Convince me that Putin is wrong

[Stevicus]

Thank you for acknowledging it.

It seems that these are all things that Americans would know, but I've noticed a tendency towards wanting to compartmentalize and isolate issues separately, pretending as if nothing is connected to another.

Yes, the invasion did surprise me immensely.
There was this Italian journalist, Giulietto Chiesa who had lived in Russia and knew Russia very well. He used to tell us that there would have been a sort of Great War that would have lasted many years. A war of attrition. I didn't believe him...I was sure that Putin would never invade Ukraine, because of the numerous alternative solutions. And because Putin is a lover, not a fighter.

I think Putin is basically a gangster masquerading as a statesman. That he allowed a kleptocracy to exist, which (among other things) gutted his military forces and weakened them severely, is a serious black mark against him and his leadership abilities. I recall that the Russian Mafia was quite a feared organization; back in the 1990s, they had quickly gained a rather vicious reputation for ruthlessness and cruelty. Crime was running rampant within Russia, and they also had an international network (most likely remnants of what used to be the KGB, as Putin was).

Then I understood, thanks to a Russian writer, that Putin is expected to do what his people wants: it was his people made up of countless republics, oblasts, territories that demanded the Z operation .

I'm not sure that the Russian people actually wanted Putin to invade Ukraine, although I would recognize that there is a long-term, deep-seated fear of the West. Some of it seemingly goes as far back as when the Eastern and Western Christian Churches decided to have a schism.

Russia defeated the Nazis and forced them to surrender, with a big, huge, capitulation. They are very proud of being the ones who pushed Hitler to commit suicide.

Yes, although Russia did not initiate that war. They were on the defensive after they were attacked by the Germans.

It was the same with Napoleon, as they were victorious over his armies when he invaded Russia. But when they initiate conflicts when their own national territory isn't really threatened, they've had lackluster results. The Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, their forays into Afghanistan were defeats.

They're experts at defending their own territory from outsiders, as they've had to do that many, many, many times throughout history. Most of their territorial acquisitions were the result of being on the winning side in conflicts where they were, at some point, on the defensive (such as Poland and the Baltics after the Napoleonic Wars, and domination over Eastern Europe after WW2). The bulk of Siberia and Central Asia was acquired due to the power vacuum that was left by the collapsing Mongol Empire. The opposition was weak, at least until they got to Manchuria and started bumping up against the Japanese.

That's why I never really accepted any Western perceptions or wild notions about "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!" Movies like Red Dawn and ideas of the Russians seeking global conquest seemed absolutely ludicrous when one takes a long hard look at their history and their national security perceptions.

The original reason why I wanted to learn more about the Russians was because I grew up with people saying that the Russians could attack us any time, just out of the blue. The idea was that we were on the side of good, while the Russians were evil communist atheists who were hellbent on taking over the world, destroying the American way of life, and robbing us of our precious bodily fluids. It was because of this that I wanted to learn more about them.

In the EU such territorial controversies are present: there are so many of them. The difference is that the EU Parliament and the EU Commission solve them or try to solve them through diplomacy and negotiations.
Warfare is absolutely banned in the EU.
That is why I really want Ukraine to join the EU. That country will practically exit the Middle Ages and align with all the sophisticated laws and regulations that make the EU countries peaceful countries in a peaceful union.

Would Russia be allowed to join the EU?

Tulsi Gabbard said there is an elitist cabal of warmongers that drive the Democratic Party. I meant them. Those masters.

I would just call them standard run-of-the-mill party hacks, but "elitist cabal of warmongers" does have a certain pizzazz to it.

Bravo, exactly. Bravissimo.
They are very similar nations who kill one another because of schemes and political agendas that have nothing to do with them.
It's so disheartening.

Yes, it is disheartening.

I think it's a suicidal move for the West. Strengthening the Sino-Russian alliance.

I never could understand the method behind the madness of US foreign policy that I've seen over my lifetime. In some ways, I suppose it was better than getting into a nuclear war, which was always a possibility (and still is, for that matter). But there have been numerous failures as well, along with various loose ends which still linger to this day.

I was quoting him.
Of course I don't agree with what he said. There's always an alternative solution. There are Italian journalists who tell me I am wrong, but I cannot change my mind. He was lured into a trap...and he could have avoided it.
But I guess it was the Russian army and the strong republics who kinda pushed him.
So the situation of the Russian Federation is also complicated for me to understand.

Whether they pushed him or not, it was still a mistake that could have been avoided.

Everyone in the EU knows that Zelenskyy takes order from Washington DC and London.
We have seen it during the latest EU summits.
Macron went to Kiev to try to convince him to respect the Minsk agreements.
But he sounded like he had to obey to someone else.
I think that Americans should admit to that: Zelenskyy works for Washington DC.

How did he become that rich?

I can't say whether Zelenskyy works for Washington DC. In some ways, it might benefit Ukraine to have closer economic and political ties to the West, so it's not all that far-fetched a notion that he wants the umbrella of protection from NATO for his own nation's interests. It wouldn't automatically turn Ukraine into some kind of "banana republic," although I suppose that would depend on how the West conducts itself in the future.

I perfectly agree with you. A new Pearl Harbor...maybe.
But why do you say "we"?

I'm using the royal "we." Bad habit.

American commoners are completely innocent. And the US presidents are not to be held accountable. There are élites that are so powerful that with their money buy off anyone. Even presidents.
All of us are victims of this infernal machine. All of us Westerners, even if that awareness can save us.

There's a certain ebb and flow to politics and geopolitics. I don't really have any control over it. I guess having awareness of why the ship is sinking might help somewhat, even if one can't stop the inevitable. I suppose what's disheartening about it all is that most of it is/was so unnecessary, so useless.

After that interview, Putin's prestige and popularity, rose by 70% at least.

Because Americanness is based upon the awareness of being the best nation of the world.
But it leads to absolute thought: being the best doesn't imply there aren't rotten apples that work against the welfare of the citizens.

It's a collective denial, cognitive dissonance, whatever one may call it. I call it insanity and idiocy, but I think many of us just grow numb to it. A lot of people have more or less tuned out. Or, as the line goes, "it's better to burn out than fade away."

 

[ajay0]

Putin's and Russia's threat perception due to NATO expanding to its borders is understandable, but going to war over it is obviously not an intelligent or proper approach considering the human casualties and destruction of property, as well as geo-political repurcussions. Even an injury due to a man-made disaster of conflict is unacceptable, ethically speaking.

He seems to have played into the hands of the adversary, and may have not have brainstormed all scenarios or had a good think tank behind him which would have thought out a superior course of action.

Imho,he is just a ruthless politician, not a statesman or strategic genius.

If he was so concerned about NATO expansion and deployment of WMD in Ukraine targeting Moscow to coerce the Russian leadership, he could have instead developed a large number more of Russian nuclear submarines with WMD to patrol constantly the American and European coastlines to neutralize the concerns.

The money he expended on the Ukraine invasion could have been used for this purpose. In this way, he could have retained Russia's lucrative financial trade with Europe and US, without being a political and economic pariah to them, as well as not harming the ties with neighboring countries . NATO also would not have gained new members and weapons markets in Finland and Sweden due to lack of any threat perception.

In the twentyfirst century, it is economic strength that counts, and this is why China has emerged as a world superpower playing the right moves. Putin's immaturity will mean that Russia will lose its opportunity to become an economic superpower as well considering its vast natural resources which no other country possess.

 

[Estro Felino]

Putin is a corrupt dictator. He was never fully respected by the world but Russia was awarded the Olympics at Socci, and later hosted annual Formula One races. Putin’s invasion forced the economic powers of the world to end relationships with Russia. Putin invested so much into Socci and then ruined it. And for what?

He could have respected Ukraine sovereignty and defended the Russian constitution and been respected by history. He’s ruined all that.

But what a coincidence, before the military invasion, many European politicians were available for a rapprochment.
To try to ease the incredibly huge damage that the Obama administration had done:

 

[Estro Felino]

It seems that these are all things that Americans would know, but I've noticed a tendency towards wanting to compartmentalize and isolate issues separately, pretending as if nothing is connected to another.

You should be a psychologist. Or a sociologist.

I think Putin is basically a gangster masquerading as a statesman. That he allowed a kleptocracy to exist, which (among other things) gutted his military forces and weakened them severely, is a serious black mark against him and his leadership abilities. I recall that the Russian Mafia was quite a feared organization; back in the 1990s, they had quickly gained a rather vicious reputation for ruthlessness and cruelty. Crime was running rampant within Russia, and they also had an international network (most likely remnants of what used to be the KGB, as Putin was).

Honestly I think he is a great statesman, because he succeeds in contenting and satisfying his enormous nation, made up by so many ethnic groups, religions, languages. That's something significant.
Nevertheless, I am a Western person who thinks as a Westerner and as an European. I love Russian culture and the Slavic cultures in general, so I love Russians because they have many qualities.
They show it every day. In the space, Russians, Europeans, Americans are all brothers. And work together.

He is great because he chased away all those banking élites that were depriving the Russian citizens of their raw materials like natural gas and oil.
He nationalized the Gazprom.

Of course I am against this war and I hope it ends today.

I'm not sure that the Russian people actually wanted Putin to invade Ukraine, although I would recognize that there is a long-term, deep-seated fear of the West. Some of it seemingly goes as far back as when the Eastern and Western Christian Churches decided to have a schism.

The Russian army and the Russian defense are very powerful in the Russian Federation, and I think their stance mattered.
More than anything else.

That's why I never really accepted any Western perceptions or wild notions about "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!" Movies like Red Dawn and ideas of the Russians seeking global conquest seemed absolutely ludicrous when one takes a long hard look at their history and their national security perceptions.

In my country there has never been such a thing.
If I think of the word Russian I think of Russian salad, of Dostoevsky, of Tchaikovsky.
I don't think of something dangerous. Quite the opposite: allies. Friends.

Since 9/11, my fellow countrymen are terrified of something else. And of someone else.
I think that Israelis too are.
That's the terror.

The original reason why I wanted to learn more about the Russians was because I grew up with people saying that the Russians could attack us any time, just out of the blue. The idea was that we were on the side of good, while the Russians were evil communist atheists who were hellbent on taking over the world, destroying the American way of life, and robbing us of our precious bodily fluids. It was because of this that I wanted to learn more about them.

Which never happened.

Would Russia be allowed to join the EU?

Absolutely. That's why Ukraine joining the EU could be the first step.
Russia was in the G8, in the Council of Europe before the Obama administration came and ruined it all.

I would just call them standard run-of-the-mill party hacks, but "elitist cabal of warmongers" does have a certain pizzazz to it.

Tulsi Gabbard is the most patriotic politician in the US. Very smart and refined.
She couldn't have defined them better.

I never could understand the method behind the madness of US foreign policy that I've seen over my lifetime. In some ways, I suppose it was better than getting into a nuclear war, which was always a possibility (and still is, for that matter). But there have been numerous failures as well, along with various loose ends which still linger to this day.

Again. Elitist Cabal of warmongers.

Whether they pushed him or not, it was still a mistake that could have been avoided.

Ditto.

I can't say whether Zelenskyy works for Washington DC. In some ways, it might benefit Ukraine to have closer economic and political ties to the West, so it's not all that far-fetched a notion that he wants the umbrella of protection from NATO for his own nation's interests. It wouldn't automatically turn Ukraine into some kind of "banana republic," although I suppose that would depend on how the West conducts itself in the future.

Zelenskyy scares me. His voice sounds like the voice of a tenebrous and disturbing character.
I think he does work for someone overseas. Otherwise he would step back and let elections take place.
As Russians and other democratic countries do.

 

[Stevicus]

You should be a psychologist. Or a sociologist.

I'm kind of a jack of all trades.

Honestly I think he is a great statesman, because he succeeds in contenting and satisfying his enormous nation, made up by so many ethnic groups, religions, languages. That's something significant.
Nevertheless, I am a Western person who thinks as a Westerner and as an European. I love Russian culture and the Slavic cultures in general, so I love Russians because they have many qualities.
They show it every day. In the space, Russians, Europeans, Americans are all brothers. And work together.

He is great because he chased away all those banking élites that were depriving the Russian citizens of their raw materials like natural gas and oil.
He nationalized the Gazprom.

Of course I am against this war and I hope it ends today.

After the fall of the USSR, it would take time for them to pick up the pieces. The 1990s in Russia might be considered analogous to the Time of Troubles, when the Rurik Dynasty fell and the Romanov Dynasty arose, with a brief interregnum when there was much chaos.

The Russian army and the Russian defense are very powerful in the Russian Federation, and I think their stance mattered.
More than anything else.

Perhaps, although it seems clear that Putin is still the one in charge. The people support him because the West has been openly hostile towards Russia, and Russia has had a long-term fear of the West. As long as the West remains hostile, the people will continue to support Putin. They would see him as a great defender of Russia, just as they saw Stalin.

In my country there has never been such a thing.
If I think of the word Russian I think of Russian salad, of Dostoevsky, of Tchaikovsky.
I don't think of something dangerous. Quite the opposite: allies. Friends.

Since 9/11, my fellow countrymen are terrified of something else. And of someone else.
I think that Israelis too are.
That's the terror.

I don't think there was much of it in the U.S., at least not when Russia was still under the Tsar. America's brand of Russophobia was rooted in the Red Scare mentality which arose after the Bolshevik Revolution. Prior to that, Russia was not considered much of a factor in U.S. national security perceptions. The only thing that U.S. had to fear were nations with powerful navies. Both Russia and Germany had weak navies, so we didn't fear them. But when Germany's U-Boats started becoming a bona fide threat, the U.S. saw Germany differently.

Russia was generally seen more as an ideological threat than a direct military threat to the US itself (barring any kind of mutually assured destruction scenario). This led to an unfortunate presumption in the US that anyone who had leanings towards socialism was automatically viewed as a puppet of Moscow. That peculiar mode of thinking is also what helped foul the stew in the Middle East and led to quite a number of people in that region to be quite angry with the United States, motivating some of them to commit such acts as 9/11.

Which never happened.

Exactly. Of course, listening to some Americans say it, they'll attribute it to America's greatness. They think that we were just so big, tough, strong, and intimidating that it just cowed the Soviets into submission.

Absolutely. That's why Ukraine joining the EU could be the first step.
Russia was in the G8, in the Council of Europe before the Obama administration came and ruined it all.

I don't know how Obama could have ruined it.

Tulsi Gabbard is the most patriotic politician in the US. Very smart and refined.
She couldn't have defined them better.

I suppose it's somewhat subjective to say "most patriotic politician." It's merely a matter of a point of view.

I've been around the block a few times and have a pretty good idea of how things work here in America. I'm aware of the illusion and pretense and the reality it attempts to conceal.

History is filled with stories of elitist cabals of warmongers, from all the ancient empires up until modern times. It seems to be an unfortunate fact of life in the ways and means of how the planet has been governed - and how civilization has been formed to what we have today. Of course, it's always better to be on the winning side in the great competition.

So, the lesson to be learned from history is that, if you choose to be an elite cabal of warmongers, be smart about it, and be on the winning side. If the current crop of warmongers are ignorant fools who make dumb decisions that could end up costing us the whole ballgame, then that's much worse.

Again. Elitist Cabal of warmongers.

Ditto.

Zelenskyy scares me. His voice sounds like the voice of a tenebrous and disturbing character.
I think he does work for someone overseas. Otherwise he would step back and let elections take place.
As Russians and other democratic countries do.

There's no real way of knowing what goes on behind closed doors in the inner circles of power. I can't read minds, so I will generally take people at face value until their actions demonstrate otherwise.

It's interesting what you say about his voice. It's often said that many politicians from past eras, before any kind of sound recording existed, might not have been elected. For example, it's said that Thomas Jefferson had a stutter and that Lincoln spoke in a somewhat high-pitched voice. Would a politician who stutters have a chance in politics today? Not likely.

 

[HonestJoe]

In 2000 Putin had asked Clinton to join in the NATO, because he wanted perpetual peace between the West and Eastern Europe after 50 years of cold war.

This isn't a new claim from Putin but we obviously don't know exactly what was or wasn't said there. It is clear that Russia joining NATO would have been a big ask and, notably, not something the US President has the authority to unilaterally agree to. If Putin was serious about that prospect of joining, it was perfectly possible for him to continue to pursue it, but he would need to recognise the time and effort that would have taken and that Russia couldn't have been treated more favourably than any other applicants.

An array of elitist people coming from the US has wanted to colonize Ukraine and to turn it into a anti-Russian military base.

That is a grossly simplistic picture to paint. Ukraine has suffered self-interested outside influence since independence, but at least as much of that has come from Russia as anywhere else. The Maiden protests were in response to the President of the day appearing to submit to Russia against the will of many Ukrainian people.

There is plenty subsequent Ukrainian governments did wrong in response to the separatist movements in the East, but there is plenty the separatists did wrong too, undeniably under strong influence from Russia. Nothing forced Russia's support of violent actions or it's ultimate invasion of Ukraine, they were all free decisions by Putin.

Putin wasn't fooled by that trap, and signed the two Minsk agreements instead, which were meant to force Germany and France to be guarantors and Ukraine to respect the two self-proclaimed Donbas republics, Luhansk and Donetsk.

The Minsk agreement (and it's various additions and follow-ups) was sadly flawed from the start and pretty much immediately led to disagreements on specific interpretation, meaning that it never led to the sustained ceasefire that would be a precursor to any further steps. All sides tried to spin and play the situation to their advantage and they all pretty much failed, leaving them in the same stalemate they'd started in.

In the meantime, Russia funded the separatists of Donbas, so they could at least defend themselves;

In direct contravention of the Minsk agreement. They'd agreed to withdraw their forces, not send more.

and annexed Crimea, which had made a referendum to get out of that Inferno called Ukraine.

Russia took advantage of the political vacuum in Kiev to occupy Crimea, took effective control of the government and forced out any viable opposition. Only then did they implement the referendum, essentially at gunpoint. Whatever the actual opinions of the Crimean people at the time, you can't possibly present that as a reliable expression of them.

Despite the restless efforts of France and Germany to convince Zelenskyy to respect the Minsk agreements, Zelenskyy was expected to obey the elites of the United States, who ordered him to deceive Europeans, and not to respect the Minsk agreements.

Again, a grossly simplistic presentation of complex issues. The Minsk agreements were generally recognised as dead in the water by the time Zelenskyy was elected, and the Russian invasion certainly finished them off.

Again, all sorts of different outside influences are at play in Ukraine, American, Russia and European, public, private and personal. The idea that Zelenskyy, or the wider Ukrainian government, is somehow blindly submitting to any one of them is ridiculous.

Putin, seeing that Zelenskyy was against the Minsk agreements, had no other option than to invade. In this war, he reached Kiev to denazify it as they say, but he was persuaded to withdraw the troops to start the peace negotiations in Istanbul.

The whole "denazification" narrative is just conspiracy theory. As I said, there is plenty successive Ukrainian governments have done wrong and there are certainly extreme elements in the country and wider political environment, but not more than any other country, Russia included.

The push to Kiev was clearly about taking control of the country to install another pro-Russia puppet leader and regain their influence. Putin didn't choose to withdraw, that assault failed and was pushed back, largely due to their over-extending their supply lines, under-estimating the Ukrainian resistance and the weather.

The text of the peace agreement had already been drafted: at the last moment, British PM Johnson ordered Zelenskyy not to sign it. That is why in 2022, the war continued, even if it could have been ended in Summer 2022.

I thought Zelenskyy took his orders from the US and deceived Europeans? How could Johnson order his to do anything? The reasons that peace agreement failed were many fold, not least the alleged war crimes uncovered following the Russian retreat from around Kiev. Much like Minsk, there was also much back-and-forth over meanings, interpretations and intentions from all sides, meaning there was never really any solid agreement.

Unfortunately, true peace can only happen when all parties actually want it and at that point (and indeed now), neither Russia or Ukraine seem to be of that mind. And that is ultimately down to them and their leaders, not anyone else.

 

[Estro Felino]

This isn't a new claim from Putin but we obviously don't know exactly what was or wasn't said there. It is clear that Russia joining NATO would have been a big ask and, notably, not something the US President has the authority to unilaterally agree to.

Of course not. He had to consult with the real masters of the US first. The unelected élites.
Those whom Tulsi Gabbard defined the elitist cabal of warmongers.

If Putin was serious about that prospect of joining, it was perfectly possible for him to continue to pursue it, but he would need to recognise the time and effort that would have taken and that Russia couldn't have been treated more favourably than any other applicants.

This claim is not credible. Zero credibility.
The US did anything to isolate, boycott and antagonize the Russian Federation. Since 2000.
We know because my country (and Germany, Austria too) did the exact opposite: they have been trying to create an alliance between Russia and Western Europe. For years.
Watch here:

So let's be blunt: the US said Russia: no, you're not welcome in the NATO. Period.
Not only now. Ever.

That is a grossly simplistic picture to paint. Ukraine has suffered self-interested outside influence since independence, but at least as much of that has come from Russia as anywhere else. The Maiden protests were in response to the President of the day appearing to submit to Russia against the will of many Ukrainian people.

It may be simplistic but that's what happened.
They colonized Ukraine, destroying its sovereignty and bribing money-hungry politicians and oligarchs.

There is plenty subsequent Ukrainian governments did wrong in response to the separatist movements in the East, but there is plenty the separatists did wrong too, undeniably under strong influence from Russia. Nothing forced Russia's support of violent actions or it's ultimate invasion of Ukraine, they were all free decisions by Putin.

At least you admit that the response of Kiev was unbalanced. And absolutely unjustified. I appreciate that.
Of course this doesn't justify the ultimate invasion of Ukraine.
But that doesn't mean that Kiev is not guilty. Kiev is guilty.

The Minsk agreement (and it's various additions and follow-ups) was sadly flawed from the start and pretty much immediately led to disagreements on specific interpretation, meaning that it never led to the sustained ceasefire that would be a precursor to any further steps. All sides tried to spin and play the situation to their advantage and they all pretty much failed, leaving them in the same stalemate they'd started in.

Enlighten me. What was wrong with the Minsk agreement and how you would have corrected them.
Go into detail. I cannot read your mind.

In direct contravention of the Minsk agreement. They'd agreed to withdraw their forces, not send more.

You forget that the Kiev government used artillery and aircraft on Donbas civilians, with the excuse that they sided with separatists.

Russia took advantage of the political vacuum in Kiev to occupy Crimea, took effective control of the government and forced out any viable opposition. Only then did they implement the referendum, essentially at gunpoint. Whatever the actual opinions of the Crimean people at the time, you can't possibly present that as a reliable expression of them.

Crimea is inhabited by Russians. Russians who speak Russian. So if the Kiev Government wants to occupy Crimea, they will commit a crime against Crimeans: the violation of Crimeans' right of self-determination.
This is provable in any courtroom of Europe.

Again, a grossly simplistic presentation of complex issues. The Minsk agreements were generally recognised as dead in the water by the time Zelenskyy was elected, and the Russian invasion certainly finished them off.

You fail to explain why. Go into detail.

Again, all sorts of different outside influences are at play in Ukraine, American, Russia and European, public, private and personal. The idea that Zelenskyy, or the wider Ukrainian government, is somehow blindly submitting to any one of them is ridiculous.

Can you prove that Zelenskyy doesn't work for Washington DC?
Or at least...that he isn't asked to align with an agenda coming from the WH?

The push to Kiev was clearly about taking control of the country to install another pro-Russia puppet leader and regain their influence. Putin didn't choose to withdraw, that assault failed and was pushed back, largely due to their over-extending their supply lines, under-estimating the Ukrainian resistance and the weather.

That's why we Europeans will welcome Ukraine into the EU. So it will never be Russia's state puppet again.

I thought Zelenskyy took his orders from the US and deceived Europeans? How could Johnson order his to do anything? The reasons that peace agreement failed were many fold, not least the alleged war crimes uncovered following the Russian retreat from around Kiev. Much like Minsk, there was also much back-and-forth over meanings, interpretations and intentions from all sides, meaning there was never really any solid agreement.

Because UK and the US are the same thing, basically.
That is why Britain exited the EU. Our interests are irreconcilable with theirs. EU is basically France, Germany, Italy.

Unfortunately, true peace can only happen when all parties actually want it and at that point (and indeed now), neither Russia or Ukraine seem to be of that mind. And that is ultimately down to them and their leaders, not anyone else.

Peace is absolutely doable.
Those four regions are regions where people speak Russian, mostly.
So Ukraine can renounce them and move on.
By focusing on becoming a EU member state.

 

[HonestJoe]

Of course not. He had to consult with the real masters of the US first. The unelected élites.

Again, that is just your empty assertion. All we have here is Putin's claim about discussing this with Clinton (I couldn't find anything from Clinton about this). Even if Clinton did say what Putin claims, you've literally nothing to back up your assertion of why he changed his answer.

The facts remain that NATO is a equal membership treaty organisation. No individual national leader (or even mysterious "unelected elites") has the authority to accept or dismiss any prospective new member. If Putin really had an intention to join NATO, he could have actually gone to NATO and made that official. That would bring all of the (inevitable) objections to the fore and allow the request to be discussed in public.

I think it is obvious that the prospect of Russia joining NATO would be massive and would involve a long and messy process if it were to happen, though it is certainly not impossible. I'm not convinced that Putin would want to go through all of that nor that NATO would be willing to fast-track the process. America didn't stop it happening, history and reality did.

The US did anything to isolate, boycott and antagonize the Russian Federation. Since 2000.

As Russia has (tried to) with the US. They both suffer from political cores formed by the Cold War and act as if they are still the two unique super-powers struggling with each other for control of the world.

It may be simplistic but that's what happened.
They colonized Ukraine, destroying its sovereignty and bribing money-hungry politicians and oligarchs.

Those oligarchs were Russian, not American. The idea that Ukraine was exclusively manipulated or controlled by the US is ridiculous. Russia was at least as much involved.

At least you admit that the response of Kiev was unbalanced.

That is because I'm approaching the topic from a neutral realist position rather than one of partisan bias and conspiracy.

Of course this doesn't justify the ultimate invasion of Ukraine.

I'm confused now. When you asked in your OP about whether Putin is wrong, I assumed you meant in general, including his decision to invade Ukraine (first semi-covertly from 2014 and then semi-openly in 2022). I think you need to clarify exactly what you're saying Putin was right about and what (if anything) he was wrong about.

Enlighten me. What was wrong with the Minsk agreement and how you would have corrected them.

The general view is that the protocol was too complex and tried to do too much in one go. Because the fighting continued during the negotiations, there was immediate disagreement over where the definitive frontline should be, and fighting continued over areas gained/lost during that time, notably Donetsk Airport. That is why almost immediate follow-ups, leading to Minsk 2, were deemed necessary, but as more of the same, they didn't make any difference.

I certainly don't pretend to be able to do any better in the circumstances, but I think it would have been better if they could have secured a ceasefire first and only then move on to discussing a permanent end to the conflict and post-war political steps.

You forget that the Kiev government used artillery and aircraft on Donbas civilians, with the excuse that they sided with separatists.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to there. There were certainly civilian casualties, sadly inevitable with heavy urban conflict, but I'm not aware of anything supporting Ukraine actively targeting non-combatants. I'm also not aware of any specific incident Russia cited as a justification for sending more forces in to Donbas. Their support continued pretty much unchanged, before, during and after Minsk. Neither side were perfect and neither side followed the basic requirements of Minsk.

Crimea is inhabited by Russians. Russians who speak Russian. So if the Kiev Government wants to occupy Crimea, they will commit a crime against Crimeans: the violation of Crimeans' right of self-determination.

It is now because it was occupied by Russia and most of the Ukrainians (regardless of first language) were forced out. Prior to 2014, Crimea was legally Ukrainian, inhabited by Ukrainians and Russians (and Tartars), which is why most of the world don't recognise the legality of Russia's occupation. What happens in the future is an open question.

You fail to explain why. Go into detail.

Because it was five years later and literally none of the Minsk protocol points had come close to being met by any party. The situation had moved on massively by that point (and certainly has since) so a different agreement would be necessary to resolve it.

Can you prove that Zelenskyy doesn't work for Washington DC?
Or at least...that he isn't asked to align with an agenda coming from the WH?

That isn't how this works. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. You made the assertion so it is on you to support it. I'm not denying it is possible to some extent, only that you have provided the slightest bit of logical or evidence to support such definitive assertions.

My instinct is that Zelenskyy works for Ukraine and like any politician, he will align with those he believes will benefit his country. Given the long running active conflict with Russia, it is inevitably that he would look to the US and Western Europe for support, just as Putin has looked to China and Iran. Equally though, Zelenskyy isn't opposed to challenging and criticising those allies and those allies push back against the level of support he demands. In the US specifically at the moment, there is a lot of push-back on Ukrainian support (albeit for a lot of domestic political reasons).

That's why we Europeans will welcome Ukraine into the EU. So it will never be Russia's state puppet again.

Again, if you're saying Putin is right, you'd agree with his that Ukraine is fundamentally part of Russia.

That is why Britain exited the EU. Our interests are irreconcilable with theirs. EU is basically France, Germany, Italy.

You do know that I'm British? I know the reasons for Brexit were pretty much entire grounded in domestic UK politics. Most voters, especially Brexit voters, were grossly ignorant of what the EU actually is (and generally still are).

Peace is absolutely doable.
Those four regions are regions where people speak Russian, mostly.
So Ukraine can renounce them and move on.

Language isn't the be-all and end-all (otherwise there would still be a British Empire). What the actual people of those regions (including those recently forced out) actually want is most important. There was never majority support for them to simply become Russian, what they generally wanted was greater independence but within Ukraine. That is why Russians had to invade and fight locals to take control of them in the first place.

Ukraine can't just renounce those people and Russia can't just take control of them. Those people need to be able to freely and fairly express their own preferences, but that can't be done under occupation or at the end of a gun. And if Putin thinks it can or should be, he is wrong.

 

[Stevicus]

Again, that is just your empty assertion. All we have here is Putin's claim about discussing this with Clinton (I couldn't find anything from Clinton about this). Even if Clinton did say what Putin claims, you've literally nothing to back up your assertion of why he changed his answer.

The facts remain that NATO is a equal membership treaty organisation. No individual national leader (or even mysterious "unelected elites") has the authority to accept or dismiss any prospective new member. If Putin really had an intention to join NATO, he could have actually gone to NATO and made that official. That would bring all of the (inevitable) objections to the fore and allow the request to be discussed in public.

I think it is obvious that the prospect of Russia joining NATO would be massive and would involve a long and messy process if it were to happen, though it is certainly not impossible. I'm not convinced that Putin would want to go through all of that nor that NATO would be willing to fast-track the process. America didn't stop it happening, history and reality did.

I also couldn't find anything about Putin and Clinton discussing the possibility of Russia joining NATO, although even if they didn't, it might not have been a bad idea 25 years ago when there was a window of opportunity for closer ties and a more cooperative relationship. If we had become allies with Russia, then it would have strengthened our alliance and led to a combined effort to permanently quash various threats and hot spots around the world, such as in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc. We would likely have very few problems with any of these nations if we had a solid, unified alliance with Russia. Even China would probably be hesitant to do any saber-rattling over Taiwan or the South China Sea.

The geopolitics of the world could have been far more stable today if America had more intelligent and circumspect leadership in the 1990s. Our government ostensibly did everything they could to wreck the peace dividend that came out of the end of the Cold War.

 

[Estro Felino]

I also couldn't find anything about Putin and Clinton discussing the possibility of Russia joining NATO, although even if they didn't, it might not have been a bad idea 25 years ago when there was a window of opportunity for closer ties and a more cooperative relationship. If we had become allies with Russia, then it would have strengthened our alliance and led to a combined effort to permanently quash various threats and hot spots around the world, such as in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc. We would likely have very few problems with any of these nations if we had a solid, unified alliance with Russia. Even China would probably be hesitant to do any saber-rattling over Taiwan or the South China Sea.

The geopolitics of the world could have been far more stable today if America had more intelligent and circumspect leadership in the 1990s. Our government ostensibly did everything they could to wreck the peace dividend that came out of the end of the Cold War.

That's the real thing. A multipolar world where at least Russia and US are allied and can counter the future world powers: China and India, with incredibly big population.

 

[HonestJoe]

I also couldn't find anything about Putin and Clinton discussing the possibility of Russia joining NATO, although even if they didn't, it might not have been a bad idea 25 years ago when there was a window of opportunity for closer ties and a more cooperative relationship.

I certainly agree that better relationships could and should have been established, but I don't see Russia joining NATO as a viable step in that process, certainly not early on. There would be plenty of other political, social and economic options that would have been much more realistic.

The geopolitics of the world could have been far more stable today if America had more intelligent and circumspect leadership in the 1990s. Our government ostensibly did everything they could to wreck the peace dividend that came out of the end of the Cold War.

Like the OP, I think you're being unfair in focusing your criticism on the US alone. Russian leaders (not least Putin) have been just as complicit in getting the world to the mess we're now in.

 

[Estro Felino]

I certainly agree that better relationships could and should have been established, but I don't see Russia joining NATO as a viable step in that process, certainly not early on. There would be plenty of other political, social and economic options that would have been much more realistic.

I said something very different.
I said that countries like Germany, Italy, Austria have done anything to build bridges with Russia. Also cultural and political bridges of mutual respect.
Au contraire, US or UK or the Baltics have done anything to antagonize Putin throughout 20 years. Will you admit to that?

Like the OP, I think you're being unfair in focusing your criticism on the US alone. Russian leaders (not least Putin) have been just as complicit in getting the world to the mess we're now in.

But it turns out that Russia never did anything to my country. The Obama administration destabilized the Mediterranean, by supporting unrest in Libya and in Syria.
I know that you guys consider the Mediterranean a British lake...but it's our home. So we want this area of the world to be politically stable.

 

[Stevicus]

I certainly agree that better relationships could and should have been established, but I don't see Russia joining NATO as a viable step in that process, certainly not early on. There would be plenty of other political, social and economic options that would have been much more realistic.

True, it wouldn't have necessarily required them to join NATO as a full member, but a cooperative relationship was certainly possible back then. The Russians were clearly far more willing to cooperate with us than we were with them. That was the problem.

Like the OP, I think you're being unfair in focusing your criticism on the US alone. Russian leaders (not least Putin) have been just as complicit in getting the world to the mess we're now in.

I'm not criticizing just the U.S. alone. However, I don't agree that Russian leaders "have been just as complicit," since Russia never really had the same level of power or global projection that the U.S. has enjoyed. We were in the catbird seat and in the strongest position to shape and influence the world. We may not be able to control the choices of other nations, but we can control our own choices. If we made bad choices, we have to be willing to own up to it, despite what others might do. And, since we were in the position we were in, it would have been necessary to be cognizant of how our choices might impact and influence the choices of other nations.

I think the primary reason why we're in such a mess "now" is mainly because it's the same mess that has existed for centuries. It's only been in more recent times that we in the West have been starting to finally feel the consequences. We've been insulated for quite a long time, but now, the cracks are beginning to show. We're not invulnerable. It's not like the 1950s anymore, when we could do whatever we wanted. The world has changed, and America's national security perceptions must change along with it - or be left behind.

 

[HonestJoe]

I said something very different.
I said that countries like Germany, Italy, Austria have done anything to build bridges with Russia. Also cultural and political bridges of mutual respect.
Au contraire, US or UK or the Baltics have done anything to antagonize Putin throughout 20 years. Will you admit to that?

Again, I don't think it's anything like as simple a binary as that. Pretty much all political leaders and governments will act in what they think is to their personal benefit first and what they think is in their national benefit second. No leader is going to antagonise any other just for the sake of it, though they may well do and say things that do so if they think those things are worth the risk.

The US obviously has a long history and cultural legacy of conflict with Russia so their leaders are less likely to do things that could be perceived as positive for Russia (at least not publicly). The UK has an element of that too, though that has varied significantly based on who has been in power. I think it's also relevant that there have been a number of murders/attempted murders in the UK that are generally recognised as being linked to the Russia state.

I'm sure the public perceptions are somewhat different on the continent and therefore their politicians will have more flexibility on the matter. I'd argue that much of that is due to necessity (particularly around oil and gas supplies) as any particular desire to be closer to the Putin administration.

The Baltic states are entirely different, being as they were essentially occupied by the USSR from WW2 until it's dissolution, so it's understandable for them to be concerned by a Russian administration that is looking to expand it's sphere of influence and seems to loo to elements of the Soviet era positively.

Even that is simplistic and limited (due to my lack of expertise as much as anything). International relations are never straight forwards, even in times or calm and peace, so you can't really make any definitive or binary statement on generalised elements in the field.

But it turns out that Russia never did anything to my country. The Obama administration destabilized the Mediterranean, by supporting unrest in Libya and in Syria.

Its not just about your country or your region though. Also, Russia has had a lot of involvement in North Africa too, it just generally isn't as obvious (not least because of the extensive limitations on media there). It's how Wagner built up their power and influence after all.

I'm not saying the US is all good or that Russia is all bad, but I am challenging the implication of the opposite.

Incidentally, you didn't answer my key question of exactly what you were referring to in the context of Putin being wrong (or indeed, right).

 

[Estro Felino]

The facts remain that NATO is a equal membership treaty organisation. No individual national leader (or even mysterious "unelected elites") has the authority to accept or dismiss any prospective new member.

Perfect. So does it mean that if the majority of the NATO member states (let's say the 75%) decides to yield to Putin's requests, and to give him the four regions for the sake of peace...the United Kingdom and the United States will respect this decision?

If Putin really had an intention to join NATO, he could have actually gone to NATO and made that official. That would bring all of the (inevitable) objections to the fore and allow the request to be discussed in public.

It doesn't work that way. Diplomatic operations are done in private before being made public. Not to disappoint the people, later.

I think it is obvious that the prospect of Russia joining NATO would be massive and would involve a long and messy process if it were to happen, though it is certainly not impossible. I'm not convinced that Putin would want to go through all of that nor that NATO would be willing to fast-track the process. America didn't stop it happening, history and reality did.

The American government's malicious behavior towards Putin in 2000s shows Putin is right.

That is because I'm approaching the topic from a neutral realist position rather than one of partisan bias and conspiracy.

I am not a biased person. I am a very balanced and super partes person.
If I were pro-Putin, I would say: "let Russia conquer all of Ukraine".
And yet I said "let Ukraine join the EU, so it can never become a Russia's puppet state".

I am a very balanced person. I don't say: one part is godly, the other devilish. I am more rational than that.

The general view is that the protocol was too complex and tried to do too much in one go. Because the fighting continued during the negotiations, there was immediate disagreement over where the definitive frontline should be, and fighting continued over areas gained/lost during that time, notably Donetsk Airport. That is why almost immediate follow-ups, leading to Minsk 2, were deemed necessary, but as more of the same, they didn't make any difference.

They had 8 years to respect the Minsk agreements.

It is now because it was occupied by Russia and most of the Ukrainians (regardless of first language) were forced out. Prior to 2014, Crimea was legally Ukrainian, inhabited by Ukrainians and Russians (and Tartars), which is why most of the world don't recognise the legality of Russia's occupation. What happens in the future is an open question.

That referendum is valid. Ergo Crimea is a republic of the Russian Federation.

My instinct is that Zelenskyy works for Ukraine and like any politician, he will align with those he believes will benefit his country. Given the long running active conflict with Russia, it is inevitably that he would look to the US and Western Europe for support, just as Putin has looked to China and Iran. Equally though, Zelenskyy isn't opposed to challenging and criticising those allies and those allies push back against the level of support he demands. In the US specifically at the moment, there is a lot of push-back on Ukrainian support (albeit for a lot of domestic political reasons).

He is not autonomous, economically.
He totally and utterly depends on Western aid, and he is in real trouble.
Because the US Government will not send him billions any more.
The EU will administer the funding, and it will not be spent on suicidal military operations, but in the reconstruction of the country.

You do know that I'm British? I know the reasons for Brexit were pretty much entire grounded in domestic UK politics. Most voters, especially Brexit voters, were grossly ignorant of what the EU actually is (and generally still are).

Tell me: do you want the UK to be in the EU?

 

[HonestJoe]

Perfect. So does it mean that if the majority of the NATO member states (let's say the 75%) decides to yield to Putin's requests, and to give him the four regions for the sake of peace...the United Kingdom and the United States will respect this decision?

NATO can't give Putin any part of a sovereign nation, even one of their own, let alone a third party. That aspect would be entirely down to the people of Ukraine via their elected representatives.

NATO membership formally requires agreement from all existing members, but in the majority had solid reasoning that Russia joining was the right thing, they should be able to convince the others. I don't think that reasoning existed in the 2000s and it certainly doesn't now, so it's something of a moot point.

It doesn't work that way. Diplomatic operations are done in private before being made public. Not to disappoint the people, later.

Initially discussions would but any serious intention couldn't be. For a start, a prospective member would first need to be clear that their own citizens wanted to be committed to something so significant (in a normal democratic nation at least).

The American government's malicious behavior towards Putin in 2000s shows Putin is right.

You've still not clarified exactly what you're saying Putin is right about (and, if only be exclusive, what he isn't).

Regardless, America and Russia have long been mutually malicious against each other since the end of WW2. Russia has been on the economic and political (though not necessarily military) back foot through much of that time but that doesn't mean they carried any less (or more) underlying malice.

If I were pro-Putin, I would say: "let Russia conquer all of Ukraine".

I didn't say you were pro-Putin, but you're certainly pushing an anti-American line. This isn't a "good guys" and "bad guys" situation.

They had 8 years to respect the Minsk agreements.

All parties had years to respect Minsk but none of them did and since the first step of a ceasefire never happened, none of the following steps were ever possible. The unfortunate fact is that Minsk failed pretty much immediately.

That referendum is valid. Ergo Crimea is a republic of the Russian Federation.

I don't see how you can say that. Crimea was operating with a local government as part of Ukraine, even with the political vacuum in Kiev following the Maiden protests. Russian forces (without insignia) took the opportunity to occupy the region, forcing out many of the pro-Ukrainian citizens and politicians. The remaining politicians were literally held at gun-point as they voted for the referendum to happen and the vote itself, after multiple shifts in date and wording, was held under that foreign military occupation.

I don't see how you can call Maiden a coup (with some good reason) yet call the occupation of Crimea perfectly legitimate. And if you think it was, why wouldn't it be equally valid for Ukraine to take it back via the same means?

He is not autonomous, economically.

Not now, but Ukraine largely was prior to the invasion, and certainly wasn't especially reliant on the US. Your assertion that Zelenskyy "works for Washington DC" is totally unsupported.

Clearly he has to manage the diplomacy and politics with all of the nations that are supporting their defence, but his underlying motive will remain doing what (he believes) is best for Ukraine rather than having some kind of specific loyalty to any outside forces.

Tell me: do you want the UK to be in the EU?

I voted remain and think we would be much better off if we hadn't left. I don't think re-joining is viable in the immediate future but I'd be for it on a basis that would return the benefits and not cause too much further disruption. I feel that is the position of the majority of British people (if not the headlines of most British tabloids).

 

[JIMMY12345]

So, after extraordinary and absolutely historic interview with Putin (made by T. Carlson), I have understood that:

- In 2000 Putin had asked Clinton to join in the NATO, because he wanted perpetual peace between the West and Eastern Europe after 50 years of cold war.
But Clinton replied him that it was not possible, meaning: that Russia was not welcomed. So, as a consequence, the US are to blame for this new cold war, because they did anything to isolate, boycott and antagonize the Russian Federation.

- An array of elitist people coming from the US has wanted to colonize Ukraine and to turn it into a anti-Russian military base. They funded the Maidan coup in 2014, and they pushed the Kiev government to persecute the Russian-speaking people of Donbas in order to provoke Putin and to lure him into a trap.
That is, forcing him to invade Donbas to rescue the Donbas civilians, mercilessly attacked by the government in Kiev.

- Putin wasn't fooled by that trap, and signed the two Minsk agreements instead, which were meant to force Germany and France to be guarantors and Ukraine to respect the two self-proclaimed Donbas republics, Luhansk and Donetsk. In the meantime, Russia funded the separatists of Donbas, so they could at least defend themselves; and annexed Crimea, which had made a referendum to get out of that Inferno called Ukraine. As a consequence, the Obama administration antagonized Putin and Russia was excluded from the G8 and the Council of Europe. As a punishment.

- Despite the restless efforts of France and Germany to convince Zelenskyy to respect the Minsk agreements, Zelenskyy was expected to obey the elites of the United States, who ordered him to deceive Europeans, and not to respect the Minsk agreements. Macron went to Kiev in 2022 to be reassured, but after he returned to France, Zelenskyy surely obeying his masters overseas, said that he would not respect the Minsk agreements.

-Putin, seeing that Zelenskyy was against the Minsk agreements, had no other option than to invade. In this war, he reached Kiev to denazify it as they say, but he was persuaded to withdraw the troops to start the peace negotiations in Istanbul.
The text of the peace agreement had already been drafted: at the last moment, British PM Johnson ordered Zelenskyy not to sign it. That is why in 2022, the war continued, even if it could have been ended in Summer 2022.

- Of course the CIA blew up the two Nordstream Pipelines to boycott Putin, and to prevent him from getting money from the sale of natural gas to Germany. Money that he would have spent on the war.


This is a very, very, very serious thread, so I will be as strict as possible, by not allowing:
1) name calling towards Carlson or Putin
2) speaking of Trump . This is about Europe.
3) changing subject, going off topic
4) ad hominems

Merci beaucoup...mes chers.

I think you are entirely right we should drop "president" putin in view of Navalny.All of us should just use "putin" from now on well done very good idea.You do come up with exceptionally brilliant ideas.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think you are entirely right we should drop "president" putin in view of Navalny.All of us should just use "putin" from now on well done very good idea.You do come up with exceptionally brilliant ideas.

I think we should use 'this person', just as he wouldn't use Navalny's name but just said 'that person' apparently. And he is definitely off my Xmas card list.

 

[JIMMY12345]

I do respect you and nothing personal.However in Religious forums you are the SOLE VOICE of support for Putin.This speaks volumes.
You can always defect and come over to our side we will support you

 

[Estro Felino]

I do respect you and nothing personal.However in Religious forums you are the SOLE VOICE of support for Putin.This speaks volumes.
You can always defect and come over to our side we will support you

The 90% of the people here are from the US.
I guess...that is a significant detail.

Just come to my country...and ask people around. Whether thy support Putin or Zely.