War in Ukraine. Did the West handle the post Cold War era badly?

@uninspiredcup: nothing new... they've been using that 'strategy' since WW2...

I don't think you remember correctly. It's the myriads of invincible russian laser tanks and the highly motivated and trained russian bear infantry that makes you panic and screech like a little girl.

If you are thikning about a lot of former soviet states joining Putin in 1999. Why do you think that was?

I think there is something wrong with your eyes...

Debate within the American government as to whether enlargement of NATO was feasible or desirable began during theGeorge H.W. Bush administration.[39]By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony.

In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum inCentral Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.

Victory by the Republican Party, who advocated for aggressive expansion, in the1994 US congressional electionhelped sway US policy in favor of wider full-membership enlargement, which the US ultimately pursued in the following years.

In what condition was Russia economically after the dissolution of the SovietUnion? What happened right after? How did it go?

Russia has been bullying foreign nations, violating our airspace, they illegally annexed Crimea, supported insurgents in Donbas, and have been funding far left and far right parties in western europe, in an attempt to destabilize their politics.

Uh-hu... consequential reaction to action. That was after the US pushed for the "Euro-American hegemony"... biggly. Players moving the pieces. Kind of expected. But... why does the US commit hostile actions on friendly soil against close allies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Parliamentary_Committee_investigation_of_the_NSA_spying_scandal

On July 3, 2014, the former Technical Director of the NSA,William Binney, who had become a whistleblower after theterrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, testified to the committee. He said that the NSA has a totalitarian approach that has previously only been known from dictatorships and that there is no longer such a thing as privacy.^[9][10]Former NSA employeeThomas Andrews Drakedescribed the close cooperation between the NSA and the German foreign intelligence serviceBND.

Who knows what else there is...

The judge Guido Salvini, who worked in the Italian Massacres Commission, found out that several far right terrorist organizations were the trench troops of a secret army who were linked to the CIA.^[13] Salvini said: "The role of the Americans was ambiguous, halfway between knowing and not preventing and actually inducing people to commit atrocities".^[14]

Judge Gerado D'Ambrosio found out that in a conference that had the patronage of the Chief Staff of Defense, there were instructions to infiltrate left wing groups and provoke a social tension by carrying out attacks and then to blame them on the left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

You're watching the kinetic part of a war, and you think that is all there is to War?

have been funding far left and far right parties

Sure, why not.

This i find intriguing. What kind of far left/right organisations did they fund? Black Lives Matter for example? You're aware this includes far left ideology? Something you support and defend with vigour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension

A strategy of tension (Italian:strategia della tensione) is a policy wherein violent struggle is encouraged rather than suppressed. The purpose is to create a general feeling of insecurity in the population and make people seek security in a strong government. This is supposed to pave the way for a moreauthoritarian, or evenneofascist, government.

@palasta: Your incoherrent post completely falls apart when you realize that NATO is something countries opt in to voluntarily.

Your quote does not address this fact. And thus irrelevant. Same with a good chunk of the other stuff you said. And no, there is no excuse for Russia. People are protecting themselves against Russia. No one is posing a military threat against them.

The only threat other sovereign nations pose against Russia is that of a Political Threat.

This i find intriguing. What kind of far left/right organisations did they fund? Black Lives Matter for example? You're aware this includes far left ideology? Something you support and defend with vigour.

I specifically said they fund far left ideology (as well as far right wing ideology). The goal is fund both to strengthen political tensions in a country. Thus destabilizing it from the within.

Terrorism is the go to strategy of Russia. I am hoping following Russia's inevitable loss. Russia's culture will see some MAJOR reformations.

Appearing incoherrent to you is never surprising.

Why didn't Finland join NATO way earlier if Russia is so belligerent? They were diplomatic and compromised, thus not militarized by the US and invaded by Soviet Union/Russia. Diplomacy, Compromise... you know, characterics which are absent from the unhinged warmongering mind.

Your quote does not address this fact. And thus irrelevant. Same with a good chunk of the other stuff you said.

With other words, you can't debate any of it, let alone refute. OK. My post is rocksolid then.

No one is posing a military threat against them.

No need to. Economic warfare is War. Besides, major strategic spots (Romania, Ukraine) occupied by a belligerent hostile nation (US of A) i'd call a military threat from russian POV. Nukes on cuba? Why feel threatened USA? Why was it Obama cancelled the poland missile defense system? Because Russia didn't feel threatened? Does that mean no one should feel threatened when China expands it's military presence towards other nations? Yearight. And keep in mind, they're all called "Minitries of Defense". So naturally, anyone with a Ministry of Defenese (like the US), will not attack anyone, because for that you need a Ministry of Offense, and in no other way you could somehow wage war against an enemy.

And the russians posing a military threat to who? From the looks of it no one. I know, not according to your claims, saying sweden, finland and poland (even though NATO) will be next Putins armies will invade if not stopped. That one really made me burst out loud laughing. No matter yesterday, or 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, the russian army has always been a mess and the russian people have never been eager to go to war. Maybe half a century ago that would've been a good propaganda message. Then again, with so many idiot apes, it prbly is just as good.

Always a delight to debate with you politics dopes. You're so clueless.

Ispecificallysaid they fund far left ideology (as well as far right wing ideology). The goal is fund both to strengthen political tensions in a country. Thus destabilizing it from the within.

Yes. Sooo... you're admitting to be part of this destabilisation process, since you adhere to far left ideology, feeding the tension, thus helping Putin. But you're calling me incoherrent. HA HA HA!

btw. funding and supporting extremism:

TheIran–Contra affair(Persian:ماجرای ایران-کنترا,Spanish:Caso Irán–Contra), often referred to as theIran–Contra scandal, theMcFarlane affair(in Iran),[1]or simplyIran–Contra, was apolitical scandalin theUnited Statesthat occurred during the second term of theReagan administration. Between 1981 and 1986, senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms toIran, which was the subject of anarms embargo.[2]

The administration hoped to use the proceeds of the arms sale to fund theContras, a right-wing rebel group, inNicaragua.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

--------

https://www.newsweek.com/how-isis-got-weapons-us-used-them-take-iraq-syria-748468

As much as 90 percent of ISIS's arms and ammunition were found to have originated in Russia, China and Eastern European states. The jihadis were able to obtain much of this arsenal as a result of former President Barack Obama's support for rebels in Syria, U.K.-based Conflict Armament Research reported after analyzing 40,000 items recovered by its investigators along ISIS front lines between July 2014 and November 2017.

By purchasing "large numbers" of European arms and ammunition and then diverting them to nonstate actors in Syria without notifying the sellers, the U.S. reportedly "violated the terms of sale and export agreed between weapon exporters...and recipients."

-------

U.S. Made Secret Deal With ISIS to Let Thousands of Fighters Flee Raqqa to Battle Assad in Syria, Former Ally Says

https://www.newsweek.com/us-secret-deal-isis-fighters-flee-battle-russia-syria-ally-742474

------

Some years ago i read an article about the syrian civil war containing a short comment by a russian military: "This is against the americans, it has always been against the americans". Why do you think he said that? Because Russia doesn't feel threatened by the US, which has an annual "defense" budget 10x as high? But yea... it's the russian economy that is fascist... pfhahaha!

On July 3, 2014, the former Technical Director of the NSA,William Binney, who had become a whistleblower after theterrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, testified to the committee. He said that the NSA has a totalitarian approach that has previously only been known from dictatorships and that there is no longer such a thing as privacy.[9][10]Former NSA employeeThomas Andrews Drakedescribed the close cooperation between the NSA and the German foreign intelligence serviceBND.

Btw. in Russia abortion is legal up to 12 weeks. in that aspect they are more progressive then the US. Is there any "medical consesus" reached yet? F*ing ridiculous, can't even find a compromise on abortion, but want to lecture the world and create tension and conflict by militarisation, economic warfare, funding/supporting extremism, spying big time on leaders of allied nations and certainly a lot more.

@palasta: Sweden and Finland had a policy of remaining Neutral, which meant abstaining from military alliances such as NATO. But after the Invasion of Ukraine, it was clear that the tradition of Neutrality was not worth keeping. The fact of the matter is, Russian aggression is why they are joining NOW.

No, your arguments are irrelevant. They might have had a point of the US made these countries join by gunpoint. But that isn't what is happening.

NATO countries aren't occupied by the US... the US has military bases there but that doesn't mean occupation. And no, NATO countries were not an economic threat to Russia. Up until the recent war, NATO countries were some of the biggest buyers of Russias largest exports.

But nah, let's just go wit

Edit: And I said that Russia is Eye'ing these nations. Poland is unlikely because it is in NATO, but that doesnt mean that Russia don't want to annex from these countries (in particular Gottland and Åland). Why do you think these nations want to join NATO? They can tell what is coming.

Until you learn what NATO actually entails,

@Maroxad: I think the way as Europe was trying to bury Russia under billions and billions of € was a clear aggression and nothing less than economical warfare. They are such victims no wonder the CIA force them to invade Ukraine.

Russians are in-fighting. Nothing new. They don't act as a cohesive unit but a bunch of disorganized groups of somtimes accidentally (and purposefully) attacking each other.

You can't refute my arguments, that's why you have to leave them unadressed and try shallow counters, i understand.

Sweden and Finland had a policy of remaining Neutral, which meant abstaining from military alliances such as NATO.

I asked you why Finland didn't join Nato a long time ago if Russia is so belligerent as you claim. Why didn't the SovietUnion conquer Finland during the cold war, when their armies had at least quality in quantity.

NATO countries aren't occupied by the US... the US has military bases there but that doesn't mean occupation. And no, NATO countries were not an economic threat to Russia.

Irrelevant. Are you saying Obama shouldn't have caved in, a missile defense system should've been build in Poland, tensions kept up, because the US didn't hold the poles at gunpoint? Are you saying because China isn't occupying any land mass owned by another country and not forcing anyone at gunpoint, nobody should worry about their military build up in the south china sea? Especially not the US, since they're not occupying anyone either. Just some... US weaponry and military installations surrounding China.

When your enemies arsenal is coming ever closer, pointing at you, why would you care how the perceivable threat got there?

You remember the illegal invasion that happened beginning of the 2000s? I know your memory is a little hazy when it comes to the contributing sins of the perspective you are loyal to. Iraq 2003, a war took place and the region was destabilized. "Mission Accomplished"

That mission was certainly not the democratization of Iraq. The Middle East has become a beacon for islamic terrorists and mercaneries from all over the world. Notably many of them fighting in the Syrian civil war. US disruption has changed the power dynamic dramatically. In favour of US/Israel. Not in favour of Russias national security. People might have forgotten, but the Russians had their fair share of islamic fundamentalism. Some formations directly trained and equiped by... well... can you guess who?! ;D

Up until the recent war, NATO countries were some of the biggest buyers of Russias largest exports.

You know, when i say Nato i mean USA. You constantly deflect and deflate. The US is not Europe and acts on its own interests. See North Stream pre-invasion. Germany is not USA. You understand german, don't you?

https://www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2020/heft/8/beitrag/nord-stream-2-wirtschaftskrieg-der-usa.html

If you want to read it in english use google translate.

I asked you, why did the US gov see it necessary to spy on european politicians up to the highest ranks, especially Germany. Is it because Frau Merkel was once a citizen of east Germany? Or maybe it's Germanys leading position in the European Union, a position that would've been unquestionably stronger with a direct link to russian resources...

Remember this?

In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum inCentral Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.

Yeasure, it was the Russians sanctioning themselves by blowing up their own pipes and giving the americans a helping hand, because Putin has a boner for conspiracy nut jobs.

Energy traders are making a killing exporting US natural gas to Europe as prices soar

• Energy companies and traders are raking in huge profits selling US natural gas to Europe as prices there skyrocket.
• The US is now sending 60% of its liquefied natural gas exports to Europe, up from less than 20% this time a year ago.
• "You're not talking about a margin. You're talking about a multiplier," one expert said. "All in all, it's insane."

And I said that Russia is Eye'ing these nations. Poland is unlikely because it is in NATO, but that doesnt mean that Russia don't want to annex from these countries (in particular Gottland and Åland). Why do you think these nations want to join NATO? They can tell what is coming.

Ok. Your claim is, Russia was about to annex said regions, or would've inevatibly occupied them, just like the Krim. Let's see the evidence. I mean, Ukraine on the way to join Nato was the initiator for russian aggression. Why did Russia annex Krim? Obviously they didn't want to see another vital strategic location to fall in Nato (USA) hands. In other words, you're giving the Russians a legitimate reason for the Krim-annexation.

Sure they can tell what's coming. Before the war in Georgia in 2008 Germany and France told people what's coming when USA doesn't ease up on their transgressions.

Now, you go back to your stale good vs. evil routine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63280523

Kyiv was allegedly attacked by Kamizake drones. This new commander of the invasion certainly keeps up to his reputation of relentlessly targetting civilians.

If Russia is Mordor, Putin is Sauron, I guess this guy would be Azog.

Not to mention the soldiers specifically assigned to kill deserters.

I think Ukraine may be getting better training. Just a hunch.

Now that we have a Center Right party here in sweden (as opposed to the far right I feared would take power), I am hoping we donate some of our Archer Artillery systems to Ukraine, they will put them to good use.

Russia should just surrender already.

Allegedly, the pilot was in an exercise, and as the pilot evacuated, he shouted "The Mobilization has failed"

Makes me wonder if it was intentional or an accident.

@Maroxad: Should, but hey they got money to buy kamikaze drones from Iran. Perhaps it will end if someone ends Putin.

There's a term that was used to describe the relationship between Finland and Soviet Union during the cold war: Finlandization. That explains why Finland never joined NATO and why Soviet Union didn't bother with conquering Finland. The shadow of Finlandization still lives strong in some older generations.

Right. A diplomatic solution, 'bowing eastwards, without mooning the west'. Unfortunately, the role of the responsible mediator has been replaced by hybris and greed.

Or what do you think? Did the west (USA) handle post-coldwar badly, or is Russia just a place of evil?

@palasta: I think we did handle it badly, but looking at how Russia reacted to Gorbachev’s Western morality drive maybe it would have been a lost cause. Russians I know are so far detached from our reality currently, I don’t think they were ready to embrace the Western values in the 60s.

Anecdotal, but I was gifted a bottle of Kvanchkara wine by a Russian friend, which he assured me was Stalin’s favourite wine. He then went on to tell me that Stalin “Wasn’t that bad” and that he had to do what he did to keep Russia strong. Sounds very much like many Russian’s view of what Putin is doing.

A large proportion of the population yearn for a return to the days of a Soviet empire, and have regarded the West as being responsible for destroying it…whereas I see Rumanians, Ukrainians et al simply wanting to have more freedom, and independence from foreign influence.

Regardless - even if we heinously plotted Russias downfall, Putin had been played and made the stupidest mistake of any Russian leader in History. Everything he was concerned about before the invasion has gotten worse for his country.

There seem to be an increasing ammount of protests here in europe against NATO and EU and our involvement in the defense of Ukraine.

I would create a thread, but I will wait till we have more credible sources.

Either way, these people are fools. Acting against their best interests here. Do these people really think Russia would stop with Ukraine if they could actually take it?

So yes, the west continues to handle this badly and we are starting to handle it worse >_>

The gas prices won't go much down for Europe, will they?

If we can help Ukraine win, Putin might fall before this is over.

I don't think you understand what Finlandization means. During cold war Finland was "neutral" only because it served the interests of Soviet Union. Soviet Union had control and influence over Finnish politics. Finnish politicians and news media were afraid to do or report anything that would anger Soviet Union.

There were no diplomacy, only what Soviets told Finns to do. In return we could pretend to be neutral and Soviets didn't bother to attack us.

I would argue the best way to reduce fuel prices would be to consume less of it.

Why do you think NATO is so benevolent? Do you think NATO is going to stop with Ukraine once NATO actually takes it? Who's the next country they'll overthrow the democratically elected leadership in to install someone sympathetic to NATO expansion? It's all for their own good, right? Democracy only matters when you agree with the outcome.

I bet you were one of those people telling the rest of the world we were bombing Iraqi civilians for their own good too. We had to teach them a lesson about orchestrating a terrorist attack they were never part of, and spread freedom to their cities whether they liked it or not. Opposing western aggression was acting against their own self interests, right?

Now I'm curious what lines of bullshit you're going to be telling the next generation when NATO expansion leads to WWIII, which is looking more and more likely every day.

Congrats though, you people have officially become neocons. Just like the ones of the Bush era. It's no wonder why the media is so far up GWs ass lately.

@eoten: I have to be honest, this thread is much more fun when you're around spreading lies.

You're new here. Over time it's just rerun season. Loses the entertainment value.

Where did I say NATO is benevolent? However, if NATO does its job in keeping Communism, and Strongman governments at bay, I would say it is worth keeping. Some reform could be done though.

No, far from it. I absolutely dispised the USA after the War in Iraq. It wasn't really until Obama, till my opinions mended. Almost like I dislike it when countries are belligerent, be they the USA or Russia.

And if you don't understand the difference between helping Ukraine defend itself from Russia and attacking a country for no good reason, you really have no clue on how geopoltiics works.

If it weren't for user tags saying your name. I could very well assume you were just one of those america hating tankies. Who will hate the US no matter what they do.

Keeping communism at bay? Russia isn't communist, hasn't been for a while and most NATO country has outsourced manufacturing of virtually everything to China, who is. How is giving China full control over your economy and industry through open trade agreements that only benefit them keeping communism at bay exactly? It's not. NATO hasn't been keeping anything at bay. After the Soviet Union evaporated NATO has done little more than expand their interests eastwards, whether the people in those countries wanted it or not. NATO has been responsible for a number of coups in the past to install leadership sympathetic to NATO expansion. Ukraine wasn't the first, it won't be the last.

Claiming you despised the US after the war in Iraq doesn't make it okay that you're buying their newest, latest line of bullshit in eastern Europe. It's another war for profit. Not your profit, not my profit, but for the profit of a very small select few, and every time there's a war for profit, there's always people like you who buy the propaganda and come out and support it as something we NEED to do, for some greater good. Despise the war in Iraq all you want, but at the end of the day you're no better than the people who cheerleaded for that one. You've become the neocons you've probably pretended in the past to hate. The fact you're sitting there accusing me of "hating 'murika" is EXACTLY the same bullshit neocons were saying 20 years ago. THE SAME.

@eoten: This is a war for profit by Putin. You are literally doing the thing you are accusing everyone else of doing.

It wasn't Putin we just gave $65 billion tax dollars to though, is it? What has Putin got out of it so far? Putin is just the latest excuse to justify throwing billions more dollars at billionaires. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and Putin gets blamed when the US has been in a perpetual state of war for over 20 years. Another year, another shit excuse.

Just like the neocons of 2002.

65 Billions of dollars in weaponry to fight back. Putin got a war.

Weaponry purchased from whom?

@eoten: We didn't purchase it, we made it, or we made it 10 years ago, and we're giving it away.

I said communism and strongman governments. Try reading next time. And the west isn't communist, and neither is China for that matter. China has been increasingly capitalist over the years, there are still many communist elements. But the country is more of a mix between communism and capitalism these days.

You really don't get the difference between defending a country and invading it? To put it in video game perspectives. In Elden Ring, you can join PvP as both a red and blue phantom. When you join as a red phantom, you are there to kill another player progressing the story. If you join as a blue phantom you are there to kill the red phantom trying to kill the player progressing the story. In the case of the iraq war, america was the red phantom, in the war in ukraine, america is the blue phantom.

Can you seriously not tell the difference between a war of aggression and a war of defense? And we are not sending boots on the ground, save for a few volunteers. We are providing them with arms, and they are providing us with results. Not only has this war heavily weakened Russia (who has been an existential threat to all of us), but if Russia's economy collapses, which it is predicted to do this winter. We might see an end to the russian empire, and the state ideally transitions to a civilian economy rather than a military economy.

@eoten: Curious as to your opinion. What has Putin got out of this so far….why did he invade?

Do you buy in to the official “Denazification” mantra? Protecting Russians in Donbas….or both?

From the big military spending crowd, I honestly would have expected support, not opposition to the military spending actually being put to use, rather being a money pit.

To amend on to that. A lot of that stuff is also obsolete weaponry now. Which was my point with a post a while back. The fact the west has old, obsolete weaponry, that can still be put to excellent use. Makes the investment in that tech arguably worth it in the end. As a swede, while I am pretty salty about my new government, I will credit them for being more willing to donate our weaponry, most notably our archers to Ukraine. Send them over I say. Not only will this allow us to use them to secure our own nation indirectly, but we also get to see how they will function against what has been our greatest threat since the Nazis.

@uninspiredcup: It's not like we already knew this... But anyway :P

The US government, nor the tax payers manufacture weapons. The weapons we send are manufactured by those weapons, who receive billions of tax dollars in exchange for them. Those are the people who profit off of the US being in the perpetual state of war and if you did your homework, and actually looked into campaign financing for most our politicians you'd find those corporations at the top of the donor list for our biggest war hawks in congress.

If you are in the US, you're going to suffer an ever-increasing cost of living due to inflation and increased taxation to pay those companies to make those weapons for us to "give away." They're profiting, the senators backing it are profiting, the people, the tax payers are not. That is how the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

Those weapons have already been purchased. They're older stock for the most. So it's a sunk cost. Also it's the Republican Party that likes to spend so much on defense.

And then those old weapons are replaced by new production, which those companies are paid to produce by the US government. We're giving Ukraine old ones, you're paying for the new ones to replace them.

And your quip about the Republican party is irrelevant, I see very little difference between the two. Both parties are fucking the people for special interests. That's not the government's money going into the pockets of these groups, it's yours. It's mine. It's every American's who work for a living. It's the working classes' money, it's the middle classes money being taken from them and given to corporations who pay out to the politicians signing the bills.

Those weapons would be replaced anyway.

I mean here the first weapons sent was old stuff that needed to be tested first to see if it even worked.

Did you not understand what I said? Old weapons are already replaced/budgeted for replacement.

The Republican Party has always pushed for a higher budget for the military.

It's no secret that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have a close relationship. But how exactly did Trump appease Putin during their meeting?

Ever notice how trump kept going after NATO?

@uninspiredcup: I expected nothing less.

See intelligence is doing its work. Something Russia is objectively terrible at.

@sealionact:

For completion sake, an interesting documentary about the wet side of the Cold War, and how the US is willing to manipulate allied nations in order to gain strategic advantages.

Yea. Diplomacy seems to have the defintion of "my way or the highway" among certain people these days.

So you would've chosen confrontation and risk peace.

@palasta: Cold Wars been over dude. And Europe has a right to take precautions.

Since there are no Iranian supreme something or another ninjas in Ukraine, fighting them, this didn't happen.

Which is great.

Norway is working hard on just that. The gas stations around here are switching fuelpumping stations with charging stations.

These crazy electricity prices also leads to many installing solar panels and also reduce their electricity usage