Ukraine

[Bristol Red Rover]

I wonder if BRR could run by us how a peace deal, shortly after Putin's War started, was meant to work, with Russian forces all over sovereign Ukrainian soil and Russian troops torturing pensioners and raping babies outside Kyiv?

Ask the people who were forming it, including Zelensky.

[Iberian Red]

Ask what?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Russell Brand asking the question “Did NATO expansion play a pivotal role in triggering Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”.

But no new ex-USSR states joined NATO between 2004 and the invasion. Am I missing something here?

BRR, what would that proposed peace deal have looked like?

Another question. Do you think that Eastern European and former Soviet countries would be safer without NATO?

1) I don't know, but likely with Ukraine ceding Crimea. Some or all of the Donbas probably also. All of which is a far better deal than Ukraine would get now. But as I said, ask Zelensky, the Israeli PM, the Turks, The German Chancellor etc. And the Yanks and Boris who stepped in to persuade Zelensky that he's better off with hundreds of thousands of his people dead, his economy ruined, millions who will never return to Ukraine etc etc

2) I think most of those countries are safer with NATO. Ukraine is not the same as a random Eastern Euro nation, and far from the average former soviet state. I think in life we all should be able to discern a step too far, and NATO etc knew this too. They wanted a proxy war. Evil.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Ask what?

Huh?

[Iberian Red]

Ask what?

Huh?

Ask the people who were forming it what!
 That was your quote

[Bristol Red Rover]

Ask what?

Huh?

Ask the people who were forming it what!
 That was your quote

Read what I replied to:
"I wonder if BRR could run by us how a peace deal, shortly after Putin's War started, was meant to work"

[ncRover]

Russell Brand asking the question “Did NATO expansion play a pivotal role in triggering Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”.

But no new ex-USSR states joined NATO between 2004 and the invasion. Am I missing something here?

BRR, what would that proposed peace deal have looked like?

Another question. Do you think that Eastern European and former Soviet countries would be safer without NATO?

1) I don't know, but likely with Ukraine ceding Crimea. Some or all of the Donbas probably also. All of which is a far better deal than Ukraine would get now. But as I said, ask Zelensky, the Israeli PM, the Turks, The German Chancellor etc. And the Yanks and Boris who stepped in to persuade Zelensky that he's better off with hundreds of thousands of his people dead, his economy ruined, millions who will never return to Ukraine etc etc

2) I think most of those countries are safer with NATO. Ukraine is not the same as a random Eastern Euro nation, and far from the average former soviet state. I think in life we all should be able to discern a step too far, and NATO etc knew this too. They wanted a proxy war. Evil.

Ok thanks, extremely sceptical but just want to work out your side of the argument.

How did NATO provoke Russia? Please provide some evidence. Like I said, no new NATO members in Eastern Europe between 2004 and the invasion.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Ok thanks, extremely sceptical but just want to work out your side of the argument.

How did NATO provoke Russia? Please provide some evidence. Like I said, no new NATO members in Eastern Europe between 2004 and the invasion.

There is the strange idea some have that NATO isn't the USA in sheeps clothing. Well, UK too but somewhere between one leg and the tail of that entity. On the face of it, that isn't true but we know how powers work.

You're going to have to watch  some vids/documentaries on the build up to what's happened. There is a lot of mud in the picture though there is well documented engagement by US officials.

Then there is the explicit invite to Ukraine by NATO (in 2007/8), and the EU. Right there was the step over the red line.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Russell Brand asking the question “Did NATO expansion play a pivotal role in triggering Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”.

But no new ex-USSR states joined NATO between 2004 and the invasion. Am I missing something here?

BRR, what would that proposed peace deal have looked like?

Another question. Do you think that Eastern European and former Soviet countries would be safer without NATO?

1) I don't know, but likely with Ukraine ceding Crimea. Some or all of the Donbas probably also. All of which is a far better deal than Ukraine would get now. But as I said, ask Zelensky, the Israeli PM, the Turks, The German Chancellor etc. And the Yanks and Boris who stepped in to persuade Zelensky that he's better off with hundreds of thousands of his people dead, his economy ruined, millions who will never return to Ukraine etc etc

2) I think most of those countries are safer with NATO. Ukraine is not the same as a random Eastern Euro nation, and far from the average former soviet state. I think in life we all should be able to discern a step too far, and NATO etc knew this too. They wanted a proxy war. Evil.

Ok thanks, extremely sceptical but just want to work out your side of the argument.

How did NATO provoke Russia? Please provide some evidence. Like I said, no new NATO members in Eastern Europe between 2004 and the invasion.

I'm not sure how BRR comes to the conclusion that a peace deal in Feb/March 2022 would be better than anything they'd get now.

Given that they have since driven Putin's horde out of a third of the land they then occupied. And given that any "peace" deal would have explicitly rewarded Putin for his aggression, and left him with his entire armed forces intact and victorious.

Still, I'm sure there's some Telegram account run from St Petersburg telling him that's the line.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've often wondered who the people were in Autumn 1939, and Spring 1940 pushing the line that we should have cut a deal with Hitler. But we now see their 21st century equivalents every day.

[ncRover]

Ok thanks, extremely sceptical but just want to work out your side of the argument.

How did NATO provoke Russia? Please provide some evidence. Like I said, no new NATO members in Eastern Europe between 2004 and the invasion.

There is the strange idea some have that NATO isn't the USA in sheeps clothing. Well, UK too but somewhere between one leg and the tail of that entity. On the face of it, that isn't true but we know how powers work.

You're going to have to watch  some vids/documentaries on the build up to what's happened. There is a lot of mud in the picture though there is well documented engagement by US officials.

Then there is the explicit invite to Ukraine by NATO (in 2007/8), and the EU. Right there was the step over the red line.

Why was it a step over the line with Ukraine?

Ukraine expressed an interest in joining in 2002. Years before NATO suggested there could be a possibility of them joining in 2007/08. Of course they still haven’t.

“The political structures of the Warsaw Pact were dissolved in Prague on 1 July 1991. This marked the final dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The dissolution followed an agreement to cease military cooperation within the Warsaw Pact, which was signed in Budapest on 25 February 1991.

After 36 years of existence, the Warsaw Pact came to an end as Soviet military commanders announced they had relinquished control of Warsaw Pact forces on 31 March 1991. The USSR dissolved in December 1991.”

Russian parliament was created in 1991 but then dissolved in 1993 by Yeltsin and replaced with a “super-presedential system” that could not be overruled effectively.

How would you have felt as a citizen of a former Soviet state hearing that after living through the nightmare of communism in and Russian imperial rule?

Perhaps you as an old school lefty (correct me if I’m wrong) are naturally inclined to fight vociferously against a domineering imperial power. But Russia in the 20th and now 21st century have been more of one than NATO/US/UK. Unless you’re a Marxist and sympathetic to the former glory of the Soviet Union?

[River Don]

I think what BRR is getting at is that he is of the same mind as Putin, that 'the' Ukraine isn't a real country, is a part of Russia and so that legitimises this war in someway. In particular Putin feels the parts of Ukraine where the majority speak Russian belong to him. Which is why when he couldn't get the whole country he's focused on the Donbas.

It's the same reason Hitler gave for marching into Sudetenland. It's the reason the Baltic states are stopping the teaching of Russian in their schools.

But we know Putins ambitions go way beyond Ukraine anyway because he's told us. He's set on trying to rebuild a new Russian empire. He has to be stopped now in Ukraine, otherwise he will simply rebuild his forces, recruit a whole load of Ukrainians and then set out for Moldova. Then goodness knows where next.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I think what BRR is getting at is that he is of the same mind as Putin, that 'the' Ukraine isn't a real country, is a part of Russia and so that legitimises this war in someway. In particular Putin feels the parts of Ukraine where the majority speak Russian belong to him. Which is why when he couldn't get the whole country he's focused on the Donbas.

It's the same reason Hitler gave for marching into Sudetenland. It's the reason the Baltic states are stopping the teaching of Russian in their schools.

But we know Putins ambitions go way beyond Ukraine anyway because he's told us. He's set on trying to rebuild a new Russian empire. He has to be stopped now in Ukraine, otherwise he will simply rebuild his forces, recruit a whole load of Ukrainians and then set out for Moldova. Then goodness knows where next.

Some countries have more established borders than others, some of those countries borders are based on well established ethnicities and so on. Ukraine is at best on the weaker side in all this. Even it's name mean borderlands. Maybe there's a rule in some peoples minds, that as from now, no borders are changed. This would be ignoring history and the way nations and powers are in flux, moreso in some regions than others.

Anyway, that said, Ukraine is a complex place but of course has some established being over the ages. More recently it is larger and isn't so clear. Crimea was never part of Ukraine bar from a twist of politics in the last century whereby it was gifted but still part of the USSR. Russia and Ukraine were establishing the Minsk agreements whereby the Donbas would be a self governing region within Ukraine. Ukraine sent the troops in, and then Russia leaked in militarily. A semi autonomis Donbas may well have joined Russia in the futiure. Either way, the Donbas is more Russia than Ukraine in essence, so just looking at that, what's happened is no great surprise to anyone including the US who at least encouraged Ukraine to use its military there.

Putin almost certainly always wanted the Donbas to be Russian, as did a large part of Russians, as did a large part of the Donbas population. To be referring to "Putin" at every turn in discussing this is regurgitating western propaganda, aiming at the man rather than the issue. This is naiive and mistaken, and as such operating from a lie does nothing to engage with the situation in a grounded way. It is good propaganda though, so does have a purpose, is a weapon.

I think you're confused as to the path of this conflict. Beyond the Crimea issue, this all started because of the Donbas, it was not about Ukraine as a whole. That is where it escalated to. There is no doubt as things stand that at least the majority of the Donbas will remain Russian, that was the minimum aim for Russia. Following the collapse of the Minsk agreements, then the landbridge to Crimea was added on. It is now highly likely that will never be given up - Ukraine went all out this summer and gained a few fields, literally, and lost tens of thousands of troops kia and getting on for half its armour, air defences and artillery.

The initial push at Kiev may have been a genuine attempt to take it, more likely a chancing, but definitely a distraction whilst that Crimea landbridge was taken. Now, who knows, hopefully a peace deal will be done where lives are saved and pretty much territory would stay as is. If the war goes on without NATO troops being involved, then Ukraine will lose far more territory. I doubt Russia wants anything west of Kiev.

Before all this, the lines of NATO were accepted by Russia (again, far from just Putin). I think they still are, though just as the US has interfered in Ukraine, Russia may interfere in Moldova or other places. I cannot see it "invading", at least not in the near future. Long future anything can happen in the world, we cannot know, except that ruling elites of any kind are greedy, always have been, always will be. Nothing done immediately now to "stem the tide" of Russia, for example, will make a jot of difference in the longer future, and as I said, there is no way Russia will invade in the near future - at the very least, I refer you to nukes.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Perhaps you as an old school lefty (correct me if I’m wrong) are naturally inclined to fight vociferously against a domineering imperial power. But Russia in the 20th and now 21st century have been more of one than NATO/US/UK. Unless you’re a Marxist and sympathetic to the former glory of the Soviet Union?

Old school lefty - not reallly. I am sympathetic to marxism - see here for views of marxism that ring very true to me. It's a fantastic discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru4rfzFasaI

You think Russia has been more active militarily, and domineering in recent times than the US/NATO/UK? No idea how you work that out. And if you take into account regime changing darkness then...

You might loathe him, and I don't go with all he says, but here he pretty much nails in a simple way the current NATO issue, with clear evidence. Easy to watch, only 17 mins though a fuller, not much longer vid is on Rumble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aCDThaJ9zw

[Bristol Red Rover]

I've often wondered who the people were in Autumn 1939, and Spring 1940 pushing the line that we should have cut a deal with Hitler. But we now see their 21st century equivalents every day.

Your lost in an anachronistic fog. Comforting for you, avoiding seeing what's around right now.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I'm not sure how BRR comes to the conclusion that a peace deal in Feb/March 2022 would be better than anything they'd get now.

Given that they have since driven Putin's horde out of a third of the land they then occupied. And given that any "peace" deal would have explicitly rewarded Putin for his aggression, and left him with his entire armed forces intact and victorious.

Still, I'm sure there's some Telegram account run from St Petersburg telling him that's the line.

Deluded. Even the most pro Ukraine person cannot think Ukraine is winning anything, not if they pay even the slightest attention beyond outright propaganda. Ukraine has thrown its everything at Russia this summer, gained a few fields. Russia has increased it's forces massively and held the line whilst Ukraine has thrown its army into killing zones. Ukraine has, just this summer lost so many soldiers lives and most of it's hardware. Russian losses are far less, not insignificant but far less. It can mobilise many more, but maybe doesn't need to. We'll see.

[River Don]

I think what BRR is getting at is that he is of the same mind as Putin, that 'the' Ukraine isn't a real country, is a part of Russia and so that legitimises this war in someway. In particular Putin feels the parts of Ukraine where the majority speak Russian belong to him. Which is why when he couldn't get the whole country he's focused on the Donbas.

It's the same reason Hitler gave for marching into Sudetenland. It's the reason the Baltic states are stopping the teaching of Russian in their schools.

But we know Putins ambitions go way beyond Ukraine anyway because he's told us. He's set on trying to rebuild a new Russian empire. He has to be stopped now in Ukraine, otherwise he will simply rebuild his forces, recruit a whole load of Ukrainians and then set out for Moldova. Then goodness knows where next.

Some countries have more established borders than others, some of those countries borders are based on well established ethnicities and so on. Ukraine is at best on the weaker side in all this. Even it's name mean borderlands. Maybe there's a rule in some peoples minds, that as from now, no borders are changed. This would be ignoring history and the way nations and powers are in flux, moreso in some regions than others.

Anyway, that said, Ukraine is a complex place but of course has some established being over the ages. More recently it is larger and isn't so clear. Crimea was never part of Ukraine bar from a twist of politics in the last century whereby it was gifted but still part of the USSR. Russia and Ukraine were establishing the Minsk agreements whereby the Donbas would be a self governing region within Ukraine. Ukraine sent the troops in, and then Russia leaked in militarily. A semi autonomis Donbas may well have joined Russia in the futiure. Either way, the Donbas is more Russia than Ukraine in essence, so just looking at that, what's happened is no great surprise to anyone including the US who at least encouraged Ukraine to use its military there.

Putin almost certainly always wanted the Donbas to be Russian, as did a large part of Russians, as did a large part of the Donbas population. To be referring to "Putin" at every turn in discussing this is regurgitating western propaganda, aiming at the man rather than the issue. This is naiive and mistaken, and as such operating from a lie does nothing to engage with the situation in a grounded way. It is good propaganda though, so does have a purpose, is a weapon.

I think you're confused as to the path of this conflict. Beyond the Crimea issue, this all started because of the Donbas, it was not about Ukraine as a whole. That is where it escalated to. There is no doubt as things stand that at least the majority of the Donbas will remain Russian, that was the minimum aim for Russia. Following the collapse of the Minsk agreements, then the landbridge to Crimea was added on. It is now highly likely that will never be given up - Ukraine went all out this summer and gained a few fields, literally, and lost tens of thousands of troops kia and getting on for half its armour, air defences and artillery.

The initial push at Kiev may have been a genuine attempt to take it, more likely a chancing, but definitely a distraction whilst that Crimea landbridge was taken. Now, who knows, hopefully a peace deal will be done where lives are saved and pretty much territory would stay as is. If the war goes on without NATO troops being involved, then Ukraine will lose far more territory. I doubt Russia wants anything west of Kiev.

Before all this, the lines of NATO were accepted by Russia (again, far from just Putin). I think they still are, though just as the US has interfered in Ukraine, Russia may interfere in Moldova or other places. I cannot see it "invading", at least not in the near future. Long future anything can happen in the world, we cannot know, except that ruling elites of any kind are greedy, always have been, always will be. Nothing done immediately now to "stem the tide" of Russia, for example, will make a jot of difference in the longer future, and as I said, there is no way Russia will invade in the near future - at the very least, I refer you to nukes.

There is a rule now, since WWII that no borders are changed by military force. That is the rule the west is belatedly abiding by. And enforcing.

[River Don]

Russia can't win this, it is a mid sized economy taking on the entire west. Already it is failing, the rouble is worth just 1 American cent. It's oil  income is devastated, Russia has just stopped all its refined oil products being sold abroad because it desperately needs them for its agricultural sector. Russia is being bled dry by the international community.. Interest rates are rocketing. Inflation is rising. Russia has to accept its being pulled in line. The international community cannot afford to back down on this.

Russia cannot be allowed to disrupt the international order. The price is way too high.

[ncRover]

Perhaps you as an old school lefty (correct me if I’m wrong) are naturally inclined to fight vociferously against a domineering imperial power. But Russia in the 20th and now 21st century have been more of one than NATO/US/UK. Unless you’re a Marxist and sympathetic to the former glory of the Soviet Union?

Old school lefty - not reallly. I am sympathetic to marxism - see here for views of marxism that ring very true to me. It's a fantastic discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru4rfzFasaI

You think Russia has been more active militarily, and domineering in recent times than the US/NATO/UK? No idea how you work that out. And if you take into account regime changing darkness then...

You might loathe him, and I don't go with all he says, but here he pretty much nails in a simple way the current NATO issue, with clear evidence. Easy to watch, only 17 mins though a fuller, not much longer vid is on Rumble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aCDThaJ9zw

The point on Marxism and who has been the more destructive force in the 20th and 21st century are intertwined here.

20th century:

“Marxism, as an ideology, has been associated with various political regimes throughout history. The implementation of these regimes has resulted in significant human suffering and loss of life. According to The Black Book of Communism, a compilation by European and American academics, the human cost of genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and artificial famines under communist regimes is estimated to be over 94 million.”

Two thirds of that sum are estimated to be from the Soviet Union.

The 3 Baltic countries were occupied by the red army in 1940 and then annexed in to USSR.

21st century

Yep I’m not a fan of US military intervention in Iraq. I’m not saying they’re perfect.

Of course there’s Afghanistan and Syria too.

Russia have also intervened in Syria let’s not forget.

Then there’s the Chechen war, the Georgian War and now Ukraine. All aimed at expansion, no?

Had a listen to Brand here. I always listen with extra cautiousness with him as he is an intelligent and charming man, but that’s the problem because he can be very disingenuous in the ideas he proclaims and of course his actions.

He had glossed over the fact that the Warsaw pact was dissolved and became obsolete in 1991. Or that previously Eastern Europe has previously been either occupied or at war with Russia.

https://youtu.be/Rh4QU7hxKVg?si=PaIcqGkYdIYIfgVa

Also doesn’t go in to detail about the nature of this “NATO expansion”. Like I said, no new eastern countries between 2004 and the invasion. Please answer this Bristol.

Who is the man delivering the speech in European Parliament?

I wonder if Brand thinks Finland are “asking for it” with joining NATO this year…

Perhaps Russian demographics are more a reason for this aggression. Again here’s Peter Zeihan, sounds a bit more in-depth than Brand don’t you think?

https://youtu.be/KXHZ0IH2rOk?si=a0SSvFz4K-MUyPlD

I’d like to see you pick apart these videos so I can understand your view a bit more.

Back to the Novora Media video, it falls apart straight away for me because it is underpinned by the idea that the “losers” (bit pessimistic) in society get poorer as the rich get richer.

In 1990, 35% of the world’s population (1.9bn people) lived below $1.90 per day. By 2013, this figure was 10.9%, or just 782m. Left wing economic policy..?

[Bristol Red Rover]

I think what BRR is getting at is that he is of the same mind as Putin, that 'the' Ukraine isn't a real country, is a part of Russia and so that legitimises this war in someway. In particular Putin feels the parts of Ukraine where the majority speak Russian belong to him. Which is why when he couldn't get the whole country he's focused on the Donbas.

It's the same reason Hitler gave for marching into Sudetenland. It's the reason the Baltic states are stopping the teaching of Russian in their schools.

But we know Putins ambitions go way beyond Ukraine anyway because he's told us. He's set on trying to rebuild a new Russian empire. He has to be stopped now in Ukraine, otherwise he will simply rebuild his forces, recruit a whole load of Ukrainians and then set out for Moldova. Then goodness knows where next.

Some countries have more established borders than others, some of those countries borders are based on well established ethnicities and so on. Ukraine is at best on the weaker side in all this. Even it's name mean borderlands. Maybe there's a rule in some peoples minds, that as from now, no borders are changed. This would be ignoring history and the way nations and powers are in flux, moreso in some regions than others.

Anyway, that said, Ukraine is a complex place but of course has some established being over the ages. More recently it is larger and isn't so clear. Crimea was never part of Ukraine bar from a twist of politics in the last century whereby it was gifted but still part of the USSR. Russia and Ukraine were establishing the Minsk agreements whereby the Donbas would be a self governing region within Ukraine. Ukraine sent the troops in, and then Russia leaked in militarily. A semi autonomis Donbas may well have joined Russia in the futiure. Either way, the Donbas is more Russia than Ukraine in essence, so just looking at that, what's happened is no great surprise to anyone including the US who at least encouraged Ukraine to use its military there.

Putin almost certainly always wanted the Donbas to be Russian, as did a large part of Russians, as did a large part of the Donbas population. To be referring to "Putin" at every turn in discussing this is regurgitating western propaganda, aiming at the man rather than the issue. This is naiive and mistaken, and as such operating from a lie does nothing to engage with the situation in a grounded way. It is good propaganda though, so does have a purpose, is a weapon.

I think you're confused as to the path of this conflict. Beyond the Crimea issue, this all started because of the Donbas, it was not about Ukraine as a whole. That is where it escalated to. There is no doubt as things stand that at least the majority of the Donbas will remain Russian, that was the minimum aim for Russia. Following the collapse of the Minsk agreements, then the landbridge to Crimea was added on. It is now highly likely that will never be given up - Ukraine went all out this summer and gained a few fields, literally, and lost tens of thousands of troops kia and getting on for half its armour, air defences and artillery.

The initial push at Kiev may have been a genuine attempt to take it, more likely a chancing, but definitely a distraction whilst that Crimea landbridge was taken. Now, who knows, hopefully a peace deal will be done where lives are saved and pretty much territory would stay as is. If the war goes on without NATO troops being involved, then Ukraine will lose far more territory. I doubt Russia wants anything west of Kiev.

Before all this, the lines of NATO were accepted by Russia (again, far from just Putin). I think they still are, though just as the US has interfered in Ukraine, Russia may interfere in Moldova or other places. I cannot see it "invading", at least not in the near future. Long future anything can happen in the world, we cannot know, except that ruling elites of any kind are greedy, always have been, always will be. Nothing done immediately now to "stem the tide" of Russia, for example, will make a jot of difference in the longer future, and as I said, there is no way Russia will invade in the near future - at the very least, I refer you to nukes.

There is a rule now, since WWII that no borders are changed by military force. That is the rule the west is belatedly abiding by. And enforcing.

Cherry picking smokescreens.

What about where the west, mainly the US, keeps the border but instigates regime change? Or just piles in with bombs and tanks. I don't see how that fits with a respect of borders. But let me guess, "respect" was never a part of the western deal?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Russia can't win this, it is a mid sized economy taking on the entire west. Already it is failing, the rouble is worth just 1 American cent. It's oil  income is devastated, Russia has just stopped all its refined oil products being sold abroad because it desperately needs them for its agricultural sector. Russia is being bled dry by the international community.. Interest rates are rocketing. Inflation is rising. Russia has to accept its being pulled in line. The international community cannot afford to back down on this.

Russia cannot be allowed to disrupt the international order. The price is way too high.

Russia has vast wealth. It is not suffering much if any economically. The value of the ruble against the dollar isn't a huge problem.

Further, the financial wealth in the west is massive, but the wealth in terms of steel output, oil, gas, coal, aluminium etc etc is very small compared to the BRICS nations.

The west is already struggling to supply Ukraine on all levels, and Ukraine is struggling to even mobilise troops. Russia has been increasing lots. Already it seems it has more troops on every front, with many many more on their way. even with introducing the longer range missiles, I can't see how the west will win this war. Russia has got progressively stronger, wiser, and Ukraine weaker, more desperate. It's the west that is sick in this slaughter, scuppering peace agreements included.

If you look beyond the western propaganda, you will see this. And that may mean looking at both sets of propaganda and then seeing what's actually happening on the front to see what rings true.

[Bristol Red Rover]

The point on Marxism and who has been the more destructive force in the 20th and 21st century are intertwined here.

20th century:

“Marxism, as an ideology, has been associated with various political regimes throughout history. The implementation of these regimes has resulted in significant human suffering and loss of life. According to The Black Book of Communism, a compilation by European and American academics, the human cost of genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and artificial famines under communist regimes is estimated to be over 94 million.”

Two thirds of that sum are estimated to be from the Soviet Union.

The 3 Baltic countries were occupied by the red army in 1940 and then annexed in to USSR.

21st century

Yep I’m not a fan of US military intervention in Iraq. I’m not saying they’re perfect.

Of course there’s Afghanistan and Syria too.

Russia have also intervened in Syria let’s not forget.

Then there’s the Chechen war, the Georgian War and now Ukraine. All aimed at expansion, no?

Had a listen to Brand here. I always listen with extra cautiousness with him as he is an intelligent and charming man, but that’s the problem because he can be very disingenuous in the ideas he proclaims and of course his actions.

He had glossed over the fact that the Warsaw pact was dissolved and became obsolete in 1991. Or that previously Eastern Europe has previously been either occupied or at war with Russia.

https://youtu.be/Rh4QU7hxKVg?si=PaIcqGkYdIYIfgVa

Also doesn’t go in to detail about the nature of this “NATO expansion”. Like I said, no new eastern countries between 2004 and the invasion. Please answer this Bristol.

Who is the man delivering the speech in European Parliament?

I wonder if Brand thinks Finland are “asking for it” with joining NATO this year…

Perhaps Russian demographics are more a reason for this aggression. Again here’s Peter Zeihan, sounds a bit more in-depth than Brand don’t you think?

https://youtu.be/KXHZ0IH2rOk?si=a0SSvFz4K-MUyPlD

I’d like to see you pick apart these videos so I can understand your view a bit more.

Back to the Novora Media video, it falls apart straight away for me because it is underpinned by the idea that the “losers” (bit pessimistic) in society get poorer as the rich get richer.

In 1990, 35% of the world’s population (1.9bn people) lived below $1.90 per day. By 2013, this figure was 10.9%, or just 782m. Left wing economic policy..?

You didn't watch that vid did you  Go read about marxism, not how it's mainly being *said* to have been implemented, and then coming out with a blithe "liberal" response. And thos stats - really.... I can respond to that, but later.

A very weird list of countries invaded there. How about Libya, Serbia, Panama, etc, and then regime changes in countless countries.

I'm pretty sure in the Brand vid that guy who made clear the NATO issue was named, and worked for NATO.

I'll look at your vid links later

[ncRover]

The point on Marxism and who has been the more destructive force in the 20th and 21st century are intertwined here.

20th century:

“Marxism, as an ideology, has been associated with various political regimes throughout history. The implementation of these regimes has resulted in significant human suffering and loss of life. According to The Black Book of Communism, a compilation by European and American academics, the human cost of genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and artificial famines under communist regimes is estimated to be over 94 million.”

Two thirds of that sum are estimated to be from the Soviet Union.

The 3 Baltic countries were occupied by the red army in 1940 and then annexed in to USSR.

21st century

Yep I’m not a fan of US military intervention in Iraq. I’m not saying they’re perfect.

Of course there’s Afghanistan and Syria too.

Russia have also intervened in Syria let’s not forget.

Then there’s the Chechen war, the Georgian War and now Ukraine. All aimed at expansion, no?

Had a listen to Brand here. I always listen with extra cautiousness with him as he is an intelligent and charming man, but that’s the problem because he can be very disingenuous in the ideas he proclaims and of course his actions.

He had glossed over the fact that the Warsaw pact was dissolved and became obsolete in 1991. Or that previously Eastern Europe has previously been either occupied or at war with Russia.

https://youtu.be/Rh4QU7hxKVg?si=PaIcqGkYdIYIfgVa

Also doesn’t go in to detail about the nature of this “NATO expansion”. Like I said, no new eastern countries between 2004 and the invasion. Please answer this Bristol.

Who is the man delivering the speech in European Parliament?

I wonder if Brand thinks Finland are “asking for it” with joining NATO this year…

Perhaps Russian demographics are more a reason for this aggression. Again here’s Peter Zeihan, sounds a bit more in-depth than Brand don’t you think?

https://youtu.be/KXHZ0IH2rOk?si=a0SSvFz4K-MUyPlD

I’d like to see you pick apart these videos so I can understand your view a bit more.

Back to the Novora Media video, it falls apart straight away for me because it is underpinned by the idea that the “losers” (bit pessimistic) in society get poorer as the rich get richer.

In 1990, 35% of the world’s population (1.9bn people) lived below $1.90 per day. By 2013, this figure was 10.9%, or just 782m. Left wing economic policy..?

You didn't watch that vid did you  Go read about marxism, not how it's mainly being *said* to have been implemented, and then coming out with a blithe "liberal" response. And thos stats - really.... I can respond to that, but later.

A very weird list of countries invaded there. How about Libya, Serbia, Panama, etc, and then regime changes in countless countries.

I'm pretty sure in the Brand vid that guy who made clear the NATO issue was named, and worked for NATO.

I'll look at your vid links later

I like how Brand jokes that he couldn’t make a video criticising the Russian government then goes on to divulge in their propaganda for the rest of the video.

Ok I’m sure there’s a higher number of his colleagues who believe otherwise though.

How did Serbia, Libya and Panama antagonise Russia then?

What NATO expansion threatened the safety of Russians? Please state explicitly where and how this resulted in the Ukraine invasion.

[Bristol Red Rover]

How did Serbia, Libya and Panama antagonise Russia then?

What NATO expansion threatened the safety of Russians? Please state explicitly where and how this resulted in the Ukraine invasion.

They antagonised the US.

Obviously, the creeping of NATO and its missiles towards Moscow isn't going to feel good. It was made clear by Russia that Ukraine was a no go, for obvious reasons. As per the vid you did watch, NATO knew this. Obviously so. That in itself is enough to know. It was a contribution to the invasion. Other factors included issues relating to the Minsk agreements, and the Ukraine coup that led to Ukraine attacking Donbas.

I'll reply more fully later but tell me, what was factual and what was propaganda in Brands vid?

[Bristol Red Rover]

The point on Marxism and who has been the more destructive force in the 20th and 21st century are intertwined here.

20th century:

“Marxism, as an ideology, has been associated with various political regimes throughout history. The implementation of these regimes has resulted in significant human suffering and loss of life. According to The Black Book of Communism, a compilation by European and American academics, the human cost of genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and artificial famines under communist regimes is estimated to be over 94 million.”

Two thirds of that sum are estimated to be from the Soviet Union.

The 3 Baltic countries were occupied by the red army in 1940 and then annexed in to USSR.

21st century

Yep I’m not a fan of US military intervention in Iraq. I’m not saying they’re perfect.

Of course there’s Afghanistan and Syria too.

Russia have also intervened in Syria let’s not forget.

Then there’s the Chechen war, the Georgian War and now Ukraine. All aimed at expansion, no?

Had a listen to Brand here. I always listen with extra cautiousness with him as he is an intelligent and charming man, but that’s the problem because he can be very disingenuous in the ideas he proclaims and of course his actions.

He had glossed over the fact that the Warsaw pact was dissolved and became obsolete in 1991. Or that previously Eastern Europe has previously been either occupied or at war with Russia.

https://youtu.be/Rh4QU7hxKVg?si=PaIcqGkYdIYIfgVa

Also doesn’t go in to detail about the nature of this “NATO expansion”. Like I said, no new eastern countries between 2004 and the invasion. Please answer this Bristol.

Who is the man delivering the speech in European Parliament?

I wonder if Brand thinks Finland are “asking for it” with joining NATO this year…

Perhaps Russian demographics are more a reason for this aggression. Again here’s Peter Zeihan, sounds a bit more in-depth than Brand don’t you think?

https://youtu.be/KXHZ0IH2rOk?si=a0SSvFz4K-MUyPlD

I’d like to see you pick apart these videos so I can understand your view a bit more.

Back to the Novora Media video, it falls apart straight away for me because it is underpinned by the idea that the “losers” (bit pessimistic) in society get poorer as the rich get richer.

In 1990, 35% of the world’s population (1.9bn people) lived below $1.90 per day. By 2013, this figure was 10.9%, or just 782m. Left wing economic policy..?

Your first vid link is from Peter Zeihan who worked 12 years for Stratfor, including becoming VP. See here about some info on them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor_email_leak
And then he utters such rhetoric, none of it backed up, and a heap of fill in irrelevance and doesn't even answer the first question he posed. Are you saying you're on board with this guy?
His second answer to a question is once again filled with rhetoric and irrelevances and totally misses out the build up to this war. He grossly exagerates, lies, and then comes out with "blah blah blah, you're snarter than them, go tell them to f**k themsleves."
He's clearly reading all this from a script he wrote.

Brand didn't gloss over the Warsaw Pact disoluton - it's just not that relevant in comparison to recent events. However, the NATO expansion issue does go back to what was arguably verbally agreed between Gorbachev and the west when East Germany was given up. NO NATO expansion. Obvioulsy there was expansion. That's a background, and clearly important as background. The actual expansion issue that caused the invasion was NATO inviting Ukraine to be a member, and the subsequent lack of taking this off the table, and finally the coup which was all about joinng NATO and the EU. Some in Ukraine were in favour of this, some were not including the ethnic Russian dominated Donbas, which was attacked by Ukraine armed forces, including overt Nazis.

The second vid, what are you asking about specifically? I got as far as his demographic stat comments, which don't refer to Ukraine's larger proportion that fled, or that are in prison for deserting or refusing to fight etc. It is very much like listening to a man down the pub, but then his background is dodgy as we know, and his current affiliations are likely to be similar.

The man in the vid that said about NATO knowing what they were doing would lead to problems was the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. I believe his opinion carries some weight.

Finland are not Ukraine - obvious huge differences. Russia doesn't care as far as I understand.

[River Don]

The reality is this is going to become a long conflict. Less intense but ongoing. Neither side can back down, there is no basis for resolution. Any peace is likely to be short lived.

This is where sanctions come into play, the longer they persist the harder it becomes for Russia. How long can they put up with it? We shall see...

[normal rules]

The police in Russia have had enough. They are quitting in their droves.
Army losing numbers daily and now fewer to keep the peace at home.

[ravenrover]

The reality is this is going to become a long conflict. Less intense but ongoing. Neither side can back down, there is no basis for resolution. Any peace is likely to be short lived.

This is where sanctions come into play, the longer they persist the harder it becomes for Russia. How long can they put up with it? We shall see...

Sanctions hey, like Sunak making £5m out of one of his companies selling tractors to Russia recently?

[Sprotyrover]

The Ukrainian ‘Summer Offensive’ has been an unmitigated disaster 16,000 plus young men are minus one or more legs, we had flail tanks on D day they went ahead of the infantry and. Blasted the mines, what the Ukrainian Senior commanders have done is short sighted madness.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Little Slovakia:
"A government led by Fico and his SMER-SSD party would see NATO member Slovakia joining Hungary in challenging the European Union's consensus on support for Ukraine, just as the bloc looks to maintain unity in opposing Russia's invasion."

Would also have a VETO in NATO, along with Hungary could influence the Ukraine issue.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/slovaks-choose-between-pro-russian-ex-pm-fico-pro-western-liberals-2023-09-29/