And speaking of speeches – here’s a closer look at Putin’s speech of February 24
We’ve been talking a lot about what Putin thinks and what he intends. But he gave a speech right before the invasion of Ukraine that purportedly explained his motives and aims. Although of course he might have been lying – politicians are certainly known to do that – I think his words may indeed reflect his worldview and are at the very least some form of the truth.
So let’s take a look at some excerpts from that speech that Putin delivered on 2/24/22, right before the invasion. This is a translation, of course, and the entire speech can be found here.
Towards the beginning he sets the main theme, which is that Russia wants peace but is threatened and it can’t wait till it’s too late to defend itself against Nazis. Yes, Nazis. You may be a bit surprised – as I was – to see the frequency and centrality of the Nazi references Putin makes:
If history is any guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941 the Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the potential aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late.
He’s leaving out a few details, however [emphasis mine]:
On September 17, 1939, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov declares that the Polish government has ceased to exist, as the U.S.S.R. exercises the “fine print” of the Hitler-Stalin Non-aggression pact—the invasion and occupation of eastern Poland.
Hitler’s troops were already wreaking havoc in Poland, having invaded on the first of the month. The Polish army began retreating and regrouping east, near Lvov, in eastern Galicia, attempting to escape relentless German land and air offensives. But Polish troops had jumped from the frying pan into the fire—as Soviet troops began occupying eastern Poland. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Non-aggression Pact, signed in August, had eliminated any hope Poland had of a Russian ally in a war against Germany. Little did Poles know that a secret clause of that pact, the details of which would not become public until 1990, gave the U.S.S.R. the right to mark off for itself a chunk of Poland’s eastern region. The “reason” given was that Russia had to come to the aid of its “blood brothers,” the Ukrainians and Byelorussians, who were trapped in territory that had been illegally annexed by Poland. Now Poland was squeezed from West and East—trapped between two behemoths.
So the USSR was there at the very start of the war as an ally of the Nazis, invading another country in order to get back some of Russia’s lost empire and supposedly to save its countrymen “trapped” there. Russia sure has a funny way of trying to delay the outbreak of war. And it sounds a bit familiar, doesn’t it?
While there, the peace-loving Soviets decided it would be a great time to massacre the cream of Polish military leadership and culture. You can read all about it here.
But getting back to Putin’s February 24 speech, he was already alluding to nuclear weapons and the fact that he’s willing to use them if attacked:
Those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy…
As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.
More from Putin [emphasis mine]:
The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape. Fully controlled from the outside, it is doing everything to attract NATO armed forces and obtain cutting-edge weapons.
Let’s pause to reflect on what he’s saying there, because I think it’s important. Russia is surrounded by lands that are Russian. If the people in those lands hate Russia and want little to nothing to do with it, it’s only because they are fully controlled from the outside. According to Putin, their not wanting to be part of Russia has nothing whatsoever to do with their own ethnicity or feelings of being a separate nation, or with atrocities Russia has committed against them in the past (Holomodor, anyone?), or with the attractiveness of the west either economically or culturally compared with Russia, or with simply wanting autonomy to decide their own destinies.
No, no, of course not. It’s all the fault of big bad NATO, putting these countries behind a new Iron Curtain and keeping them from their obvious love for Mother Russia and their hidden but sincere and ancient desire to merge with it once again.
After talking about the purported Ukrainian “genocide of the millions of people” who live in Dombass, he said [emphasis mine]:
…[W]e will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.
That’s why he started with the USSR’s fight against the Nazis in WWII. He is claiming that the large majority in Ukraine who don’t want to be part of Russia are Nazis committing genocide (instead of Ukrainians who are part of a back-and-forth conflict), and therefore the whole of Ukraine must be taken over and disarmed, de-Nazified, and that people affiliated with the regime must be tried by the Russians (or a new government the Russians install) and punished.
This “denazify” reference is to some neo-Nazis in western Ukraine who have a small following . It’s similar to what the left says in the US vis a vis Trump and the January 6ers, or what Trudeau said about the truckers – that they are all neo-Nazis or predominantly neo-Nazis. There are such movements in Ukraine (relevant information here and here), but their power and size are way exaggerated by Putin for his own purposes. The people actually in power and vast majority of the people who support them are not Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.
Putin continues:
We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force.
This was said right before the invasion. Subsequent events have certainly proven that that was a lie – an invasion is certainly “by force.”
And here’s a truly creative piece of Orwellian sophistry from Putin:
The current events have nothing to do with a desire to infringe on the interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. They are connected with…defending Russia from those who have taken Ukraine hostage and are trying to use it against our country and our people.
See, says Putin, there’s the real Ukrainian people who are in solidarity with Russia, and then there are the fake usurpers who “have taken Ukraine hostage.” The latter group are all Nazis, and we need to fight WWII over again and liberate Ukraine from the Nazis.
Later Putin expands on this theme by appealing to the Ukrainian military with the same argument:
Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine. You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people.
By the way, a little historical aside is that a lot of those Ukrainian fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers in WWII initially welcomed the Nazi occupiers because they saw the Germans as liberators from the hated Russians who had exacerbated the famine and helped to starve them during the 1930s.
Then Putin repeats his implied nuclear threats towards anyone who would stop him:
No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history. No matter how the events unfold, we are ready. All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken.
In addition, Putin has been asserting for years that Ukraine is not a real country, it is a Russian creation and part of Russia. So although in that February 24 speech he talks about wanting countries to preserve their autonomy (which I believe is something he does not actually support, certainly not for much of Eastern Europe, except of course for Russia itself), he has also said many times that Ukraine is not a real country. See where we’re going here?
Putin also made a recent speech on Ukraine’s history, explaining why it’s not a country [emphasis mine]:
He started by saying that modern Ukraine was a creation of Vladimir Lenin, who carved a Soviet Republic out of what Putin said was Russian land. Putin said that Joseph Stalin supplemented Ukrainian lands with lands from other eastern European countries following the Second World War, and that his successor Nikita Khrushchev “took Crimea away from Russia for some reason and gave it to Ukraine” in 1954. Putin said that these decisions were “worse than a mistake,”…
…Ukrainians have been quick to point out that Kyiv was founded hundreds of years earlier than Moscow, and that Ukraine has its own distinct language and customs.
“Part of the reason that Ukraine has never had stable statehood is because of Russia,” says David Patrikarakos, an author of two books about foreign affairs and non-resident fellow at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. He says that Putin deliberately ignored the long history of Ukrainian nationalism, including the country’s war of independence against the Soviets that began in 1917, and its resistance to Soviet rule after World War II. “There has been a strong impulse of Ukrainian nationalism for at least the last century, and [of] the Russians just slapping them down militarily,” Patrikarakos says. “And that’s continuing today.”
…“What he’s saying is something far wider: Ukraine is not a legitimate state. Ukraine is Russia. It should never have existed as anything else,” Patrikarakos says. It could also be an ominous bellwether for future military action, he suggests. “If you do not accept the idea of Ukraine, then you clearly by implication do not accept the idea of Georgia, the Baltic States, Moldova and everything else.”
I see no reason to doubt that these are his true and basic beliefs, and that he sees this as the perfect time to act on them.
Blaming Nazis worked for Trudeau so why not.
Now, I am not belittling the terrible destruction wrought by the Nazis upon Russia
Short version:
Ukraine is and always has been part of the greater Russian nation.
We reach out to Ukrainians in brotherhood.
If Ukrainians refuse to recognize this magnanimous gesture and our profound sense of brotherhood and the very deep ties that have always existed between Russia and Ukraine, then… we regrettable will have to kill them and destroy their country…
…until they see reason and understand our inseperable ties…along with their glorious destiny as an integral part of our great Russian people.
Oops. Should be “…regrettably…”
Those who reject the prevailing narrative on the current tragedy unfolding in Ukraine cannot be easily fitted into one particular ideology. Kennan and Kissinger both warned about the likely result of the relentless expansion by NATO (which many consider to be an utterly globalist and expensive institution which has long outlived its usefulness); on the other side of the political spectrum, the late professor Stephen Cohen often spoke of the strong sense of historical kinship (historically, culturally, and religiously) between the Russians and the Ukranians. Another curiosity of the current discourse is the elevation of Zelensky (a corrupt partner of the even more corrupt oligarch Kolomoyskyi) into some kind of hero; this ignores the fact that he is a pure creation of the media (fitting for a comic actor) and complicit in the widespread corruption in Ukraine, involving the Bidens, the Clinton Foundation, Soros, and many other bad actors. This is not to excuse Putin’s ill-advised operation, but the situation is much more complicated than it might appear.
It’s always interesting to analyze the (usually pretty absurd) pretexts a typical autocrat declares before doing something awful. I assume that the intended audience for these speech was primarily the Russian people rather than the rest of the world?
I have no idea if the viewpoint of a majority of Russian’s actually align with the various notions and justifications put forth here. Perhaps they do. Maybe most Russian’s truly believe that the Ukraine is teeming with Nazi’s ready attack. Maybe they really believe that NATO was just champing at the bit to literally launch some kind of massive ground invasion of Russia.
While these notions may seem pretty absurd to us, who knows what most Russian people believed in the moments leading up to the invasion?
Kennan and Kissinger both warned about the likely result of the relentless expansion by NATO (which many consider to be an utterly globalist and expensive institution which has long outlived its usefulness);
There is no ‘relentless expansion by NATO’, except in your imagination.
Another curiosity of the current discourse is the elevation of Zelensky (a corrupt partner of the even more corrupt oligarch Kolomoyskyi) into some kind of hero; this ignores the fact that he is a pure creation of the media (fitting for a comic actor) and complicit in the widespread corruption in Ukraine, involving the Bidens, the Clinton Foundation, Soros, and many other bad actors. This is not to excuse Putin’s ill-advised operation, but the situation is much more complicated than it might appear.
He’s actually the elected President of the Ukraine, and he’s been sticking it out in Kyiv. You’re really bad at this.
j e;
Most politicians these days in the US are creations of the media.
And no one can succeed in Ukraine without some support from the corrupt. You can’t drain the swamp that easily nor can you run for office and fund yourself unless you happen to be enormously wealthy yourself.
I find it interesting that those who paint Zelenskyy as a negative guy who’s just some sort of actor and clown (which he is, but not “just”) ignore his obvious sharp intelligence and his law degree. Now, some people hate lawyers, too. But he’s not and never was just some goofy doofus.
So we are not going to stop Putin in Ukraine, which we could probably do by simply not buying any more Russian natural gas. So where will we stop him then? Will we stop him in Moldova? Will we stop him in Estonia? Will we stop him in Poland? BTW, don’t think China isn’t watching this and wondering where we might stop them after they take over Taiwan.
Nonapod:
“Maybe most Russian’s truly believe that the Ukraine is teeming with Nazi’s ready attack. Maybe they really believe that NATO was just champing at the bit to literally launch some kind of massive ground invasion of Russia.”
________________________________________________________
Yes, as a result of massive propaganda, Russians actually believe it.
Some things on Earth that are visible from Space:
1 — The Pyramids of Giza
2 — The Amazon River
3 — The Grand Canyon
4 — The Great Wall of China
5 — The Balls of Volodymyr Zelensky
😛
}}} BTW, don’t think China isn’t watching this and wondering where we might stop them after they take over Taiwan.
Yup. I knew that was likely the minute this shit started.
Yes, as a result of massive propaganda, Russians actually believe it.
You’ve got clowns here who believe it. The question is what proportion of Russians take it seriously and what might be the implications for future developments that Putin is looking them in the eye and uttering nonsense statements readily recognizable as such.
The Seattle Times this morning runs an op-ed by on Benjamin Tromly, a professor of Russian and European history at the University of Puget Sound.
He goes on and on about Russia’s Great Patriotic War, and how it was all a crusade against Nazi dominance, and Putin’s current denazification of the evil Ukraine. But nowhere does he utter a peep about the Russian dekulakization of Ukraine through the deliberate starvation of about 4 million Ukrainian peasants, which might explain to uninformed Seattlites another good reason for the Ukraine’s wishes for distant arm’s length relations with those noble Russians.
Basically, this is blood-and-soil nationalism, with tight control of the economy by a corrupt oligarchy which does the will of the Leader. It’s just Russian blood-and-soil, instead of German.
Today, there is no expansionist Hitler considering his people superior to Slavs who is interested in conquering Russia. But there is a Great Russian leader who considers lesser Slavic peoples and lands to be the property of Russia. in Ukraine, we see that the majority of those Slavs disagree.
Insufficiently Sensitive:
Yes, the Russians certainly were against Nazi/German domination of Russia. They were all in favor of Nazi/German domination of Poland. And of course later on the Russians were all in favor of Russian domination of half of Germany, so much so that they had to build a huge wall to keep the East Germans penned in on the Russian-dominated side.
Interestingly flexible folks, those Russians.
If professor of history Benjamin Tromly actually knows any history other than Russian propaganda, then he knows that.
I don’t think Putin believes much of what he is saying. He surely knows that his revisionist WWII history is a lie. I do think he believes that Russia should exist as an alternative to the decadent West.
His audience for this speech is the Russian people, who regrettably do believe much of what he says. Public opinion polls in Russia have shown that Stalin is more popular than Gorbachev and is viewed favorably by most Russians. The Soviet Union’s victory in WWII is really the high point in Russia’s history for many Russians. I think this is why Putin emphasizes the Nazi presence in Ukraine. He wants to paint himself as a brave Nazi fighter like Stalin.
Obviously there are very few Russians alive now who remember life under Stalin and they’ve never had to face up to his crimes the way Germans have had to deal with Hitler’s crimes. The median age of Russians is about 40 which means that not only do they not remember life under Stalin, most haven’t lived as adults under the old Communist regime. I think there is a general feeling of resentment towards the West among many Russians and this is one of the reasons for the feelings of nostalgia for a time that most people do not remember. Putin is using this feeling, like any good demagogue, to generate support for his own ambitions.
Up to now, Putin has retained a great deal of popularity in Russia. His approval went up after the invasion of Crimea and I think Putin thought that invading Ukraine would show him to be a strong leader who won’t be intimidated. We shall see if this remains the case after life in Russia becomes more difficult due to the sanctions.
As far as our response goes, I think we should keep in mind that Putin will twist whatever the West does so that it appears to be an attack on the Russian people. As for NATO, I don’t think he really sees it as a threat but he does see it as a tool he can use in the story that he tells.
For someone who has no interest in holding power, I find it hard to fully understand the motivations of those that do. But I do think Putin sees himself as someone who has a calling to be a great leader. There is probably some psychological reason for his ambition but who knows.
Is it “Russian dekulakization of Ukraine” or Soviet. Stalin was Georgian and one of his underlings responsible for the famine Lazar Kaganovich was from Ukraine.
Gregory Harper:
On the contrary, I think it is a deeply held belief of Putin’s. He has been talking this way not just recently but for many many years (I believe it started around 2005 and perhaps even earlier). And I haven’t seen him make moves that contradict it.
If you read my Slavophile post from yesterday you’ll see that Putin apparently is able to discount some of the bad things the Soviets did as being influenced by a non-Russian philosophy, Marxism.
Neo:
I did read the Slavophile post and I do believe that Putin sees himself as a sort of savior of Russian civilization against a decadent West, but I also don’t think he believes everything he says. For example, I don’t think his reason for the Ukraine invasion has much at all to do with “de-nazifying” the country. I think he knows that Ukraine is not in fact run by Nazis.
I think Putin deliberately distorts history to fit a story that justifies the expansion of Russia’s, and therefore his own, power. I think as time has gone by, he has become more convinced that he is destined to lead Russia into a new age. Power seems to have this effect on some people.
I’ll just drop this here. George Kennan was a remarkably prescient man, one of the few who managed to see the big picture with any clarity, free from ideological blinders. There have been few like him, and certainly none at present.
Gregory Harper:
I agree that Putin doesn’t believe everything he says. But whether he actually believes there’s a Nazi under his bed depends on whether or not he’s gone round the bend.
I don’t know if Putin believes this, although he fairly clearly does believe in the destiny of Russia to rule the Slavs. In addition to the effect of power, he’s pretty clearly a sociopath. Assassinations and imprisonments of opponents are common.
Chases Eagles:
All the last Russian tsars were Germans with Russian names.. Stalin was an ethnic Georgian, but he acted exclusively in the interests of the Russian Empire, which was renamed the USSR for disguise.
We have all heard about the 40 mile long convoy that is stalled outside Kyiv. Too bad the Russians weren’t using electric vehicles, as our government is planning to do right now. If they had EVs, the convoy would still be in Russia and not subject to deadly attack from Ukrainians.
“There is no ‘relentless expansion by NATO’, except in your imagination.”
I’m sure no one is surprised that the guy who still thinks the Iraq War was a great idea is peddling more delusional nonsense. For the uninformed who might be tempted to believe him…
NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War:
East Germany – 1990
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland – 1999
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia – 2004
Albania, Croatia – 2009
Montenegro – 2017
North Macedonia – 2020
Ukraine, Georgia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina have also been recognized by NATO as “aspirant countries” seeking to join the alliance.
Now, I bet even Putin would be hardpressed to argue against German reunification after the Berlin Wall fell. And while he might not like the Czechs, Poles, and Hungarians joining the Alliance, I doubt THAT is what really keeps him up at night. But there’s a very strong argument that the last 11 additions to NATO and the three more under consideration serve no other purpose than to limit Russia’s sphere of influence in eastern Europe.
Now, Art could argue that limiting Russia’s sphere of influence is a good thing. He might even be right. But, for reasons which would likely make no sense to anyone else, he wants to pretend that isn’t what has happened and deny that ANY RUSSIAN LEADER would be unhappy with it.
And again, does anyone think it’s wise that the United States is currently LEGALLY OBLIGATED to wage nuclear war to defend North Macedonia? Or Slovenia? Or Montenegro?
Mike
Interesting read on the Hitler-Stalin Pact; “Betrayal: The Hitler Stalin Pact of 1939,” by Wolfgang Leonhard.
Mike doesn’t understand, for some reason, that NATO is more than one country, even after listing all those other countries that aren’t the United States. He doesn’t seem to understand the concept of an “alliance” or a “agreement” among “nations.” He may not even understand the concept of “geography” and where some of these “countries” are relative to Roosia.
And Iraq is back in his news again.
Bless his heart. Do try to keep it classy Bunge.
Albania, Croatia – 2009 Montenegro – 2017 North Macedonia – 2020
We have gone over this umpteen times, but since you cannot be bothered to read what anyone says, you miss it. None of these countries represent eastward expansion of NATO as they are all along the Adriatic. Albania was a functioning member of the Warsaw Pact for just six years and the others are descended of Yugoslavia, which was never a member of the Warsaw Pact.
I’m sure no one is surprised that the guy who still thinks the Iraq War was a great idea is peddling more delusional nonsense.
What’s your pleasure, Uday or Qusay?
Blame the Left. They were the ones who set the rule that you can punch Nazis, and Nazis are anyone you want to punch.
MBunge:
I was under the impression that those countries wanted to join NATO.
Unlike Ukraine, which would rather decline Russia’s kind invitation to join the great Russian expansion..
You seem to think that NATO should give Russia veto power over other countries’ NATO memberships.
Well, I’ll chime in with my usual Planet of the Apes angle.
Humans, including Putin, are not entirely rational. Actually not very rational at all, when it comes to politics, sex or religion. (Luckily, nothing important.)
Don’t expect humans to tell you their exact honest truth. That varies according to their audience, their current needs, and how they are justifying *everything* in their mind at the moment.
Don’t expect yourself to be able to figure out other humans honestly either, because you are human too, with your own rationality problems and your need to justify things for your benefit too.
Then there is Dr. House’s maxim:
_______________
Everybody lies.
_______________
‘Nuff said.
Whatever one may think of NATO’s role in (or the lack thereof) in precipitating the current aggression; or Putin’s role; or Russian paranoia (or the lack thereof); or the Democratic Party’s role; or the role of a corrupt Ukraine (which, presumably, in spite of denials, justifies its being attacked and conquered—as though corrupt countries justify invasion and/or the aggressor’s corruption is NOT an issue), the question remains, WHY NOW?
Seems to me the ONLY REASONABLE answer to that—the only OBVIOUS answer—is that Putin, after waiting and planning patiently, testing the waters and looking at all the “indicators”, has concluded that the goal—conquering Ukraine—is achievable NOW!
Why has he concluded that it is achievable NOW?
“Simply” because the US under the current administration ADMITS weakness, shows no resolve and is “LED” by a pathetically weak—and illegitimate—president (to be sure, the SHEER WEAKNESS of the administration is far more important to Putin than the election having been stolen).
BUT NOT ONLY does the current American administration admit weakness and show no resolve: it EXULTS IN this weakness and lack of resolve; it FLAUNTS it and calls it STRENGTH…and in so doing demonstrates CLEARLY just how warped and twisted it is…and how out of touch with reality.
“Biden” is essentially SHOUTING TO THE WORLD that “he” is delusional (or perhaps, to give him the “benefit of the doubt”, delusional “like a fox”), put most importantly, ROTTEN TO THE VERY CORE.
Yes, Putin has seen that the US, under the current administration—with its bizarre goals, its inane declarations, its insane actions, its obvious paranoias—has become UTTERLY ROTTEN as a matter of POLICY. Of IDEOLOGY. He has seen that the administration has PRIORITIZED dividing the country, abusing its laws, corrupting its institutions, debasing its currency, destroying its unity, attacking its purpose, denying its accomplishments, perverting its history, casting aside its values, warping the education of its children and, perhaps most importantly for Putin, systematically hobbling its military…IOW weakening the US by not so much as “a thousand cuts” but a thousand slashes, stabbings and bludgeonings.
And if there is any doubt as to just how ROTTEN “Biden” is, “he”—as has been pointed out many times already— continues to buy Russian oil.
Putin has looked closely and carefully and has been greatly encouraged.
“If not now, when?”
@ Art Deco > in light of the other topic today, I’ve taken the liberty of amending your reply to Zara’s statement, “Yes, as a result of massive propaganda,
RussiansDemocrats actually believe it.”“You’ve got clowns here who believe it. The question is what proportion of Democrats take it seriously and what might be the implications for future developments that Biden is looking them in the eye and uttering nonsense statements readily recognizable as such.”
Then there is Dr. House’s maxim: everybody lies.
Except everybody doesn’t. It’s just that the formula for the show required the five doctors to solve a puzzle, and what the patient and / or his family was not telling them was usually one of the pieces.
Other parts of the formula are that House is never outsmarted, House is never outmaneuvered except by the application of crude bureaucratic authority by the hospital administration or the local police, House never walks more than one step into a blind alley, House never lets his staff in on what he’s thinking, and that House is thoroughly callous but also unerringly insightful about the hidden lives of others. And the enduring mystery of the show is why the oncologist is House’s friend to the end and why said oncologist has no other friends.
“Those who reject the prevailing narrative on the current tragedy unfolding in Ukraine cannot be easily fitted into one particular ideology.” j e
Sure they can, they suffer from an excess of ‘imagination’.
“There is no ‘relentless expansion by NATO’, except in your imagination.” Art Deco
Obviously, Kennan, Kissinger, former US Ambassador to Russia James F. Collins, CIA Director William J. (Bill) Burns and Poli-Sci Prof. John Mearsheimer also suffer from an excess of “imagination”.
Zalensky is “actually the elected President of the Ukraine” Art Deco
Congress has certified that Biden is actually the elected President of the United States…
How does being elected disconfirm charges of corruption?
Tulsi Gabbard weighs in “Warmongers argue that we must protect Ukraine because it is a “democracy.”
But they’re lying. Ukraine isn’t actually a democracy.
To hold onto power, Ukraine’s president [Zelensky] shut down the 3 TV stations that criticized him, and imprisoned the head of the opposition political party which came in 2nd place in the election, and arrested and jailed its leaders (exactly what Putin has been accused of doing)—all with the support of U.S.”
Does Zelensky’s corruption disconfirm Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine? Of course not, both can be true.
So too with Putin’s expressed beliefs about the Ukraine being part of Russia not disconfirm Russia’s legitimate national security concerns with the Ukraine being incorporated into NATO.
To suggest that Putin’s ‘delusions’ render untrue those national security concerns about NATO establishing itself upon Russia’s border is to suggest that Russia cannot act until attacked.
A standard the US did not support when nuclear missiles were placed in Cuba.
NATO currently has offensive weapon systems in Poland. Upon what basis might Russia trust that NATO will not do the same once the Ukraine is part of NATO?
Nuclear cruise missiles could be launched from Polish airspace, strategically the difference between that scenario and the same scenario happening from the Ukraine/Russia border is the time available to react. Mere minutes or even seconds if cruise missiles are undetected until too late.
Once again, it doesn’t matter whether NATO would ever attack Moscow, what matters strategically is that Russia cannot allow even the possibility of that degree of vulnerability to occur.
Except everybody doesn’t.
Pope Deco speaks.
Show me someone who absolutely, never lies.
I’ve never encountered such a person. Some lie less than others and that’s about it.
Show me someone who absolutely, never lies.
You’re overly literal-minded.
@neo:I was under the impression that those countries wanted to join NATO.
Unlike Ukraine, which would rather decline Russia’s kind invitation to join the great Russian expansion..
You seem to think that NATO should give Russia veto power over other countries’ NATO memberships.
I can’t speak for MBunge. But expanding an alliance specifically directed at single nation which is paranoid about it does carry a risk which needs to be weighed carefully as to does it really make us all safer. I know, we’re saints and Putin is evil. Nonetheless, the reaction of an evil man with nuclear weapons needs to be part of everyone’s thinking who has to deal with him regardless of if you agree with that thinking or even if that thinking is sound. And predicting that man’s reaction and accounting for it in your own planning does not put you on that man’s side regardless of what the Tailgunner Joes are saying.
If Winston Churchill or Dwight Eisenhower were at the helm, I’m sure they would have intelligently run this risk and prepared appropriately. (Mind that Churchill and Roosevelt explicitly agreed with Stalin on his post-war sphere of influence–my source for that is Churchill himself–and yes Stalin was given an inch and took a mile, and was an evil man, but they made deals with evil men with their eyes open, because they understood the balance of power.)
What I’m afraid of that we were asleep at the switch, expanding NATO on paper with no intention of preparing in such a way as to make Putin afraid to try to do anything about it, and just wishing away the possibility that he would at some point do something about it. Because we are not a serious people and we think history doesn’t apply to us. I think we chose the worst of both worlds, something taken as provocative no matter how intended without any plan or intention of preventing a reaction, and Ukraine is paying for it.
It may be that the non-military international pressure combined with Ukraine possibly being too much for Russia to handle will do the trick*. If so, we all got lucky at Ukraine’s expense. I’m sure we’ll fail to learn from it.
*The media that gaslights and subverts fact to narrative has not been magically reformed, to my knowledge. Like I said before, I believe Russia invaded Ukraine and that Ukraine did not yet surrender, and that’s all I believe right now.
. But expanding an alliance specifically directed at single nation which is paranoid
Again, can someone show some objective evidence of paranoia? Are any of you aware of what real paranoia sounds like in meatspace?
Note, the salient expansion of NATO was complete 18 years ago and mostly complete 23 years ago. You’re all babbling as if it happened yesterday. What’s changed in the interim is Russia’s confidence that it can assert itself. That’s not paranoia, that’s ambition. And one thing you all do not want to do is ask yourself why Russia is ambitious in this way and why that ambition is accompanied with absurd formulations (on the part of Putin and on the part of street-level Russian nationalists).
You may not be a serious person, and many in the Brandon junta do not identify as serious persons, but I am sure there are some persons who work with NATO in our government who are serious persons. Your opinion differs.
As regards Tailgunner Joe, too clever by half. To be piled higher and deeper is based on behavior.
The current law in Russia can get you a fine or even a jail term just for stating in public that it was the Soviet Union together with Germany who had launched World War II. That goes as “defaming the vetetans and rehabilitating Naziism”. The revisionist version of history created in late 1940s under Stalin is still the canon in Russian schools.
Too bad no Western leader did not bother to do a retort speech, containing such words as “nonsense”, “bullshit” and “get a fucking book, moron”.
“….Mind that Churchill and Roosevelt explicitly agreed with Stalin on his post-war sphere of influence…”
Well, except for Austria, though that ended—fortunately—OK.
Actually, one might be tempted to compare Ukraine with Austria in certain ways, but geography, alas, gets in the way. OTOH, Vienna lies East of Prague(!), well SE, and if one considers Austria’s position vis-a-vis the former “Iron Curtain” countries, it is tucked in (sort of) “under” and westward of the former Czechoslovakia and just to the north of Hungary…not that those countries are the equivalent of Russia…
FWIW.
“Again, can someone show some objective evidence of paranoia?”
Again, is NATO a threat to Russia or not? If it is, then Putin is not paranoid to be concerned about it. If it is not, then Putin is paranoid to be concerned about it.
YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
Mike
neo – “You seem to think that NATO should give Russia veto power over other countries’ NATO memberships.”
1. I don’t understand why NATO still exists in its present form.
2. If the primary reason for adding a nation to NATO is to protect that nation from future Russian aggression, we should ask (or should’ve asked) whether going to war to protect that nation is something that makes ANY sense.
And can somebody…ANYBODY…please answer the simple question? Do you think it is a good idea that the United States is now legally obligated to go to nuclear war to defend Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, etc?
Mike
Again, is NATO a threat to Russia or not? If it is, then Putin is not paranoid to be concerned about it. If it is not, then Putin is paranoid to be concerned about it.
Irrelevant to my question, but never mind.
What NATO does is provide a co-ordinated cartel of countries to conduct military operations. Since, in 73 years, it has hardly operated outside a restricted geographical sphere and since, for over 50 years, its principal member has steadily reduced the size of its deployments on the continent (indeed, anywhere in the world), it’s not the most threatening of such cartels. It is, however, an impediment to Russia’s objects.
I don’t understand why NATO still exists in its present form.
Waal, you’ve a few weeks to learn.
Do you think it is a good idea that the United States is now legally obligated to go to nuclear war to defend Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, etc?
And who would be attempting to conquer any of these places?
I do not dismiss the arguments of those who question at the very least the optics of NATO expansion vis-a-vis Russia. However Putin has made it clear for decades, not just in this recent speech, that he would like to reassert Russia’s geopolitical power and inluence. So I don’t quite buy the insinuations that poor beleaguered Vlad the Russian patriot was forced to invade Ukraine by those globalists/neocons/[insert favorite conspiracy theory here].
“….Mind that Churchill and Roosevelt explicitly agreed with Stalin on his post-war sphere of influence…”
Please note, the Soviet Union had a sphere of influence only in Finland. Five other countries were subjugated and three were annexed and subject to Russian colonization.
However Putin has made it clear for decades, not just in this recent speech, that he would like to reassert Russia’s geopolitical power and inluence.
Well, if you were listening in 2005, would you have guessed that meant he wanted to forcibly reconquer the union republics and satellites? Note, his remarks on the history and political situation in the Ukraine were absurd, which tells us there’s really no boundary to his objects other than physical impediments.
Russia could be an influential country without stomping on other countries. Been done. Note how they reacted to the reversal of fortune suffered by their ally Yanukovich in the Ukraine in 2014 – instead of biding their time, they took a series of actions which worked to alienate the Ukrainian public and cost the Russophile parties 60% of their electorate. Now look what they’re doing – closing down any avenue apart from straight coercion.
All Caps for a sentence will be followed by Bold All Caps for a sentance.
Is that screaming, or a bullhorn in the ear?
MBunge:
I think your question has been answered many times already, but I’ll just say it a different way: Hitler thought most of the countries of Europe were a threat to him because they were against his expansionist plans.
A criminal being apprehended by the police thinks the police are a threat to him.
Both are correct. Those entities ARE threats to them. But not because those entities have aggressive designs on them. It’s because those entities are trying to STOP them from taking whatever they want, against the will of the people who occupy those things (in the case of countries) or own those things (in the case of goods being stolen).
Frederick; Barry Meislin:
It is my understanding that Churchill and FDR made a deal with Stalin because he was their ally in WWII and had advanced from the east and already occupied those lands. Churchill and FDR did not want to fight a new hot war at that point to take them back. They were war-weary.
The Cold War began very quickly after that. Churchill made his “Iron Curtain” speech” speech in March of 1946:
“What I’m afraid of that we were asleep at the switch…”
Indeed, and well argued.
But what if it’s worse than that?
…which is what I find myself asking “quietly” (in CDC/Pfizer jargon) the more I look at the sheer—and consistent—depravity of the “Biden” regime and its comprehensive set of perverse policy goals (foreign AND domestic), goals it plans to “spring” on a naive “audience” that the regime plans to distract, daze, confuse and confound.
(Which brings us to the “plausible deniability” racket…)