Agnostic.com

3 5

It has occurred to me hat Putin's reason for attacking Ukraine is not only territorial expansion, but also fear That fear is not of European nations attacking Russia, but of having free nations surrounding Russia on its western flank. Having free nations surrounding that flank would probably allow a seepage of accurate information and different perception to the Russian people. That could well lessen his control of and authority over the Russian people,. That is what he fears most.

wordywalt 9 Apr 25
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

No shit?

0

I think Putin has watched NATO's recent activity, like the last 10 years. He has witnessed NATO, formed to not only protect Europe but stop NATO members from fighting each other, be very active outside of NATO's sphere of influence. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and certainly Yemen (not officially: "advisors" ). No doubt other African nations I am not aware of.
When the USSR dissolved assurances were given NATO would not expand East which was not honoured. Europeans are well aware of this which is why there is resistance from some nations there against full blown war with Russia ie they recognise this is not black and white.

I am angry at the USA since the introduction of the Patriot Act. Russia has been demonised ever since they stopped the oil conveys in Syria, where the US currently maintain an illegal occupation (prior to that Russia were important allies in the war on terror). The democratic party especially has chosen to tie Russia with all their ills which has largely unravelled and shown to be the croc of shite it always was. They did everything to sabotage the Nord II pipeline and wtf was the USA doing funding new biolabs in a country engaged in civil war ie killing it's own citizens?
Putin was backed into a corner and has lashed out. He was very clear that the border country of Ukraine cannot join NATO, which was their position until a little regime change "coup" occurred in 2014.
I cannot condone what Russia has done re Ukraine, but nor will I support the destroyers of Libya aka NATO. Yes there should be consequences for Russia's actions, but "the West" should also face consequences for their destruction of sovereign nations in the name of "homeland security".

puff Level 8 Apr 25, 2022

@Garban Turkey just invaded Iraqi territory, nothing. Drone attacks, nothing.
Any consequences would be nice as it is blindly obvious the "West" is unable to temper their own actions voluntarily. Some consequences may make them think twice before deploying military action, which can only be a good thing.
Pre-emptive action is perfectly acceptable for Israel re Syria where they lob missiles willy nilly, Saudi Arabia in Yemen and the US in..........pick a country. But when Russia acts the same way..............
Do you not see the hypocrisy?
Unfortunately, this is the job of the UN which is totally useless.

@Garban Counties who ignore international law should be ostracised by the rest, yet Saudi Arabia utilize embassies as murder scenes..........and nothing happens besides letting them head the UNHR (Human Rights)commission. What can the UN do when 3 permanent members of the security council; UK, USA and France, launch missiles into a sovereign nation no-one has declared war on in revenge for a gas attack later disproved (talking Syria)?
What I would like to see is minor non-militarised countries represent all in the security council because ALL the permanent members have abused the power of veto at some stage and act without accountability. Talking China, Russia, France, UK and USA should all lose that privilege and then perhaps justice may have an even hand. There is no accountability atm.

NATO has NEVER trhreatened Russia. F9or good reason, it distrusts Russia ad its aggressions and attempts to destabilize, nd seeks only to defend its own nations. Standing up for on's own nations and seeking to deter Russian aggression do noty consdtityuty agression in any sense.

@wordywalt NATO expanding East in Europe does threaten Russia. If China invited and pushed for Mexico to join a military alliance, would the USA see that as a threat? Of course they would.
Russia justifies NATO's existence. Never forget that a main reason for NATO is to stop Europe being invaded. It was NATO forces that destroyed Libya, which opened the gate for mass undocumented migration into Europe from Africa and the ME, Italy still having major issues with refugees moving through Libya. Some call this mass migration an invasion ie the very thing NATO should deter but by destroying Libya instead encouraged.
When the USSR fell, Russia wished to join NATO but were rejected. Too much money to be made having a nuclear armed rival, good for weapon sales. Plus importantly, a disaster for the USA if Russia did join Europe as that would challenge US world dominance would it not?
Saying NATO does not threaten Russia sounds hollow when major exercises are held on Russia's borders in places like Poland. Again the China/ Mexico analogy, how would the US react if similar join nation exercises were held on it's border in Mexico by Chinese/ Mexican/ Russian/ Iranian forces? I would say "threatening" would by an appropriate word.

@puff You are wrong. The aim of NATO has never been to attack Russia or to expand into Russia, but to protect Europe from Russian aggression.

@puff Turkey, while a NATO member does not reflect any Western value. Borders should be sacred, however Turkey vs Iraq.... who cares?

NATO has NEVER been an aggressor in Euirope and has never threatened or attacked a Eyuropen nation. It has never sought Russian terrotory. It was formed in response to Russia's expansionistic policies at the end of WW II. You cannot deny thaty Ryussia took over all of eastern Europe , installed puppet regimes, and used Russian trrops to crush any hint of resistance or rebellion by the populcae of those captive countries. It also used those countries by xoiting the natural resources of those vassal states.

Again, NATO has nvere and will never threan any unprovoked assualt on Russian terrotory. It weill never be the natyion which makes the first strike in starting a war with Russia. Again, NATO was firmmed as a dfensuive allianve protecting he West from Russian aggression.

At least since the 1500s Russia as been an autocratic state bent on expansion at the expense of others. . Its onlly very brief attempt at democracy lasted less than 20 years. yhn filed miserably due to the lack of any underpinnings, traditions or institutions which would enable and support a democracy.

NATO, execially under Putin, has EVERY reasion to mistrust Russia and itsd lust for expansion. Russia nas no reason to mistrust NATO"s intent or actions.

To be peddling the fals3e perspectives you have been peddling, youhave t be extremely niane, or to have malicious intent.

@wordywalt The former Yugoslavia, Kosovo ring any bells?
You confuse the USSR and Russia. Russia wanted to join NATO after the USSR dissolved but were rejected with an assurance NATO would not expand East. Since 9/11 and Patriot Act both US and NATO have been arming border countries such as Poland, refused to renew historic treaties which kept ballistic missiles away from borders in Europe, "Open skies" etc etc. Russia has pushed for treaties on the use of drones for example, which certain other nation parties don't seem interested in.

@puff The West was wise in not admitting Russia to NATO. An autyoritariam, iumperialistic Ruswsia cannot be trusted. Onr does not let a fox into the henhouse. The visious intercecine conflit in the former Yugoslavia was nlot sarted by or sup-ported by the US or NATO. The inervention was to stop the vicious ethnic conflict. Get your facts straight!!!!

@wordywalt Putin uses the same excuse you know, that he intervened to stop a vicious ethnic conflict between Russian and non Russian speaking Ukrainians? You understand the Ukrainian army has been shelling its own people in the Donbass region since 2014?
The destruction of Libya was 100% NATO. What was the threat to Europe exactly that NATO needed to intervene? That Ghaddafi was using his military against civilians, the same as Ukraine has done since 2014? Perhaps if NATO had enforced a no-fly zone in Ukraine as it did in Libya to protect the Russian speaking population, Putin would have not felt the need to intervene.
With all the broken treaties and expansion of garrisons the last 20 years, an authoritarian, imperialistic America cannot be trusted either. Just ask the Kurds.
I do not condone Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but am not about to condone NATO either, the destroyers of Libya/ Iraq and doing their best in Syria.

@puff You have to be a Russian troll.I vcannot see any other espalation for your tripe.

@wordywalt For many one eyed polarised people on this site, you are either a Russian troll or an American apologist.
Biden is the greatest president ever (feel better now?)

@puff No, Biden is not our greatest president. Truman, TR, FDR, and especially Lincoln were all better . Eosenhower was not bad either. Do not attribute thoughts to me that are not mine.

@wordywalt Just trying to conform as to question means Russian troll/ Trump supporter. Whatever. How about this?
NATO has done nothing but promote peace in non-European countries and at home since the fall of the USSR (try saying that with a straight face).

0

Could be.

BD66 Level 8 Apr 25, 2022
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:662768
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.