Ukraine in NATO

[icanthearyou 4,463]

The leadership of both Russia and the United States are not content with defending their sovereignty.  Both want to dominate the globe.  Conflict is inevitable.

It's not about an economic system or, a social structure.  It's all about power. 

We forget that the sociopathic, megalomaniacs rise to power because, only that type of personality wants/needs that kind of power.  We forget that concentrated power is the dynamic that ultimately becomes the enemy of liberty and freedom, regardless of political/economic system.

 

[auburnatl1 5,010]

22 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

The leadership of both Russia and the United States are not content with defending their sovereignty.  Both want to dominate the globe.  Conflict is inevitable.

It's not about an economic system or, a social structure.  It's all about power. 

We forget that the sociopathic, megalomaniacs rise to power because, only that type of personality wants/needs that kind of power.  We forget that concentrated power is the dynamic that ultimately becomes the enemy of liberty and freedom, regardless of political/economic system.

 

Power corrupts and is bad. Got it. But actionably, what do we do about Ukraine now?

Edited July 12, 2023 by auburnatl1

[auburnatl1 5,010]

After reading this forum  for 2 weeks I’ve officially max’d out my conspiracy  threshold limit. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Power corrupts and is bad. Got it. But actionably, what do we do about Ukraine now?

IMHO, we are doing what we should.

In the long-term, I believe we need to reevaluate our desire to wield so much power in the world, how that power has been so disingenuously wielded.  We need to stop defending/furthering our economic system and, genuinely promote the ideas and virtues we claim,,, freedom, humanity, liberty, justice, democracy.

[KansasTiger 3,254]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

After reading this forum  for 2 weeks I’ve officially max’d out my conspiracy  threshold limit. 

I, on the other hand, am convinced most of this forum is in an abusive relationship with the govt. Our govt continuously lies, misleads, gaslights, covers up information, and somehow most everyone continues to buy each reason, narrative, and explanation it puts out. And that's Rs and Ds. Any other normal relationship and more of you would realize to maybe trust the habitual liar a little less. 

[auburnatl1 5,010]

16 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I, on the other hand, am convinced most of this forum is in an abusive relationship with the govt. Our govt continuously lies, misleads, gaslights, covers up information, and somehow most everyone continues to buy each reason, narrative, and explanation it puts out. And that's Rs and Ds. Any other normal relationship and more of you would realize to maybe trust the habitual liar a little less. 

Governments are by nature 1) a monopoly (the most inefficient, employer of the least competent, and inherently corrupt business model ever invented - anti trust was created just to prohibit it) and 2) has final authority on power with virtually no oversight. And people want to make it  a lot bigger so that it can do even more cool stuff….

Conspiracy Mecca.

Edited July 12, 2023 by auburnatl1

[CoffeeTiger 5,165]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Did we promise that? What official document or treaty did the West violate by moving westward? 

The fact is that there does not exist any written treaty, agreement, or promise by the US or Europe to not expand NATO Westward. Whether a diplomat ever verbally promised that is debated (even Gorbachev himself says the issue of NATO expansion into other countries was never brought up) , but if it was an important issue for the Soviets, then why did they not require it to be in the actual written agreements they signed? 

And how serious and legally binding is the violation of a verbal 'promise' that nobody can really agree was ever even made? 

 

It's in fact Russia who has repeatedly violated written treaties it made with Ukraine and the West guaranteeing Ukrainian independence and territorial sovereignty in order for Ukraine to give its nuclear arsenal over to Russia.  

 

@KansasTiger  @icanthearyou

 

So what is it that you dislike about this post?  

 

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[KansasTiger 3,254]

10 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

@KansasTiger  @icanthearyou

 

So what is it that you dislike about this post?  

 

 

The general notion that even if we did verbally agree, which memos and documents seem to indicate we did from what sources I can find, that's it's completely OK for the US to break that verbal agreement cause we didn't write it down. Even though that was probably on purpose for whatever reason. Seems shady and underhanded. People can deflect by calling out Russia for this or that, that's not really what I'm discussing. I would hope that if you and I had a verbal agreement or promise, you'd honor it, even if we didn't codify it into a legally binding contract.

[CoffeeTiger 5,165]

1 hour ago, KansasTiger said:

The general notion that even if we did verbally agree, which memos and documents seem to indicate we did from what sources I can find, that's it's completely OK for the US to break that verbal agreement cause we didn't write it down. Even though that was probably on purpose for whatever reason. Seems shady and underhanded. People can deflect by calling out Russia for this or that, that's not really what I'm discussing.

The problem is there is not a consensus agreement that this promise was ever actually made. Mikel Gorbachev himself in 2014 admitted NATO never promised not to expand to eastward countries and that it was his fault for not making it a part of the negotiations. 

There was a written agreement signed by all parties from these negotiations, however this supposed "verbal promise" was not included in it....and the Soviets never demanded its inclusion nor questioned why it was not in the agreement. 

 

International diplomacy and politics work off of legal written agreements. A pinky finger promise only lasts as long as those individuals are in office (in this case James Baker and George Bush lost election the very next year). How were future Presidents and European and NATO leaders supposed to enforce or govern based on unwritten verbal promises made by predecessors that some aren't sure were even ever made?

It doesn't make any sense to blame the US and NATO for violating agreements that were never formally made.

Edited July 12, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Governments are by nature 1) a monopoly (the most inefficient, employer of the least competent, and inherently corrupt business model ever invented - anti trust was created just to prohibit it) and 2) has final authority on power with virtually no oversight. And people want to make it  a lot bigger so that it can do even more cool stuff….

Conspiracy Mecca.

You mean bad government.  You mean a non democratic government.  You mean a corrupt government.

Government has no nature.  It is not human. 

Good government has the ability to overcome the worst of human nature.  Institutions reflect the nature, ethics, humanity of their leadership.

[AUApostle 7,651]

3 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

Guy wears his costume everywhere he goes.  He’s committed to his “role”.

[KansasTiger 3,254]

2 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

Guy wears his costume everywhere he goes.  He’s committed to his “role”.

He looks like that meme of the guy standing in the corner of the party angry and sad.

[auburnatl1 5,010]

14 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Government has no nature.  It is not human. 

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

55 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Good government has the ability to overcome the worst of human nature.

Can you name this good government or is it a myth?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

18 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

What is your point?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

@KansasTiger  @icanthearyou

 

So what is it that you dislike about this post?  

 

 

WE backed out of the ABM treaty in 2002.  Since then, we have been building a ring around Russia.  When you threaten people,,, they ultimately respond.

I am not trying to build a case for who is right and who is wrong.  Still, was this a necessary provocation?   I believe our "diplomacy" should be more diplomatic, far less aggressive.

It is up to us to spread a respect for humanity rather than continuing to exert raw power.  In a nuclear world,,, anything else is a collective insanity.

[CoffeeTiger 5,165]

22 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

WE backed out of the ABM treaty in 2002.  Since then, we have been building a ring around Russia.  When you threaten people,,, they ultimately respond.

I am not trying to build a case for who is right and who is wrong.  Still, was this a necessary provocation?   I believe our "diplomacy" should be more diplomatic, far less aggressive.

It is up to us to spread a respect for humanity rather than continuing to exert raw power.  In a nuclear world,,, anything else is a collective insanity.

Withdrawing from the ABM maybe was a bad decision, one of G.W.Bush’s many mistakes, however that doesn’t really have anything much to do with Russia invading Ukraine twice in a decade and attempting to illegally annex other countries into Russia.  
 

I guess the question to ask Is is Russia aggressive because of NATOs expansion….or was Russias aggressiveness and treatment of its former subjects the reason NATO expanded? 
 

Doesnt Russia’s wars prove the US and NATO were right to build this defensive ‘ring’ around Russia, or is this the result of mistreating Russia.

 

Putin has stated aims of bringing ex SovietRepublics  back under Russian Domination and influence…does he have these aims to counter NATO expansion, or would he have had these goals regardless? 
 

Would Russia have backstabbed a more  passive and smaller NATO to bring Eastern Europe back under Moscows rule, or would Putin/Russia have played nice, followed all agreements, and worked hand in hand with Europe and the US. 
 

none of us can really know the answers to these questions I don’t think, but Soviet Russia had a history of war and expansionism and todays Russian Federation seems to as well. 

[TexasTiger 13,000]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

WE backed out of the ABM treaty in 2002.  Since then, we have been building a ring around Russia.  When you threaten people,,, they ultimately respond.

I am not trying to build a case for who is right and who is wrong.  Still, was this a necessary provocation?   I believe our "diplomacy" should be more diplomatic, far less aggressive.

It is up to us to spread a respect for humanity rather than continuing to exert raw power.  In a nuclear world,,, anything else is a collective insanity.

What exactly did we do in Ukraine that provoked this invasion & incredible assault on civilians?

[AU9377 5,025]

20 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

The general notion that even if we did verbally agree, which memos and documents seem to indicate we did from what sources I can find, that's it's completely OK for the US to break that verbal agreement cause we didn't write it down. Even though that was probably on purpose for whatever reason. Seems shady and underhanded. People can deflect by calling out Russia for this or that, that's not really what I'm discussing. I would hope that if you and I had a verbal agreement or promise, you'd honor it, even if we didn't codify it into a legally binding contract.

NATO is not an organization formed to be militarily aggressive.  Russian claims that NATO is encroaching on its borders suggest that it is threatening their borders in some way.  That is not a reasonable fear for Russia to have.  Russia is the country with a history of not respecting the integrity of countries they border.  This is why Finland and Sweden now want the protection afforded by NATO membership.  NATO membership has requirements that must be met before membership is approved.  The country's judicial system must meet certain requirements. Their elections and governmental structure must also meet certain requirements. 

Has Russia honored agreements made or the borders of neighboring countries?  No.  Therefore, they cannot legitimately whine about NATO.

My grandfather fought in Germany in WWII.  He always told me that you could trust Germans, but you could never trust or leave your back exposed to Russians.  By trusting Germans, he was speaking of the German families he met that were very kind to the American soldiers that were occupying the country toward the end of the war.  He always believed that the allies should have pushed Russia back at the end of the war, but understood that we had not yet defeated Japan and that the Brits were exhausted.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

15 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

What exactly did we do in Ukraine that provoked this invasion & incredible assault on civilians?

Read my post.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

38 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Read my post.

So you deem Putin’s actions justified. Got it.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

33 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So you deem Putin’s actions justified. Got it.

NO.  Now you are just lying.  Why do that?

[TexasTiger 13,000]

48 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

NO.  Now you are just lying.  Why do that?

I asked for clarification. You gave none. I’m not lying. I’m also not responsible for you being clear as mud.

[LPTiger 5,173]

Ukraine/Russian war...   How/when does it end?   What factors would have to exist for it to end?   Does the fighting go on for years?    What is an acceptable "win" for Putin/Zelensky?    What country/countries have the ability to negotiate a resolution? 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

37 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I asked for clarification. You gave none. I’m not lying. I’m also not responsible for you being clear as mud.

And,,, more lying.