From Russia With Love

,.,.

Saarkie stop it, you'll have someone close to tears & posting the theme to Dr Zhivago

Mentality impaired, lowlife, witless imbeciles...shows your class.

Sad apologies of men...beyond any hope of reform.

A lot worse can be said about anyone supporting that Russian monster & btw. I'm still waiting to hear from you the reason for this devastating & tragic invasion of a sovereign state.

I don't like Putin but when I see all these war games where Ukraine is win ning the battle proves how the mindset of man can be swayed by garbage. 

Don't answer foolish questions from stupid ignorant people. The war did not start on 24th February this year idiot. Read the history sluggard. As for the Russian president that you weakly judge from propaganda tripe.You know absolutely zero about. Only utter lemmings follow the media. If you are really honest and care get off your fat arse and do your own open-minded and unaffected research. Only fools judge from what they do not know...the mentality of a kangaroo court jury.

I have a question…

Had Nato kept its promise on Ukraine, would Putin still have invaded?

Genuine question, what promise was that?

Something i’ve noticed, after watching as many interviews with Putin as i can, the man is incredibly direct. Whether or not i like what he says, i get the feeling that he tells it like it is.

At this point, one could make a highlight reel of Putin warning Nato about including Ukraine.

As much as one can stand on your box of virtue and call Putin and Russians evil, you simply can’t ignore that they were forced to endure treatment that most Western countries would perceive as top tier aggravation.

Say what you like but those are the facts.

No, those are not facts, that's you opinion. Putin has pushed this myth that the West has been humiliating Russia. If the west was out to humiliate Russia why then was Europe happy to buy huge amounts of oil and gas over decades from Russia, or why Russia was invited into the G8 despite it not have a large economy or it being a democracy. Did the west prevent Russia hosting major sporting events like the World Cup, the Winter Olympics or Grand Prix's.

It’s not that difficult to understand. I’m not a Cold War fundi but the entire US shat itself because of Cuba’s alliance with Russia. WW3 was apparently right around the corner. I see that Mexico want to decouple from the Dollar now…what happens when they also agree to deep Russian ties or perhaps an alliance that allows Russia to put nukes along the US border?

We already know the result, don’t we? All of sudden, those who claimed that any sovereign country can have any alliance that they wish…will stop signing that tune. As bloody ignorant as it gets if you ask me.

But ok…Russia are supremely evil, so they shouldn’t have the same right to alliances that the US and Europe have, right?

Decoupling from the dollar is a long way from wanting to establish an alliance. I know people have asked the question how would the US feel if Mexico joined a military alliance with Russia, but they don't acknowledge the reality that Mexico doesn't feel the need for such an alliance because they in no way feel like they are going to be attacked by the US. That isn't the case for central and eastern European countries who genuinely feel threatened. And as for nukes, NATO never moved nukes beyond Germany/Italy after the fall of the Soviet Union. However its widely believed the Russian's have nukes in Kaliningrad. So for decades the west has already tolerated Russian nukes on its borders.

Russia has alliances already. Like with China, Syria, Belarus, and several other former Soviet states.

Cool…let’s have a look at which of the two, Russia or the US, have destroyed more countries since the Cold War. Simply, who has bombed more countries and killed more civilians?

There’s one winner there and it’s not even close…not by a long shot. So what exactly is the measure of evil? If murder is the worst crime, then the simple answer is that the US is more evil that Russia. Sorry, the numbers don’t lie and the US have killed more civilians in one war than Russia have since the 1980s. It’s just how it is. Imagine if Russia made an “oopsie” and killed half a million innocent people? Well, the US did. Again, just he facts. So, who is more evil and who should have a lesser right to alliances?

Well if you want to believe the US is more evil than Russia then go ahead and do so. That still isn't a justification for the war in Ukraine. Yes the west are hypocrites, but all your doing is arguing for Russia to have the right to kill as many innocents as the US and to be just as hypocritical.

And let’s remember that the moment Seb links Russian news stories here, he’s called stupid because it’s Russian propaganda. It’s as though those calling him stupid aren’t aware that EVERY single major news agency in the west has been whoring for the military establishment since practically forever. Again, nothing conspiratorial about it…it’s simply how it is. And it’s the very same news agencies that pumped the Iraq war to the hilt. “You’re either with us or against us. Be a patriot!” …remember?

And he or less calls us stupid for posting new stories from the other side of the same conflict. As for EVERY major new agency whoring for the military establishment, when France and Germany opposed the war in Iraq where their news agency whoring for the military establishment? Even in the UK where most of the media did support the war there is examples of newspapers which did not like the Daily Mirror.

I absolutely do agree that in places like the US, the media absolutely gets behind the military when its involved somewhere militarily and that attitudes like you are either with us or against us are dangerous as can be using patriotism to support an argument.

Is RT a Russia propaganda machine? Of course it is. But if you think that every major news agency in the West isn’t the exact same thing then you’re plainly damn stupid and should probably just shut the hell up.

There is multiple western media new agencies, and many of them are independent and not state controlled. Can these news agencies have biases, yes they absolutely can but you see here is the thing we as human beings can judge whether they are telling the truth or by reviewing the evidence they present along with the new story.

Now, let’s have a look at something else…Trump.

Trump understood what Nato was, and he refused to support it in its current incarnation. He tried to roll back some of the unnecessary negative sentiment on Russia, but the establishment labelled him a Russian asset.

He never was a Russian asset, we know this. But somehow there was a motivation to label him as one. I wonder why…..?

It would appear to me that Trump would have kept Nato in check and that, were he in office, none of this would have happened. But you morons screamed for the other guy, remember?

To me, it’s quite clear what has occurred here.

Trump believed at one point the NATO may not have been necessary and thought European members where not contributing enough to NATO. I've no idea where you are getting this he tried to roll back some of the unnecessary negative anti Russian sentiment stuff from.  And as for keeping NATO in check. Sorry what? That's just made up nonsense.

As for being a Russian asset, suppose that's open to interpretation. But he certainly spoke favorable of Putin and giving Putin's actions now, what does that say about Trump's character judgement.

Nato was attempting to tighten the stranglehold on Russia and were likely motivated by the prospect of cheaper energy prices.

Seriously what? So some NATO countries became dependent on Russian gas to stranglehold Russia?

Putin, as far as i can tell, warned Nato and the world a ridiculous amount of times that Russia would perceive this as an existential threat. Nobody listened and it has resulted in this conflict.

Putin is a liar.

NATO is primarily a defensive alliance. The main reason countries join it is for protection that article 5 of the NATO treaty provides, if one country is attacked other members come to their assistance. A lot of central and eastern European countries suffered greatly under Soviet control after World War II, and after the fall of the Soviet Union these countries did not trust Russia, and they know that as an individual country none where a match military for Russia on their own.

These countries could simply look at the state Russia became after the Soviet Union collapsed and could see its authoritarian nature, its repression of political opposition,  the lack of a free media, the endemic corruption, the aggressive actions Russia had taken against foreign states, the assassinations its carried out in some of its countries, its repeated violations of nations territorial sovereignty, the brutality of how it fought the war in Chechnya and its revanchist view of history.

Is it any surprise that those countries wanted to join NATO?

Now on the other hand, if a NATO member attacked Russia, NATO is under no obligation to help the member nation that attacked Russia. Secondly NATO countries did just border only 5% of Russian territory and the number of troops stationed in those countries was just a token force that could barely hold out for a couple of days in the event of Russian attack, never mind attacking Russia.  In addition to this lets talk about the fact that  not a single members state of NATO has even hinted at suggesting attacking Russia? Seriously which state is going to be batshit insane enough to attack Russia after how well that worked out for Napoleon and Hitler, never mind the fact that Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads. Hell America was in the process of pivoting to Asia to counter China and was shifting its resources and focus from Europe to there.

Putin knew all this, he knows NATO will never attack Russia but it does block him from expanding Russian influence and control into Eastern Europe. He's just using NATO, Nazi's and the claim of genocide as excuses to take control over Ukraine.

Yet more BS from Bidens family member in the UK.

Yet more BS from Bidens family member in the UK.

LOL

Stav

I should say that I have tremendous respect for almost everything about the US and it's people. The world would be worse off without them. I've compared Europe to the US on here before and stated that, in most aspects, I choose the US option. From culture to technology and work ethic... they kinda win. Also, they have waves on all their coasts. 

My gripe is with certain US administrations, figures, and companies.

That doesn't make me anti-West. It just makes me critical in regard to the bad elements of a country and political system that I mostly appreciate.

...because we know how you like to throw out "anti-West" as soon as someone disagrees with your idea of foreign policy.

Anyway, let's try and quickfire answer you...

Genuine question, what promise was that?

What is the basis of the complaint?

At one level it narrowly focuses both on verbal commitments made by the US secretary of state James Baker under President George HW Bush and the terms of a treaty signed on 12 September 1990 setting out how Nato troops could operate in the territory of the former East Germany.

Putin claims that Baker, in a discussion on 9 February 1990 with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, made the promise that Nato would not expand to the east if Russia accepted Germany’s unification.

The following day Chancellor Helmut Kohl, ambiguous about Germany remaining in Nato after unification, also told Gorbachev “naturally Nato could not expand its territory to the current territory of the GDR”. The promise was repeated in a speech by the Nato secretary general on 17 May, a promise cited by Putin in his Munich speech. In his memoirs, Gorbachev described these assurances as the moment that cleared the way for compromise on Germany.

Were these promises ever written down in a treaty?

No, largely because Bush felt Baker and Kohl had gone too far, or in Baker’s words he had “got a little forward on his skis”.

The final agreement signed by Russia and the west in September 1990 applied only to Germany. It allowed foreign-stationed Nato troops to cross the old cold war line marked by East Germany at the discretion of the German government. The agreement was contained in a signed addendum. Nato’s commitment to protect, enshrined in article 5, had for the first time moved east into former Russian-held territory.

No, those are not facts, that's you opinion. Putin has pushed this myth that the West has been humiliating Russia. If the west was out to humiliate Russia why then was Europe happy to buy huge amounts of oil and gas over decades from Russia, or why Russia was invited into the G8 despite it not have a large economy or it being a democracy. Did the west prevent Russia hosting major sporting events like the World Cup, the Winter Olympics or Grand Prix's.

It's funny that you think one has to treat a country as one would North Korea before they have a want or right to respond. Also, I never used the word humiliating, which makes me wonder if you missed the point? Lol of course Russia should be invited to the G8...Russia holds 11% of the earth's landmass. This makes me think that you don't know why the G8 exists.

Decoupling from the dollar is a long way from wanting to establish an alliance. I know people have asked the question how would the US feel if Mexico joined a military alliance with Russia, but they don't acknowledge the reality that Mexico doesn't feel the need for such an alliance because they in no way feel like they are going to be attacked by the US. That isn't the case for central and eastern European countries who genuinely feel threatened. And as for nukes, NATO never moved nukes beyond Germany/Italy after the fall of the Soviet Union. However its widely believed the Russian's have nukes in Kaliningrad. So for decades the west has already tolerated Russian nukes on its borders.

Russia has alliances already. Like with China, Syria, Belarus, and several other former Soviet states.

It should be rather obvious that decoupling from the Dollar creates a necessity for new alliances. Ask uncle Gadaffi. Mexico has been moving closer to Russia and Russia have previously had allies in the area. This isn't to say that I think Mexico is looking at allowing Russian ICBMs in Juarez. 

I was making a comparison for argument's sake. But i think you knew that. 

Well if you want to believe the US is more evil than Russia then go ahead and do so. That still isn't a justification for the war in Ukraine. Yes the west are hypocrites, but all your doing is arguing for Russia to have the right to kill as many innocents as the US and to be just as hypocritical.

I'm arguing that the judge should not have blood on his hands because if that judge was hearing your case, you'd cry foul at the first opportunity. More so, I'm saying that one should not be being led around by the nose because it can be, and has been, a road to disaster. What do they say "It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they're being fooled."

And he or less calls us stupid for posting new stories from the other side of the same conflict. As for EVERY major new agency whoring for the military establishment, when France and Germany opposed the war in Iraq where their news agency whoring for the military establishment? Even in the UK where most of the media did support the war there is examples of newspapers which did not like the Daily Mirror.

I absolutely do agree that in places like the US, the media absolutely gets behind the military when its involved somewhere militarily and that attitudes like you are either with us or against us are dangerous as can be using patriotism to support an argument.

There is multiple western media new agencies, and many of them are independent and not state controlled. Can these news agencies have biases, yes they absolutely can but you see here is the thing we as human beings can judge whether they are telling the truth or by reviewing the evidence they present along with the new story.

Controlled opposition, bud. Did France and Germany sanction, or threaten to sanction the US or UK for Iraq or any other invasions? Nope, there may have been some protestation but ultimately they went on their merry way with enough public sentiment to get away with it. Where and how do you think that sentiment was generated and sustained? 

By the way, do you know how we know Iraq wasn't an oopsie? Because nobody went to jail for it. Think about it 

Trump believed at one point the NATO may not have been necessary and thought European members where not contributing enough to NATO. I've no idea where you are getting this he tried to roll back some of the unnecessary negative anti Russian sentiment stuff from.  And as for keeping NATO in check. Sorry what? That's just made up nonsense.

As for being a Russian asset, suppose that's open to interpretation. But he certainly spoke favorable of Putin and giving Putin's actions now, what does that say about Trump's character judgement.

I can tell that you're a CNN junky since you are all about their talking points. 

Here is a CNN article that offers a summary of larger stories painting a narrative of Trump doing exactly what I eluded to in "roll back" much unwarranted negative sentiment on Russia.

Seriously what? So some NATO countries became dependent on Russian gas to stranglehold Russia?

You totally and completely missed the point here. I'll dumb it down. The more isolated Russia is, the less Europe pay for natural gas.

Putin is a liar.

All polticians are. But my gut feel is that he's far more direct than your average Western politician. He can be, becuase he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected...dictators are by and large more direct in their dealings with the outside world. That's kinda the strategic plus in dealing with them, you know what you're getting.

Now on the other hand, if a NATO member attacked Russia, NATO is under no obligation to help the member nation that attacked Russia. Secondly NATO countries did just border only 5% of Russian territory and the number of troops stationed in those countries was just a token force that could barely hold out for a couple of days in the event of Russian attack, never mind attacking Russia.  In addition to this lets talk about the fact that  not a single members state of NATO has even hinted at suggesting attacking Russia? Seriously which state is going to be batshit insane enough to attack Russia after how well that worked out for Napoleon and Hitler, never mind the fact that Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads. Hell America was in the process of pivoting to Asia to counter China and was shifting its resources and focus from Europe to there.

To be fair, I quite like this point. I mean, the token amount of troops the most easterly stationed is neither here nor there, but I like your point in general.

There's an hour of my Saturday afternoon that i'll never get back...

haha thanks Stav

Actions count ...lets talk about this once it all is revealed...the liars exposed, the truth tellers exonerated...don't worry it will happen.

But then embarrassment and they scatter like ash to the wind.

You strain at gnats but swallow camels

What is this promise ButtPlug, spit it out...
By the way, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, nor the EU.

So Russia sees NATO as an existential threat?
No kidding, NATO was created specifically against Russia.

Russia has more nuclear bombs than any country, so they of course more of an existential threat to the world, than countries without nuclear bombs like Sweden and Finland, who have always remained neutral. 

However, due to Putin's continued expansion efforts (e.g. Georgia, Ukraine), they have been forced to join NATO.

Finland had to share a border with Russia, a country with more nukes than all other countries put together (excluding the US). A country that is more involved with wars in Europe than any country since WW2. 

Putin has the Russian news stations showing simulations of Russia destroying countries around the world. His minions frequently make threats to the West that they can destroy them (e.g. Satan 2- who builds this type of monstrosity?)

NATO is not trying to colonise countries, so it is a lesser evil. It is a defence alliance. 
NATO prevented Russia from more military expansion during the cold war until the USSR collapsed. 

Everything from Putin is nonsense. This is all purely about trying to re-establish the USSR.
He has planned this for a very long time. Each time he invades a country, he will say it is about its Russian-speaking residents. Until he gets to a place with no Russians, and he will find a new reason to denazify. 

A new Russian leader and the cold war is back again. 

A claim near 50%?  So Russia is 50% right for invading Ukraine.

Utter nonsense.

Plumdumb, I warned you once before about mixing your cannabis & opioids .

50% se gat .............Putin is as evil as Stalin & Hitler. An unholy trinity of Euro filth.

My own view is the Western institutions had so long regarded Russia as the enemy, they couldn’t accept detente. and continued to prosecute the case against  Russia. The Sochi games for example, Russia’s coming out party, could have brought everybody together…but Russia was ostracized

That was provocative and wasted an historical opportunity. Nonetheless Putin has pretty much confirmed all the worst stereotypes. Nothing justified the virtual destruction of a sovereign country and the misery involved.