly, Russian border disputes with Ukraine and it's security concerns about NATO expansion are just as legitimate, in fact, on their face far more legitimate than any reason (lie) the US has made up the past 30 years to go to war for monetary and empirical gains.

An the US doesn't have a single legitimate national security concern in Ukraine today. It's a monetary and empirical concern.

Using Ukraine to break the Russian federation so they can begin whittling off the seperate nations one at a time with coups and color revolutions, civil wars etc to expand the US/UK/NATO empire on its own quest for world domination.

No reasonable person can examine the facts and come to different conclusion

 

[Hughinn]

Well the main difference, as former Finland PM Stubb gets to in his speech, is with Russia when they take over a territory it's: one language (Russian), one religion (Orthodoxy), one leader (Putin). No compromises. It's always been that way.

"But,but,but ....ok we've invaded far more countries and way more imperialist but,but, Russia is worse because... Putin bad"

you and that Finnish prime Minister, whose just as stupid as you are
Because you just can't admit that the Russian federation, is not the Soviet Union.

Sure, US has invaded and removed leaders hostile to the US, but they don't then force their language, religion and leader on them.

If you look at a list of countries by area you'll see this:

1	Russia	17,098,246 km2​
2	Canada	9,984,670 km2​
3	China	9,596,961 km2​
4	United States	9,525,067 km2​
5	Brazil	8,515,767 km2​
6	Australia	7,692,024 km2​
7	India	3,287,263 km2​

and during Soviet days it was 22,402,200 km2.

Russia actually borders China, Azerbaijan, and North Korea along with about a half dozen other countries.

It didn't get to be this size by mistake. They've had over 300 years of expansionism/imperialism. Without a defensive pact in place like NATO, Russia would just keep going on and on unchecked, which is dangerous when they have nuclear warheads.

So because they have a big landmass that's evidence of their imperialist goals and history?

My god your one dumb fuk.

Look at the UK landmass compared to it's empire.
Portugal
France and it's colonial empire

Etc.

You're slinging shit randomly at the wall hoping it sticks somewhere because you have no clue of what you're talking about.

And they can cry me a river that this group NATO is including people too close to them so they can't expand like they want to, to make all their neighbors vassal states like Belarus, but maybe Russia should just learn to be happy with the borders it has. It's large enough as it is. Their one language, one religion, one leader isn't the answer to Europe.

Europe is closer to being one unified block today than it's ever been.
The euro, the EU banking alliance Etc. Virtually every western European country is a vassal state of the US government and western banking interests

Again, talking out of your ass.

Except for in Georgia, South Ossetia, Crimea, and Chechnya.

Lmfao.. you just can't stop making yourself look stupid.

Georgia started the war with Russia. Probably under orders from the west

South ossetia lmfao. That's where Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers

Crimea is Russia. Crimean people are very predominantly ethnic Russian and choose to join Russia as opposed to the Right sector and sveboda government of Ukraine.

Chechnya still operates as an autonomous country and was not "taken over by Russia"

Besides, the first Chechen war with the Soviet Union. Not Russia
The second Chechen war . In August 1999, Islamist fighters from Chechnya infiltrated Russia's Dagestan region, declaring it an independent state and calling for holy war. Could easily be argued was started by the Chechens themselves.


Again: there is no more of an aggressive, billigerent, hostile, and empirical state today on earth worse than the US government.

That's a fact easily observable and demonstrably true.

Russia is a backwater problematic country operating at the head of a very fragile and volitile federation of loosely allied states with varying ethnic groups and interests (so much for your horseshit of 'one language,one religion... BS).

Russia is not the world empire and has little to no Chance of becoming the world empire. They'll be lucky to hold onto the federation and strengthen it.

Lastly, Russian border disputes with Ukraine and it's security concerns about NATO expansion are just as legitimate, in fact, on their face far more legitimate than any reason (lie) the US has made up the past 30 years to go to war for monetary and empirical gains.

An the US doesn't have a single legitimate national security concern in Ukraine today. It's a monetary and empirical concern.

Using Ukraine to break the Russian federation so they can begin whittling off the seperate nations one at a time with coups and color revolutions, civil wars etc to expand the US/UK/NATO empire on its own quest for world domination.

No reasonable person can examine the facts and come to different conclusion

 

[MR_Midas]

Well here's the founding treaty. I don't see anything offensive in nature about it. Do you? Do you think Finland's goal and Latvia's goal is to destabilize Russia? Or contain it?

I think they are pawns in the hands of the United States

 

[MR_Midas]

"But,but,but ....ok we've invaded far more countries and way more imperialist but,but, Russia is worse because... Putin bad"

you and that Finnish prime Minister, whose just as stupid as you are
Because you just can't admit that the Russian federation, is not the Soviet Union.

Here are my thoughts similar to yours.

 

[Hughinn]

Here are my thoughts similar to yours.

I mean I just can't see any logical and informed person running around howling about Russia being an "aggressive billigerent and empirical state" when compare to US, they're amateur at best.

These people's irrational hatred and contempt for Russia and Russian people is almost completely shaped by propoganda designed to invoke exactly that response.

"They hate us because we're free" they said about bin laden to justify a 20 year war over nothing.

People like this @hometeam idiot believed that bullshit "they hate our freedom"

No, they hated that we bomb civilians all over the middle east from bases in Saudi Arabia and we support what they see as a forced colonization of Palestine.

They don't give a fuck about our "freedom" because I'd bet the average Afghan peasant has a substantial amount more personal freedom than any typical California liberal.

 

[hometeam]

"But,but,but ....ok we've invaded far more countries and way more imperialist but,but, Russia is worse because... Putin bad"

Regardless of who you consider the more evil country, with the US they come in and remove your belligerent dictator, help you write a constitution with a parliament, then give you free elections. They free up markets and opportunities you never saw before. Then they leave, maybe leaving a base behind like in Ramstein or Okinawa.

With Russia they say "now you are part of the Russian federation: you speak Russian, observe the Orthodox church, and are loyal to Putin."

An the US doesn't have a single legitimate national security concern in Ukraine today. It's a monetary and empirical concern.

Again the US didn't invade Ukraine Russia did. We are just helping them defend themselves because Putin and Russian expansion is our national security concern - and for good reason. If I'm the dumbf*ck here and you're so enlightened, why can't you wrap your head around that?

 

[hometeam]

Georgia started the war with Russia. Probably under orders from the west

South ossetia lmfao. That's where Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers

Crimea is Russia. Crimean people are very predominantly ethnic Russian and choose to join Russia as opposed to the Right sector and sveboda government of Ukraine.

Chechnya still operates as an autonomous country and was not "taken over by Russia"

Besides, the first Chechen war with the Soviet Union. Not Russia
The second Chechen war . In August 1999, Islamist fighters from Chechnya infiltrated Russia's Dagestan region, declaring it an independent state and calling for holy war. Could easily be argued was started by the Chechens themselves.

Russia will always come up with convoluted reasoning for expanding their borders, and Russian sympathizers like you will always eat it up.

And Putin, especially since his 2007 Munich speech, has been very antagonistic towards the West.
In 2007 he said that United States' monopolistic dominance in global relations, and its "almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations ... stimulates an arms race."

And in 2014 after annexing Crimea he said that "domination by one country and its allies" had created a "unilateral diktat" producing the "opposite result" as intended. And "We are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict."

And in 2015 he said of the US: "the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done" and that since the Cold War "they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity.”

I mean, those are fighting words. And it just gets worse and worse. And it's really just him upset that the US is the sole superpower right now, that Russia is not much of a player, and not being happy with how the US exerts that power.

 

[Hughinn]

Regardless of who you consider the more evil country, with the US they come in and remove your belligerent dictator, help you write a constitution with a parliament, then give you free elections.

And how well has that worked out for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc..etc?

The translation thats more accurate is: the US will come in and set up a government that enables international corporations and world monetary funds to exploit all of your resources and reward those who help us do it....

Everyone else gets to celebrate transsexual day and woke dogmas in place of whatever sort of socially cohesive theology or practice's anybody had before, with the modern Wests, generic cookie cutter version of consumerism necessary to keep the empire expanding past whatever wretched shit hole your country has become.

They free up markets and opportunities you never saw before. Then they leave, maybe leaving a base behind like in Ramstein or Okinawa.

Uh huh.
How well has that worked out for anybody except rich bankers and corporate globalist interests?

With Russia they say "now you are part of the Russian federation: you speak Russian, observe the Orthodox church, and are loyal to Putin."

Except, that's literally never happened before

Again the US didn't invade Ukraine Russia did. We are just helping them defend themselves because Putin and Russian expansion is our national security concern - and for good reason. If I'm the dumbf*ck here and you're so enlightened, why can't you wrap your head around that?

How fucking arrogant and stupid do you have to be to think the entire world deserves to be conquered and subjegated in order to convert them to your ideal of government and society?

You think that by taking away free and independent people's ideas and way of life and community and forcibly supplanting your own is a solution of all of thier problems?

How insolent, how arrogant, how narcissistic, sociopathic, how supremacist and empirical.

How malevolent, ignorant and hostile...

You're a POS.

Masquerading your delusions as some sick fucked up notion of grandeur and heroism that simply doesn't translate to reality anymore than a goddamn inmate in a common roadside nuthouse in a blanket cape thinking he's going save the world by making the other crazies play his game with him.

You're one fucked up dude.

In combination with being a coward. It's not a pleasant thing to behold

 

[Hughinn]

Russia will always come up with convoluted reasoning for expanding their borders, and Russian sympathizers like you will always eat it up.

How is it any different than the lies that led the US to any war in the past fifty years?

Have you forgot about the weapons of mass destruction lies that led us into a twenty year campaign of violence and destruction?

You think Russia is worse? Really?

And Putin, especially since his 2007 Munich speech, has been very antagonistic towards the West.

The west has been antagonist towards him.
Openly howling for him to be removed, right in his face. With no regard for the will of the Russian people.

In 2007 he said that United States' monopolistic dominance in global relations, and its "almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations ... stimulates an arms race."

And in 2014 after annexing Crimea he said that "domination by one country and its allies" had created a "unilateral diktat" producing the "opposite result" as intended. And "We are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict."

And in 2015 he said of the US: "the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done" and that since the Cold War "they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity.”

I mean, those are fighting words. And it just gets worse and worse. And it's really just him upset that the US is the sole superpower right now, that Russia is not much of a player, and not being happy with how the US exerts that power.

Jesus.
What a fuckin moron you are.
Wow... just wow.

The stupid shit you say literally makes a logical person's head spin.

Dumb fuck...the cold war didn't end in 2015. It ended with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Goddamn. I hope your just a retard off by yourself somewhere and have no chance to reproduce.
One would think the female version of humanity has some sort of internal mechanism that would prevent such a goddamn fool from reproducing.

Here's your award




Edit:. Look man.

Maybe I'm coming at this all wrong.
Maybe I'm mistaken and your not stupid at all. You're just like alot of Americans that just don't know the whole story. And maybe you're trying to make sense out of it on your own with limited resources and limited understanding of what's actually going on.

Maybe that's the case here.

But if you refuse to keep an open mind and consider the facts with some sort of empathy and attempt to understand that there's more than one side to this story, then nobody can help you.

 

[hometeam]

The west has been antagonist towards him.
Openly howling for him to be removed, right in his face. With no regard for the will of the Russian people.

Not a single President of the United States has. And the fact that you brought up some in Congress have should show that you're 100% lying when you say the US govt doesn't consider Putin a security threat and it's all about a "cartel" promoting money, power and domination in the region.

The rest of what you wrote is "you dumb shit this!", "capitalism is evil" and "you dumb fuck that!" and mostly unintelligible. Does that method of arguing ever really work for you?

"The cold war didn't end in 2015" well Putin sure said that US policy is based on "arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity" then.

 

[hometeam]

Edit:. Look man.

Maybe I'm coming at this all wrong.
Maybe I'm mistaken and your not stupid at all. You're just like alot of Americans that just don't know the whole story. And maybe you're trying to make sense out of it on your own with limited resources and limited understanding of what's actually going on.

Maybe that's the case here.

But if you refuse to keep an open mind and consider the facts with some sort of empathy and attempt to understand that there's more than one side to this story, then nobody can help you.

I understand there's more than one side to this, and former Finland PM Stubb really spent a lot of time trying to figure out their side. In fact his current job is as a professor in Italy, Director of the EUI Transnational School of Governance, studying and teaching this full-time.

And he says Russia today (and always has, for 300 years) considers themselves isolated and with the whole world against them. As they did with Ghengis Khan, with Napoleon, with Hitler, and now with NATO. It doesn't mean they're right it's just culturally ingrained in them.

You start invading your neighbors after a Cold War you lost trying to regain territory and you get a response that looks a whole lot like that also.

And they also consider themselves the ongoing saviors of Europe, which is strange and problematic. They feel like Europe still needs Russia to save them.