0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
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?
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?
Ask what?
Quote from: Iberian Red on September 26, 2023, 09:23:03 pmAsk what?Huh?
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on September 26, 2023, 09:32:10 pmQuote from: Iberian Red on September 26, 2023, 09:23:03 pmAsk what?Huh?Ask the people who were forming it what! That was your quote
Quote from: ncRover on September 26, 2023, 08:05:22 pmRussell 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 etc2) 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.
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on September 26, 2023, 09:31:15 pmQuote from: ncRover on September 26, 2023, 08:05:22 pmRussell 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 etc2) 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.
Quote from: ncRover on September 26, 2023, 09:45:32 pmOk 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: River Don on September 27, 2023, 09:50:26 amI 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.
Quote from: ncRover on September 27, 2023, 08:16:15 amPerhaps 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=Ru4rfzFasaIYou 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
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on September 28, 2023, 03:49:03 pmQuote from: River Don on September 27, 2023, 09:50:26 amI 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.
Quote from: River Don on September 27, 2023, 09:50:26 amI 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.
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.
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=PaIcqGkYdIYIfgVaAlso 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-MUyPlDI’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..?
Quote from: ncRover on September 29, 2023, 08:37:15 amThe 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=PaIcqGkYdIYIfgVaAlso 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-MUyPlDI’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
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.
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...