mikedilger on Nostr: On some of these points we agree. Again I think you are arguing against Putin, not ...
On some of these points we agree. Again I think you are arguing against Putin, not against me.
Yes of course "Russia did not like the fact that Ukraine became independent from the very beginning of the collapse of the USSR."
Yes of course "but it was not a problem because before yushchenko (2005) russia had full control over ukraine."
... in fact that was my very point which you argued against in your last note, that you thought was "funny".
Yes of course "it was with yushchenko that problems started when, for example, russian oligarchs could not buy ukrainian enterprises (Днепрогэс,Южмаш) through bribes."
But none of that is a counterargument against the view that NATO enlargement threatens Russia. They can both be true.
The fact that some thought Kyiv would fall in three days isn't a counter-argument. I'm not saying Ukraine was built up by NATO already and poised to strike Russia. I'm saying that powerful nations don't allow that situation to materialize. Ukraine declared it was to enter NATO. Western leaders kept saying Ukraine would enter NATO. If Ukraine had entered NATO it would be too late for Russia to attack it. Russia had to attack before it entered NATO. Russia pressed on this issue in December, demanding assurance that Ukraine would not be allowed to enter NATO, and a limit on deployment of troops and weapons to NATO's eastern flank. It moved forces to Ukraine's borders and tried to negotiate. What did Biden say? Ukraine has a right to join NATO (which it strictly doesn't, the other NATO countries get to choose, and so Biden's statement was a bold provocation). So in February Russia made good on it's threat.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato
Bill Clinton writes in the Atlantic in 2022 that his policy was to expand NATO despite Russia's protestations, while he lauds praise on Madeline Albright, the woman who said the deaths of half a million Iraqi children was "worth it." Sick. Clinton's view is that Russia's invasion of Ukraine proves NATO expansion was necessary. But you can take either side of that view and neither one "proves" a damn thing. It just as well proves NATO expansion caused the whole mess. Neither of them is proof.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240210183901/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/bill-clinton-nato-expansion-ukraine/629499/
Not enough people understand the fundamental security dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma (yes go read that so you can understand this paragraph) and so they say things like 'NATO is a defensive alliance' and 'NATO didn't threaten Russia', when in fact because of the security dilemma, NATOs very presence threatens Russia. NATO drills right now in Lithuania threaten Russia. NATO says "we are preparing in case Russia attacks the baltics" but because of the security dilemma, Russia can't know if that is true, or if they are lying and actually preparing to invade Russia. Because Russia cannot know, Russia has for 20 years argued "back the fuck off, you're making me very nervous" and the West acts like they are stupid, dumb, and simply do not understand why Russia feels threatened. Which actually leads me to believe that NATO DOES INDEED intend to take out Russia. Because an honest NATO would say "yes that makes sense, let's establish a neutral zone region". But NATO does no such thing. Recent statements back up the view that NATO intends to attack Russia. They talk about how Ukraine is "weakening" Russia, making it easier to take out Russia after Ukraine is depleted.
Pay attention to the bigger picture. Ukraine is a small player in what is going on.
Every Ukrainian I've talked to only cares about their country. They do not see the bigger picture. They take offense when you bring up the bigger picture. If you ask them about what is going on in Niger or Palestine or Korea they could care less. They have zero interest or knowledge of global politics, and they think everything is about them, and they are entrenched in their small-world "this is a simple situation between Ukraine and Russia" view. Seriously I've been yelled at fiercely for even bringing up the United States in relation to this war. A Chinese person I heard from says that most Chinese people think Ukrainians are retarded (his word, not mine).
I've heard from many sources that believe in this NATO expansion is a threat viewpoint. John Mearsheimer who advised Ukraine to keep their nukes so that they could defend themselves against Russia, he has this view. So does Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Ritter, Ray McGovern, Douglas MacGregor, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald, and many others. SURE, they might all be fooled by Putin, but their views align with the facts I have and more importantly the view doesn't conflict with anything and aligns with theory too, whereas the US view, the Ukrainian view, these conflict with facts and/or theory and are more likely the propaganda.
> Even though even under Yanukovych, Ukraine claimed to be a member of the European Union and NATO.
No it didn't. C'mon on.
Putin said he would congratulate Ukraine if it gained access to the EU. That's the counterpoint most people on your side of the argument point to, they say Putin was ok with it, so it can't be about being friendly with the EU. EU economic union is not NATO military union.
Yes of course "Russia did not like the fact that Ukraine became independent from the very beginning of the collapse of the USSR."
Yes of course "but it was not a problem because before yushchenko (2005) russia had full control over ukraine."
... in fact that was my very point which you argued against in your last note, that you thought was "funny".
Yes of course "it was with yushchenko that problems started when, for example, russian oligarchs could not buy ukrainian enterprises (Днепрогэс,Южмаш) through bribes."
But none of that is a counterargument against the view that NATO enlargement threatens Russia. They can both be true.
The fact that some thought Kyiv would fall in three days isn't a counter-argument. I'm not saying Ukraine was built up by NATO already and poised to strike Russia. I'm saying that powerful nations don't allow that situation to materialize. Ukraine declared it was to enter NATO. Western leaders kept saying Ukraine would enter NATO. If Ukraine had entered NATO it would be too late for Russia to attack it. Russia had to attack before it entered NATO. Russia pressed on this issue in December, demanding assurance that Ukraine would not be allowed to enter NATO, and a limit on deployment of troops and weapons to NATO's eastern flank. It moved forces to Ukraine's borders and tried to negotiate. What did Biden say? Ukraine has a right to join NATO (which it strictly doesn't, the other NATO countries get to choose, and so Biden's statement was a bold provocation). So in February Russia made good on it's threat.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato
Bill Clinton writes in the Atlantic in 2022 that his policy was to expand NATO despite Russia's protestations, while he lauds praise on Madeline Albright, the woman who said the deaths of half a million Iraqi children was "worth it." Sick. Clinton's view is that Russia's invasion of Ukraine proves NATO expansion was necessary. But you can take either side of that view and neither one "proves" a damn thing. It just as well proves NATO expansion caused the whole mess. Neither of them is proof.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240210183901/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/bill-clinton-nato-expansion-ukraine/629499/
Not enough people understand the fundamental security dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma (yes go read that so you can understand this paragraph) and so they say things like 'NATO is a defensive alliance' and 'NATO didn't threaten Russia', when in fact because of the security dilemma, NATOs very presence threatens Russia. NATO drills right now in Lithuania threaten Russia. NATO says "we are preparing in case Russia attacks the baltics" but because of the security dilemma, Russia can't know if that is true, or if they are lying and actually preparing to invade Russia. Because Russia cannot know, Russia has for 20 years argued "back the fuck off, you're making me very nervous" and the West acts like they are stupid, dumb, and simply do not understand why Russia feels threatened. Which actually leads me to believe that NATO DOES INDEED intend to take out Russia. Because an honest NATO would say "yes that makes sense, let's establish a neutral zone region". But NATO does no such thing. Recent statements back up the view that NATO intends to attack Russia. They talk about how Ukraine is "weakening" Russia, making it easier to take out Russia after Ukraine is depleted.
Pay attention to the bigger picture. Ukraine is a small player in what is going on.
Every Ukrainian I've talked to only cares about their country. They do not see the bigger picture. They take offense when you bring up the bigger picture. If you ask them about what is going on in Niger or Palestine or Korea they could care less. They have zero interest or knowledge of global politics, and they think everything is about them, and they are entrenched in their small-world "this is a simple situation between Ukraine and Russia" view. Seriously I've been yelled at fiercely for even bringing up the United States in relation to this war. A Chinese person I heard from says that most Chinese people think Ukrainians are retarded (his word, not mine).
I've heard from many sources that believe in this NATO expansion is a threat viewpoint. John Mearsheimer who advised Ukraine to keep their nukes so that they could defend themselves against Russia, he has this view. So does Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Ritter, Ray McGovern, Douglas MacGregor, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald, and many others. SURE, they might all be fooled by Putin, but their views align with the facts I have and more importantly the view doesn't conflict with anything and aligns with theory too, whereas the US view, the Ukrainian view, these conflict with facts and/or theory and are more likely the propaganda.
> Even though even under Yanukovych, Ukraine claimed to be a member of the European Union and NATO.
No it didn't. C'mon on.
Putin said he would congratulate Ukraine if it gained access to the EU. That's the counterpoint most people on your side of the argument point to, they say Putin was ok with it, so it can't be about being friendly with the EU. EU economic union is not NATO military union.