2016.... smh. and, it goes back further in time than 2016. dont be duped people. the "ukraine" has been a cesspool of corruption, infighting, theft, and you name it. i know all the "....shenko" names get confusing but my god, dont get your answers from america or british MSM. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_of_Ukraine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-National_Party_of_Ukraine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-National_Assembly and there is so much more. tbh, the place was as corrupt as any other "enemy of the West" but ukraine has a very long border with russia so it made it convenient for "the West" to keep thumping putin on the nose. Now "the West" is reaping what it sowed and once again our nation's wealth is going towards funding new war while the US infrastructure and her people crumble under the weight of war, debt, inflation, worry.... add to the list every other woe America is going through. "we" are not going to "win" against this russian "military operation".
Russia just defaulted on some loans and people are actually acting surprised. Russia claims that it's not their problem. They claim that they paid, and the sanctions prevent it from going through. What I find interesting is that somehow Europe seems to think that it has some kind of economic control over Russia. What are they going to do other than piss and moan for appearances sake? That they haven't already done? Quit buying gas and oil? Already done. Freeze all banking and business? Already done. Stop buying Russian Gold? Already done. What else do they have left? Write a sternly worded letter of condemnation? Other than an endless supply of money, material, and weapons flowing into Ukraine that's about all they have left. Short of declaring war themselves and joining in. That endless supply is doing wonders for the military industry, business is booming. Gotta replenish all that stuff that we sent, don't we? But I'm sure it's not just all about the money. It never is.
look how far back US policy against russia goes, and look at how ukraine was used by "the west". just one more snippet about the "they" and the powers that be. note Lindsay "war dawg" Graham was in lock step 100% of the time. he's just one more career politician that reinforces why there should be term limits for congress and an age cap on sitting for federal jobs. Brzezinski’s Proxy War Playbook this West vs East, "good vs evil" fight has been going on for a long, long, time. us old guys know and we sat around, uninvolved, and let it happen. look at the state of the world today. the rest is up to the individual to fill in the blanks. most people today don't remember the Bresenski and Kissinger influence years/decades.
A link to a trailer for Oliver Stone's 2014 movie 'Ukraine on Fire'. Showing basically the US as instigating everything that happened. Followed by a link to a 2014 movie 'Maidan'. Showing basically that Russia instigated everything that happened. I'm not claiming either one is true or not. Just pointing out that the current situation is not as clear cut as it's made out to be in our MSM. It goes back decades with long time grudges by all sides.
Will the west use the ‘default’ as justification for more war? Why else does a country or what have you refuse monies owed if not for nefarious ends?
personally i'm glad people are questioning the "official narrative" before this war becomes a NATO boots on the ground shooting match. i'm more confident NATO snipers were taking out russian generals than i am "ukranian snipers" performing the deed. i want young people to know there's an alternative story that demands listening to and vetting for truth. all is not as it is presented and the effect will be felt by 98% of the people on the globe (the 1% has grown since "the covid").
Agree with everything but the last part. I think wealth is being concentrated into a smaller percentage of individuals. It never was the 1%. It’s the .01% that are the problem. @Mvndanke I am going to reply to your last post in the other thread. It’s taking awhile because there’s a lot there and I’m trying to choose my words very carefully. Good post on identifying specific, legitimate problems.
I think there's truth there. no doubt the rising tide for that .01% floated a lot of other boats also. Davos had ~2000 attendees this year. as per previous attendance history Americans make up ~25% of the total, the vast majority of the remainder being European. "movers and shakers" in the "Davos spirit".
this is a very good and succinct timeline of events leading up to russia blowing up ukraine. all true but huge gaps of detailed info between 2008 - 2014, and post 2014 (the Maidan, Orange Revolution, ultranationalists, and much more) up until 2021, about what was happening in ukraine with "the west" and russia, and a whole bunch of elite criminals. you can get the gist that none of it was any good. and then there's Crimea which is part of the larger problem russia has/had with ukraine, and of itself is a whole other story. US, NATO, Spent 2021 Ramping Up Ukraine War - Antiwar.com Blog note russia's three demands in Nov for them not to invade. "November 21 – Russian President Putin sends letter to US and NATO countries demanding 1. No NATO for Ukraine, 2. No offensive weapons on Russia’s borders, 3. NATO troops and equipment in Eastern Europe to be moved back to Western Europe.’" all of the destruction and global upset could have easily been avoided were it not for US and UK foreign policy. this resultant disaster by design ? a truly peaceful, peace seeking set of people would have easily agreed to those three items. no missiles, no problem. let's have a drink! to your health! right? pretty sad.
There's one little detail about this that I'm having trouble understanding. And this is not an argument or anything, just a genuine question - by what right does Russia have to dictate which countries can and cannot join NATO?
I am certainly no russia apologist and i truly hope there's a coup in russia to take putin and his failing cronies out of power and influence. prison might be a good outcome for all of them. I think the answer to your question is it is a simple challenge to existing US/UK influence. it's not a matter of dictating what country can join NATO, it's an issue of projecting power, from both sides; "the west" vs russia/china. without the US i don't think there is a country in the EU that could defend itself and i question whether NATO without the US could adequately defend itself without use of tactical nukes. just saying again this whole devastating situation could have been prevented by cooler heads. the war didnt "just happen" as can be clearly seen. there were plenty of exit ramps to take before one shot was fired. i think it is a really, really, fucked up situ.
I wanted to jump in and say that there was some form of agreement where NATO would not expand any further eastward or not right to the Russian border. But when I went to confirm, I found a mess so..... There are lots of treaties and agreements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–NATO_relations good luck
I definitely understand that point of view, given that the USSR acted as a counterbalance to the west in world affairs, and it's collapse greatly tilted the balance of power in one direction. Russia/Putin really wants to restore that balance of power that existed in the Cold War, for whatever reason. It's rather unfortunate that any action taken now is that of escalation. I feel that we've done the right things in response to his wanton aggression against another state, but that is definitely not without consequences. My bet is that he will drag this on for years, upset Ukranian wheat exports to the middle east/africa which will cause political unrest, revolutions, conflict, which will then flood Europe with another wave of migrants, on top of the 8 million Ukrainians already here, which will then further radicalize European politics. Putin's already done that in America pretty successfully, from what I've seen. The dude is fucking insane but not stupid. I hate everyone at the moment.
You found a mess as there was no such formal agreement or treaty between Russia & NATO. It cannot be found anywhere. This is basically historical revisionism from the Putin regime which is taking its talking points regarding NATO expansion from informal talks USSR had regarding the German reunification process. If you want to see the real stipulations of the 1997 Founding Act which established formal relations with the Russian Federation, it can be found on NATO's official website here: Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France I would direct your attention to this specific paragraph NATO has undertaken a historic transformation -- a process that will continue. In 1991 the Alliance revised its strategic doctrine to take account of the new security environment in Europe. Accordingly, NATO has radically reduced and continues the adaptation of its conventional and nuclear forces. While preserving the capability to meet the commitments undertaken in the Washington Treaty, NATO has expanded and will continue to expand its political functions, and taken on new missions of peacekeeping and crisis management in support of the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), such as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to address new security challenges in close association with other countries and international organisations. NATO is in the process of developing the European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) within the Alliance. It will continue to develop a broad and dynamic pattern of cooperation with OSCE participating States in particular through the Partnership for Peace and is working with Partner countries on the initiative to establish a Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. NATO member States have decided to examine NATO's Strategic Concept to ensure that it is fully consistent with Europe's new security situation and challenges. Additionally: Provisions of this Act do not provide NATO or Russia, in any way, with a right of veto over the actions of the other nor do they infringe upon or restrict the rights of NATO or Russia to independent decision-making and action. They cannot be used as a means to disadvantage the interests of other states. This is what the Russian Federation actually formally agreed to with NATO. NATO expansion in 1990 did not make sense with German reunification + a USSR that was liberalizing and letting certain Iron Curtain countries become independent. It started to make more sense after Russia started attacking nations and independent states in the mid/late 90s. For example, we can't expect the Baltic states to remain neutral given the fact they were invaded and annexed by force into the Soviet Union just 50 years prior and never cared for that. We can't expect Poland and Hungary to remain neutral given that Russia invaded the former and imposed Communist shitholism in the latter for 50 years. We can't expect Georgia to stay neutral after having experienced a full invasion from Russia. So on and so forth.
On a completely unrelated note, I buy weed about a mile from the Brandenburg Gate where the wall was and it's really good weed
Luhansk Republic is now under Russian control. Shouldn’t be long now until all of the Donbas is under their control too. The ruble is the strongest currency in the world. India is making a fortune reselling Russian oil to Europe. BRICS is on the rise while Western civilization crumbles. Nothing good is coming from the G7 meeting. RD