Russia/Ukraine

[BoroMart]

As said its chicken and egg. The Ukraine Government said in 2013 it wanted to join the EU and NATO, before the current conflict began. In Russia joining the EU is also seen as extension of joining NATO.

well a) it's none of Russia's business what a sovereign state chooses to do in its national interests, and b) the EU is not remotely the same thing as NATO......for a start the US is the primary player in NATO, and detests the EU. The Russians are idiots if they believe that the EU is synonymous with NATO

 

[Smoggle]

What evidence is there that NATO wish to rule, control or 'influence' us?

For the record NATO have never unilaterally attacked another country, and NATO forces have been deployed almost exclusively to protect lives not take them.

An organisation like NATO absolutely has influence over ‘us’ in that it’s an organisation that we are an integral part of and could potentially take us to war. That is power and that is a form of control.

Am I speaking against NATO? No, far from it. My point was more that we can freely slag off any powerful entity… NATO, the West, Russia, China, the EU, America etc etc to high heaven, which is a privilege that we wouldn’t have in other countries and some posters would do well to realise that. I know that all too well experiencing the risks from living in dictatorships (that includes Putin’s Russia), a theocracy and a country with serious lèse-majesté laws.

 

[BoroMart]

An organisation like NATO absolutely has influence over ‘us’ in that it’s an organisation that we are an integral part of and could potentially take us to war. That is power and that is a form of control.

so you don't have any specific evidence of influence only a blanket statement that all organisations do, and you don't have evidence of NATOs wish to rule, or NATO control. Influence isn't always nefarious, although that is often the conspiracy theorists primary stance (no I'm not calling you a conspiracy theorist, I mean in general).

NATO have lot of conflicting factors that stops it from being some gung ho power hungry organisation. Too many competing factors from each of the governments involved.

 

[Smoggle]

so you don't have any specific evidence of influence only a blanket statement that all organisations do, and you don't have evidence of NATOs wish to rule, or NATO control. Influence isn't always nefarious, although that is often the conspiracy theorists primary stance (no I'm not calling you a conspiracy theorist, I mean in general).

NATO have lot of conflicting factors that stops it from being some gung ho power hungry organisation. Too many competing factors from each of the governments involved.

You’re missing my wider point to the original post I quoted. Criticism of NATO, even with a pro Russian bias, does not make a traitor. Most of you can speak freely precisely because of where you live and that is to be cherished.

However, if a multinational organisation comprised of some incredibly wealthy nations, including nuclear powers and a superpower does not wield influence or control then what is the point of it? Like I said, I’m far from being anti-NATO but the evidence of the control it wields is staring us in the face - Article 5 could take us to war, we pay a portion of our GDP towards it, we seek new new members, politicians use it in their campaigns… some think it is a nefarious organisation, I’m not one of them, but it absolutely has influence and control.

Unless we’re arguing semantics I don’t think my points have been erroneous?

 

[BoroMart]

You’re missing my wider point to the original post I quoted. Criticism of NATO, even with a pro Russian bias, does not make a traitor. Most of you can speak freely precisely because of where you live and that is to be cherished.

However, if a multinational organisation comprised of some incredibly wealthy nations, including nuclear powers and a superpower does not wield influence or control then what is the point of it? Like I said, I’m far from being anti-NATO but the evidence of the control it wields is staring us in the face - Article 5 could take us to war, we pay a portion of our GDP towards it, we seek new new members, politicians use it in their campaigns… some think it is a nefarious organisation, I’m not one of them, but it absolutely has influence and control.

Unless we’re arguing semantics I don’t think my points have been erroneous?

I don’t disagree with what you posted, but the original comment about nato “NATO will act for the benefit of it members and these actions can be aggressive”, which posted is simply not true. NATO hasn’t been aggressive in its behaviour, it has never started a war which was what I originally responded to

 

[Smoggle]

I don’t disagree with what you posted, but the original comment about nato “NATO will act for the benefit of it members and these actions can be aggressive”, which posted is simply not true. NATO hasn’t been aggressive in its behaviour, it has never started a war which was what I originally responded to

That comment wasn’t mine so fair enough, sounds like we’re largely on the same page anyway. Too many people completely discount the agency of countries to choose their own path, the fact so many chose NATO and others would follow tells it’s own story of the influence they wish to escape.

 

[MolteniArcore]

Criticism of NATO, even with a pro Russian bias, does not make a traitor.

:unsure:

 

[Hap]

NATO is probably washed up and done. The US has made itself so introspective it’s irrelevant.
Post Brexit the future is (ironically) Europe plus the UK.
More dynamic and focused than the bi-polar circus of the US.
The RF did a helluva job there. Very effective. Beware…

 

[BoroMart]

NATO is probably washed up and done. The US has made itself so introspective it’s irrelevant.
Post Brexit the future is (ironically) Europe plus the UK.
More dynamic and focused than the bi-polar circus of the US.
The RF did a helluva job there. Very effective. Beware…

The us has always been introspective and nato has always been important to them

 

[Hap]

The us has always been introspective and nato has always been important to them

Which is why almost no one in the US has a passport.
Hotel California?

 

[BoroMart]

Which is why almost no one in the US has a passport.
Hotel California?

More than a 1/3rd of Americans have a passport, but 1/2the country live a relatively poor existence where a trip outside North America would mean not being able to pay your medical insurance.

It’s a great country to live in if you are middle or upper class but an absolute ***show if your in the working class or below

 

[Hap]

More than a 1/3rd of Americans have a passport, but 1/2the country live a relatively poor existence where a trip outside North America would mean not being able to pay your medical insurance.

It’s a great country to live in if you are middle or upper class but an absolute ***show if your in the working class or below

That’s interesting. I read 5%? Maybe my info is out of date?

 

[BoroMart]

That’s interesting. I read 5%? Maybe my info is out of date?

It’s about 13% in relative poverty…but, the working classes really get stuffed over there, because they have so little workers rights and living in or near any city is expensive, and the whole medical insurance scam and the lack of any real social system, etc. their are a lot of people living pay check to pay check that aren’t gonna go travelling to other countries

 

[iamborome]

I don’t disagree with what you posted, but the original comment about nato “NATO will act for the benefit of it members and these actions can be aggressive”, which posted is simply not true. NATO hasn’t been aggressive in its behaviour, it has never started a war which was what I originally responded to

BoroMart, as I have posted earlier: "NATO has conducted US led extensive bombing campaigns in Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, Libya and Syria. All of these bombing campaigns were waged without UN approval."

These were not defensive actions, least of all of NATO countries. NATO is an extension of US power.

 

[iamborome]

Other causes such as?

American hegemony. What America wants, America gets - surrounding Russia with an unfriendly military organisation. The US get its way by bribes and threats. Countries that don't comply are dealt with. Ukraine is a case in point. Back in 2014 the democratically elected government chose a Russian trade deal over the EU. The US reaction was to bring about a coup and install a leader that was receptive to US requirements.

Leaked phone call on Ukraine lays bare Washington’s gangsterism

The leaked tape of a phone call between the State Department’s Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine provides an unvarnished expression of the gangster methods employed by US imperialism.

www.wsws.org

 

[SuedeDenimSecretPolice]

American hegemony. What America wants, America gets - surrounding Russia with an unfriendly military organisation. The US get its way by bribes and threats. Countries that don't comply are dealt with. Ukraine is a case in point. Back in 2014 the democratically elected government chose a Russian trade deal over the EU. The US reaction was to bring about a coup and install a leader that was receptive to US requirements.

Fascinating. So is this also the case for Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who are already members and Georgia who aspire to join? There must be a pertinent reason for all these nations wishing to join NATO.

 

[iamborome]

Fascinating. So is this also the case for Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who are already members and Georgia who aspire to join? There must be a pertinent reason for all these nations wishing to join NATO.

I've already given you the answer - US hegemony. NATO was created after the second world war as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. The Soviets had their own organisation - the Warsaw Pact, which was dissolved after the Soviet Union broke up. So why do we still have NATO?

The US wants to separate Russia from the EU economy so that is reliant on the US. The sanctions against Russia and the destruction of the pipeline means that Europe no longer has cheap Russian gas and has to buy LPG from the US at x4 the price. This is destroying the German economy.

The idea that Russia wants to expand into Europe is just plain silly.

 

[Smoggle]

:unsure:

Care to elaborate? I’m happy to elaborate myself as I’m not sure of your point.

If you think that does make a traitor then we have a problem. Some people with those views would actively seek to undermine the UK by undertaking certain activities and that is where a conversation about being a traitor would arise. It can be a grey area away from the obvious illegal actions (espionage, sabotage, terror etc) as I think certain public figures promoting, working for and taking money from certain regimes could, in my eyes at least, qualify as traitors.

However, plenty of people dislike NATO on the left and right, some of them have a bizarre fondness for the current Russian state - usually either as a soviet hangover or an authoritarian fetish. I think they’re a mixture of ignorant, misinformed, misguided or plain daft, but not traitors.

 

[Smoggle]

The idea that Russia wants to expand into Europe is just plain silly.

Russia is expanding into Europe - whatever an individuals opinion on the topic it’s undeniable that since 2014 Russia has taken territory from another European country. Russia had agreed through several treaties to the 1991 borders of Ukraine yet now it has claimed Crimea and the oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson and seeks to gain them by military actions.

That is expanding into Europe. Some may argue that the invasion of Georgia was depending on what they class as geographic Europe. Russia essentially controls Belarus to the extent its soldiers invaded Ukraine through Belorussian territory.

Does Putin want to invade deep into Europe, say as far as Germany? I don’t believe so. But he has his beliefs which he told to the world, most notably in his “spheres of influence” speech - he absolutely would go for the Baltics and potentially other Eastern European countries if he perceived the EU and NATO to be weak and his military was in a state of readiness.

 

[streethalo]

I've already given you the answer - US hegemony. NATO was created after the second world war as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. The Soviets had their own organisation - the Warsaw Pact, which was dissolved after the Soviet Union broke up. So why do we still have NATO?

The US wants to separate Russia from the EU economy so that is reliant on the US. The sanctions against Russia and the destruction of the pipeline means that Europe no longer has cheap Russian gas and has to buy LPG from the US at x4 the price. This is destroying the German economy.

The idea that Russia wants to expand into Europe is just plain silly.

They did expand in Feb 2022. Into Ukraine. The 'blame the USA' is outdated, and is still a big part of the old school left who mourn the end of the Soviet Union. Modern Russia has an expansionist agenda. Cannot be denied. Yet you just have. Baffling.