Europe at War

[drogulus]

     You couldn't pay me enough to invade Ukraine. Did NATO make Putin an offer he couldn't refuse?

     Show me the Laptop. You know the one. I want the dick pics, the horses head, the whole thing.

     

[Madiel]

Well apparently the US owns NATO and has the power to expand NATO. Who knew?

Apparently not Sweden and Finland who have been going through this tiresome process of getting agreement from every member.   

And all those countries that kept APPLYING for membership, often after holding referendums? No, turns out it was the Americans all along.

Todd yet again brings us a worldview where nothing actually happens in other countries.

[Que]

Joe Biden and his German counterpart Olaf Scholz have agreed to send infantry fighting vehicles to help Ukraine fight Russia, a day after France said it would supply its own armoured vehicles to Kyiv in an attempt to create a breakthrough in the 10-month war.

Germany will also supply Ukraine with a Patriot air defence system, in addition to one promised by the US last month, the White House added. Both countries will train the Ukrainian military on the Marders and Bradleys, although it it was not immediately clear how many of each would be supplied.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/05/germany-tanks-ukraine-russia-war

[Todd]

Send weapons to Ukraine.  Send money to Ukraine.  Send money to weapons makers to replenish weapons stock and boost revenue and get that stock price up.  Rinse and repeat.

Maybe together we can push Ukrainian civilian deaths north of 50K.

[LKB]

This is true.  The US aggressively and recklessly expanded NATO, establishing the conditions that led to Russian aggression against Ukraine.  In response, the US has allocated more than $100 billion to support Ukraine, Europe has pledged billions more, energy markets have been roiled, energy prices have shot up, Europe has become more dependent on the US for natural gas, weapons makers vastly outperformed the market, and regular people all over the world have had to face shortages of various resources.  At least 7,000 and perhaps as many as 40,000 Ukrainian civilians have died, total military casualties have topped 200,000, and online hawks reflexively and immorally defend neocon policies, the continuation of the war, and the suffering of Ukrainians.

Still quoting out of context, l see.

[Que]

Maybe together we can push Ukrainian civilian deaths north of 50K.

Let's not pretend that is any of your concern....

[Todd]

Still quoting out of context, l see.

First, incorrect.  Second, you care.

Let's not pretend that is any of your concern....

You missed the point.  People who strongly assert that they care are the ones who favor immoral pro-war policies that lead directly to the deaths of innocent civilians. 

And once again, I will state that I care about Ukrainians exactly as much as I care about Yemeni, Syrians, Congolese, etc.  Ukrainians have no special claim on my heart.

[Que]

You missed the point.  People who strongly assert that they care are the ones who favor immoral pro-war policies that lead directly to the deaths of innocent civilians. 

So did you. Accusing anyone that supports the Ukrainians in exercising their right to defend themselves of being immoral and calling them warmongers is insulting. You obviously missed the reports on the fate of ordinary Ukrainians under Russian occupation: torture, summary executions, the systematic abduction of children, the destruction of Ukrainian culture, rape and pillage. If the Ukrainians would be so much better off under Russian rule, I wonder why the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians choses to risk their lives and fight against the Russian invasion.

Blaming the Ukrainians and those who support them for the terrible consequences of Putin's war doesn't make any sense, no matter how much it doesn't suit your (domestic) political agenda.

[Todd]

So did you. Accusing anyone that supports the Ukrainians in exercising their right to defend themselves of being immoral and calling them warmongers is insulting. You obviously missed the reports on the fate of ordinary Ukrainians under Russian occupation: torture, summary executions, the systematic abduction of children, the destruction of Ukrainian culture, rape and pillage. If the Ukrainians would be so much better off under Russian rule, I wonder why the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians choses to risk their lives and fight against the Russian invasion.

Blaming the Ukrainians and those who support them of the terrible consequences of Putin's war doesn't make any sense, no matter how much it doesn't suit your (domestic) political agenda.

Reports of Russian atrocities, to the extent they are not embellished (and some are), are to be expected in war.  Reports of Ukrainians committing war crimes (and they have) are to be expected in war.  War is hell.  Reasonable and moral people should favor pursuing policies to end the suffering of innocent people.  This is especially true when the conditions for war were created from without, in this case because of the unnecessary actions of the most powerful country in the world and its vassals.  Immoral warmongers rationalize and enthusiastically support and defend every bloodthirsty and cynical policy that prolongs the war and celebrate every seeming little victory of or boost to the brave people of Ukraine, ignoring that these events up the civilian body count. 

[71 dB]

Todd yet again brings us a worldview where nothing actually happens in other countries.

If only he watched for example the Youtube videos of Americans who actually want to learn how things are in other countries he could see why his posts look so ridiculous here.

Here's one such Youtube channel: HailHeidi

[Todd]

Things happen in other countries? 

[BasilValentine]

You missed the point.  People who strongly assert that they care are the ones who favor immoral pro-war policies that lead directly to the deaths of innocent civilians. 

In your spate of recent posts you've written extensively about the causes of the unnecessary violent death in Ukraine without mentioning the proximate cause, Russian aggression against the country's territorial integrity. Conspicuously absent form your lists of war mongers is the one human being most directly responsible for all of the killing. Have you no shame? 

[Karl Henning]

Have you no shame?

"What profit is there in it?"

[Harry]

There is no profit in it. People keep feeding the troll and provocateur with ammunition, so he keeps firing for the fun of it. Don't feed the troll and he will starve of depravation. If there is no air the fire will die out quickly.

[Todd]

In your spate of recent posts you've written extensively about the causes of the unnecessary violent death in Ukraine without mentioning the proximate cause, Russian aggression against the country's territorial integrity. Conspicuously absent form your lists of war mongers is the one human being most directly responsible for all of the killing.

Incorrect.  I have explicitly written multiple times that the US and NATO established the conditions that led to Russian aggression.  You can go back and reread those posts.  Or not.  Wars of aggression are bad and they violate international law, for those who pretend that matters.  Hope that helps clear up your confusion.

[LKB]

In your spate of recent posts you've written extensively about the causes of the war in Ukraine without mentioning the proximate cause, Russian aggression against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Conspicuously absent form your lists of war mongers is the one human being directly responsible for all of the killing. Have you no shame? 



You've vilified everyone connected to the matter except Your grasp of causation in this matter is poor inept and insincere.   

I must disagree, because he's proven his intelligence both in musical topics and in this thread.

One of his motives seems to be a simple desire for entertainment, as evidenced by his prior statements in political discussions a couple of years back.

Here, he argues the same way some lawyers argue in the courts. And those lawyers aren't concerned with the truth, they're concerned with winning for their client.

There have never been any formal agreements with Russia regarding NATO expansion as such. The only formal agreement which was made concerned Russian objections to the possible post- unification deployment of non-German NATO forces within the boundaries of the former East Germany.

Here's Gorbachev on the subject in 2014, excerpted from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

" We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not "insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker's promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?" Gorbachev replied: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. ... Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO's military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker's statement was made in that context... Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled."

Gorbachev continued that "The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years." To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement. ( My emphasis - LKB )

Several years after German reunification, in 1997, NATO said that in the "current and foreseeable security environment" there would be no permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new NATO members. Up until the Russian military occupation of Crimea in March, there was virtually no stationing of any NATO combat forces on the territory of new members. "

It seems that concerns regarding NATO expansion simply weren't a high priority for Gorbachev. Perhaps he understood that unlike his eventual successor, none of the NATO member governments had any imperial ambitions.

[Todd]

There have never been any formal agreements with Russia regarding NATO expansion as such.

Of course not.  Any such agreement would have only served to establish a slight and easily overcome impediment to the continued expansion of the American Empire.  The US violates, ignores, and does not even bother ratifying treaties.  Treaties are especially important to people who believe that international law acts as an effective check against great powers.  It is unwise for other countries to trust the US when it signs treaties, much less when its senior leaders offer verbal assurances.  That's just silly. 

I do note that you do seem to care, despite your prior protestations to the contrary.

[Florestan]

Things happen in other countries? 

And you want us to believe you're not trolling...

[Todd]

And you want us to believe you're not trolling...

There is a perfect inverse correlation between substantive argumentation and use of the word "troll" or any of its derivatives.

[LKB]

Of course not.  Any such agreement would have only served to establish a slight and easily overcome impediment to the continued expansion of the American Empire.  The US violates, ignores, and does not even bother ratifying treaties.  Treaties are especially important to people who believe that international law acts as an effective check against great powers.  It is unwise for other countries to trust the US when it signs treaties, much less when its senior leaders offer verbal assurances.  That's just silly. 

I do note that you do seem to care, despite your prior protestations to the contrary.

Still quoting out of context, and still evading the obvious truths.