Zelenskyy straight-up said Ukraine is going to lose if Congress doesn't send more aid
Zelenskyy straight-up said Ukraine is going to lose if Congress doesn't send more aid
In his starkest warning yet, President Zelenskyy said that "Ukraine will lose the war" to Russia if Congress does not act to send it more aid.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Lol, reversed neoliberal policies by organizing the oligarchs in order of personal loyalty?
Pretty much yes. The toppling of the USSR brought shock-Therapy and privatization with Yeltsin and brought a lot of unemployment and instability. Putin alleviated that, making him popular. Yeltsin and Clinton even handpicked the guy to make sure he doesn't bring back the USSR (Sidenote, ever wonder why they don't show life expectancy curves never go before the 90s in russia? No, It's not because the numbers were faked).
Ahh yes, my country’s stability is built upon a mountain of sanctions. Surely the benefits of adopting a wartime economy will never end, and never have any foreseeable consequences…
You libs never explain why Putin a US handpicked guy went from friend to foe. Could it be because Rosneft and Gazprom are SOEs and Putin doesn't want to sell these off to Western capitalists?
Yeah, having a single off-handed remark does not qualify as trying to join NATO three times. They never applied. You haven’t found one example, let alone three…
They wouldn't let him, because he wanted to be an equal imperial country
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-is-right-russia-belongs-in-nato/377557/
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-says-discussed-joining-nato-with-clinton/28526757.html
Lol, so when you claim that America led a coup you were implying …?
What do you mean by propped up? Are you implying that Russians are just a pawn to be played with?
I don't deny it, the US topples regimes as it pleases and uses them as pawns. Like they do with Ukraine right now, or how they facilitate a genocide in Gaza, or agitate Taiwan against Mainland China. It's always funny to me when its usually libs you can't admit it and then you write shit like that. I seem to have rattled you lol
Yes, as I said. Putin started feeling his power slip in the eastern block, as a response to the orange revolution they implemented hostile trade deals.
Ergo he, as someone who does realist politics, saw the writing on the wall as NATO was expanding toward him.
the heads of state for NATO Allies and Russia gave a positive assessment of NATO-Russia Council achievements in a Bucharest summit meeting in April 2008,[61] though both sides have expressed mild discontent with the lack of actual content resulting from the council
Yes…at the Bucharest summit NATO claimed they wanted Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, the same summit you just said went well
I thought you claimed the reason things soured was because the announcement at Bucharest? Now your claim is suggesting that things only soured after Russia backed a coup in Georgia…?
Russia had interest to join, but only if NATO internally reformed for members to be on equal footing (Which hasn't happened until today, USA is the leader still) and Russia got rejected.
I mean we're getting actually trapped in the minutia of the argument. The overall argument is that NATO is a reaction. First there was the creation of NATO (why if USSR and USA were allies in WW2?) and then came the Warsaw pact chronologically. The USSR, mind you, was an economic alliance. Even if we assume NATO saw the USSR as a threat (it actually was for it's capitalists) and was created as a result, why keep it, if not for imperialism after the dissolution of the USSR? US even handpicked Putin so it was all friendly back then, why increase members? For what threat? USSR is dissoloved and Putin was friendly at the time. If you had signs form Putin that expansion is seen as aggressive, why agitate? Saying now that the threat came true is a fucking joke.
the overall argument is that NATO is a reaction. First there was the creation of NATO (why if USSR and USA were allies in WW2?)
Because NATO was formed from the Treaty of Dunkirk during the onset of WW2 as a mutual aid and assistance program if either Russia or Germany attacked. This was expanded to the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium in 48 during the Treaty of Brussels. This was called the Western Union.
Interest in America joining was fairly immediate after America adopted the Truman doctrine, which stated they would support any democracy being attacked by an "authoritarian" government. Which was a response to Stalin enacting the coup in Czechoslovakia after the Communist party in Italy and France failed to make any gains. This of course happened after the Soviet and Nazi split Poland between themselves.
Thus the north Atlantic treaty was formed.
came the Warsaw pact chronologically. The USSR, mind you, was an economic alliance.
The Warsaw pact was a defense agreement? Or are you talking about prior to 55'?
Even if we assume NATO saw the USSR as a threat (it actually was for it's capitalists) and was created as a result, why keep it, if not for imperialism after the dissolution of the USSR?
You said it yourself earlier, NATO wasn't exactly confident in the federation's ability to maintain its commitment to democracy. But there was some cautious optimism, military spending was cut drastically, and there was a large demobilization of military equipment and personal.
NATO had serious talks about it's future, delisted Russia as a sworn enemy, and started to be involved in more humanitarian aid. Russia under Yeltsin aided in the NATO intervention in ethnic cleaning in Bosnia 92'.
Things really don't start to deteriorate until Kosovo in 99'. For some reason this time, Russia wouldn't allow intervention to pass the UN security council, let alone help intervene like in Bosnia. After the conflict was over nato wanted to work with Russia to act as peace keepers, Russia for some reason this time wanted to act independently to look after their serbs. NATO was afraid it would partition the city and lead to future break away conflicts.
Coincidentally from years 97 to 99, Putin served as deputy chief of the Presidential Staff, chief of the Main Control Directorate of the Presidential Property Management Department , 1st class Active State Councillor of the Russian Federation, First Deputy Chief of the Presidential Staff for the regions, head of the commission for the preparation of agreements on the delimitation of the power of the regions and head of the federal center attached to the president, head of the FSB, acting prime minister, Prime Minister, Acting President, and finally elected president in 2004.
US even handpicked Putin
How? By the time Putin left St Petersburg for Moscow Yeltsin was 10% vodka by body weight. They thought they had a handle on Yeltsin like they did in the early days, but he was already somebody else's drunk puppet.
You think I'm a liberal, but I've probably been organizing mutual aid groups for leftist and at risk minority populations for longer than you've been an adult. I can't believe I've witnessed mother fucking Putin go from "Yeltsin attack dog" to "Defender Against Western Hegemony" in such a short period of time?
Interest in America joining was fairly immediate after America adopted the Truman doctrine
A reactionary that knowingly or self-deceptively dropped atomic bombs on Japan, even though Japan was pretty much defeated already.
Which was a response to Stalin enacting the coup in Czechoslovakia after the Communist party in Italy and France failed to make any gains. This of course happened after the Soviet and Nazi split Poland between themselves.
Conveniently jumping timelines and failing to mention the Munich conference, conflating non-aggression pacts with splinting Poland,..
Thus the north Atlantic treaty was formed.
A defensive alliance created in 1949 a significant escalation on a thinly veiled pre-text used by western capitalists.
The Warsaw pact was a defense agreement? Or are you talking about prior to 55’?
A reaction to the NATO formation, came the soviet unions defensive alliance the warsaw pact in 1955. Meaning, the first major escalation came from the Capitalist countries after WW2.
You said it yourself earlier, NATO wasn’t exactly confident in the federation’s ability to maintain its commitment to democracy. But there was some cautious optimism, military spending was cut drastically, and there was a large demobilization of military equipment and personal.
I know it wasn't signed and fuck Gorby for not getting it in writing, but NATO (a defensive alliance) should have been disbanded after the Warsaw pact disbanded. Increasing member states when everything was friendly, communicates geopolitically that there is a threat. What threat if theres no more SU and Yeltsin and Putin being friendly?
NATO had serious talks about it’s future, delisted Russia as a sworn enemy, and started to be involved in more humanitarian aid.
It was a defensive alliance, you're arguiing for a world police which basically means keeping the US as a hegemon. Fuck that.
Things really don’t start to deteriorate until Kosovo in 99’. For some reason this time, Russia wouldn’t allow intervention to pass the UN security council, let alone help intervene like in Bosnia. After the conflict was over nato wanted to work with Russia to act as peace keepers, Russia for some reason this time wanted to act independently to look after their serbs. NATO was afraid it would partition the city and lead to future break away conflicts.
Does not justify having kept NATO after the dissolution of the SU.
US even handpicked Putin
How?
reactionary that knowingly or self-deceptively dropped atomic bombs on Japan, even though Japan was pretty much defeated already
Don't forget, he was also massive racist. But again, this bedsides the point. We were discussing the history of how NATO formed.
Conveniently jumping timelines and failing to mention the Munich conference, conflating non-aggression pacts with splinting Poland
Jumping time lines? The Munich conference was in 38' prior to the war, and prior to the beginnings of NATO.
conflating non-aggression pacts with splinting Poland
When did I even mention non-aggression pacts in regards to Poland? What are you considering a non aggression pact?
A defensive alliance created in 1949 a significant escalation on a thinly veiled pre-text used by western capitalists.
It was reflexive to the coup in Czechoslovakia 48'.... A defensive alliance is more of an escalation than annexing 2 countries?
reaction to the NATO formation, came the soviet unions defensive alliance the warsaw pact in 1955. Meaning, the first major escalation came from the Capitalist countries after WW2.
Lol, my dude. WW2 ended in 45', the Soviets ran the coup in Czechoslovakia in 48', NATO formed in a direct response to this in 49'. Who's conveniently jumping around the timeline again?
was a defensive alliance, you're arguiing for a world police which basically means keeping the US as a hegemon. Fuck that.
I'm not arguing for it, I'm just trying to accurately depict the history of NATO's relationship with the Russian federation. You can go and look at the demilitarization of NATO from the 90's all the way until 2014.
Europe was tired of investing 3% of their economy for security theater. Even after Russia's turn about over Kosovo and Georgia, the European members were still highly resistant towards maintaining the alliance. Likely if Russia would have been consistent with their dealings with NATO in 99, it probably would have been dissolved.
Capitalist don't want to pay for war equipment they don't use, there's just no profit return on military spending unless you are on the supply side like America.
Does not justify having kept NATO after the dissolution of the SU.
You think an alliance that lasted multiple decades is just going to vanish overnight? Again, there is a process of demobilization that was well underway, that is until the Russians started playing their little game of partitions.
This is from 99', Vladimir Putin had already served as acting prime Minister, along with like 8 other positions. He had already secured his power by 99' and Yeltsin was well into his drink. Even if you read the article, it's not Clinton hand picking Putin, it's Yeltsin selling Putin to the Americans because he was already in control in Russia.
This is the frustrating thing, you could not academically honestly read that article and think that it proves your point. You're just looking up articles with headlines that are tangentially connected to your claim.
I thought you might actually be interested in honest discourse, but I can see now that you don't care about honest discourse. You just want to be performative and establish a rhetoric that suits your biases.
We were discussing the history of how NATO formed.
No you were justificating the formation of NATO. I am arguing that the NATO formation itself was a major reactionary force of aggression on thinly veiled pretext.
It was reflexive to the coup in Czechoslovakia 48’… A defensive alliance is more of an escalation than annexing 2 countries?
WW2 ended in 45’, the Soviets ran the coup in Czechoslovakia in 48’, NATO formed in a direct response to this in 49’.
Not sure what you mean by "annexing". The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (CSSR) was never formally a part of the Soviet Union. The USSR "running a coup" is a major stretch, as the communists inside the CSSR were not a minority and were quite capable of doing it themselves. And, again, the Warsaw pact was formed later, to which CSSR was indeed a member.
So yeah the formation of NATO is a major escalation run by fascists, to serve capitalists interests by being aggressive towards the USSR. Why are you so thick about it?
The Munich conference was in 38’ prior to the war, and prior to the beginnings of NATO.
Yes dude, and Poland was having a non aggression pact with Germany in 1934, so a non-aggression pact in 1939 from Stalin was him buying time for it was known that Hitler would expand east. Munich was basically screaming the invite for Hitler to go there after all.
I’m not arguing for it, I’m just trying to accurately depict the history of NATO’s relationship with the Russian federation.
Yeah you're arguing and justificating it by saying shit like this: "You can go and look at the demilitarization of NATO from the 90’s all the way until 2014.", because it doesn't matter how much it demilitarized, when it shouldn't have been formed in the first place and disbanded at the latest with the dissolution of the Warsaw pact. I'm not arguing NATO didn't demilitarize after the dissolution of USSR. I'm arguing that the expansion east when there was no threat is - geopolitically speaking - an aggression.
Capitalist don’t want to pay for war equipment they don’t use, there’s just no profit return on military spending unless you are on the supply side like America.
Did you even bother to check how the US MIC is profiting off of the Ukraine war? Because you sound really naive saying things like:
You think an alliance that lasted multiple decades is just going to vanish overnight? Again, there is a process of demobilization that was well underway, that is until the Russians started playing their little game of partitions.
Having it kept around after the fall of the USSR is what made Russian "play their little game of paritions". You made a friend a foe, which causes war and serves the MIC.
As I said before: you're reversing cause and effect. Why are you so thick about it?
This is the frustrating thing, you could not academically honestly read that article and think that it proves your point.
It's because you don't understand the context and thus fail to read the subtext of it and the significance of the provided source...
You’re just looking up articles with headlines that are tangentially connected to your claim.
.., because when you provide a non-western or anti-capitalist source shitlibs usually to try to invalidate it. I failed you realize that you'd do regardless of source, because you don't even grasp the context.
You just want to be performative and establish a rhetoric that suits your biases.
Your "lols" are?
I thought you might actually be interested in honest discourse
No you were telling the story how you think NATO was formed. I am arguing that the NATO formation itself was a major reactionary force of aggression on thinly veiled pretext.
"The Treaty of Brussels was a mutual defense treaty against the Soviet threat at the start of the Cold War. It was signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom and was the precursor to NATO. The Soviet threat became immediate with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, leading to the creation of a multinational defense organization, the Western Union Defence Organisation, in September 1948.[4] However, the parties were too weak militarily to counter the Soviet Armed Forces. In addition, the communist 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état had overthrown a democratic government, and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy. He got a receptive hearing in the United States, especially with the American anxiety over Italy and the Italian Communist Party.[5]"
We have direct quotes from the primary sources, which just so happens to actually align with the actual events recorded in history. You are just participating in revisionist history.
Not sure what you mean by "annexing". The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (CSSR) was never formally a part of the Soviet Union.
Sorry, defacto annexation, but please feel free to continue being pedantic.
The USSR running a coup is a major stretch as the communists inside the CSSR did it. It's not like those were a minority. And, again, the Warsaw pact was formed later, to which CSSR was indeed a member.
The general expectation was that the Communists would be soundly defeated in the May 1948 elections.[10][11] That September, at the first Cominform meeting, Andrei Zhdanov observed that Soviet victory had helped achieve "the complete victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie in every East European land except Czechoslovakia, where the power contest still remains undecided."[11] This clearly implied the KSČ should be accelerating its own efforts to take complete power. That notion would be reinforced during the Prague Spring, when party archives were opened and showed that Stalin gave up the whole idea of a parliamentary path for Czechoslovakia when the Communist parties of France and Italy failed to achieve power in 1947 and 1948.[11]
yeah the formation of NATO is a major escalation run by fascists, to serve capitalists interests by being aggressive towards the USSR. Why are you so thick about it?
Because reality matters. Yes, NATO is run by a bunch of shit bags, but that doesn't change the events of history no matter how much you want it to. The Soviet Union was not perfect, and a lot of their down fall has to do with how they expanded communism in eastern Europe.
There is a reason why Mao lost faith with the Soviets, and there is a reason why he developed his ideology about revolution being tailored to the proletariat of the individual culture.
Yes dude, and Poland was having a non aggression pact with Germany in 1934, so a non-aggression pact in 1934 from Stalin was him buying time for it was known that Hitler would expand east. Munich was basically screaming the invite for Hitler to go there after all
But the non aggression pact with Poland and the Soviets happened in 1932, not 1934…?
Yeah you shitlib you do. by saying shit like this: "You can go and look at the demilitarization of NATO from the 90’s all the way until 2014.", because it doesn't matter how much it demilitarized, when it shouldn't have been formed in the first place and disbanded with the dissolution of the Warsaw pact.
Lol, we've been arguing this whole time how NATO was formed in the first place..... You are just being factitious in avoidance of the actual argument. Either have an actual rebuttal, or just admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
Did you even bother to check how the US MIC is profiting off of the Ukraine war?
Can you not read what you just quoted? "Unless you are on the supply side like America". I was talking about Europe, go work on your reading comprehension.
Having it kept around after the fall of the USSR is what made Russian "play their little game of paritions"
Lol, yeah they were so upset when they were performing joint peace keeping exercises together, or stopping an ethnic cleansing......
What evidence do you have to support this claim you keep making? Oh yeah....none. You aren't even providing context....
understand the context and thus fail to read the subtext of it and the significance of the provided source...
Says the person who keeps mixing around dates.
because when you provide a non-western or anti-capitalist source shitlibs usually to try to invalidate it.
Lol, I totally have a source, she goes to a different school, you wouldn't know her.
I'm fucking Korean you dolt. I don't care if it's non western, so long as it's accurate and not directly from a blatantly biased source. My family had to immigrate from an actual fascist dictatorship for participating in socialist student uprisings, so I think I'll be okay with leftist sources.
As for calling me a shitlib.
What revolutionary actions have you taken? What organizing, mutual aid, or mutual protection have you participated in? Being a leftist isn't about defending your perspective on any particular theory so hard that you alienate other leftist, or even potential leftist. It's the opposite, it is about proving your ideology is better by showing it, taking care of people, doing things that our capitalist governments won't.
Lying about history doesn't do any of that. The internal contradictions in capitalism is self evident. The only thing leftist need to do is provide contrast by showing what mutual cooperation can achieve when enacted upon.
Wikipedia quote
It seems you're such a lib that you believe "actual events recorded in history" can be presented neutrally, when you can "actual events recorded in history" only in a biased manner. There is no such thing as no-bias. When I say you're justifying it, it is because you giving the capitalist narrative.
Sorry, defacto annexation, but please feel free to continue being pedantic.
So suddenly you do care about defacto things.
Irrelevant wikipedia quote that doesn't contradict what I'm saying
Poland was having a non aggression pact with Germany in 1934 But the non aggression pact with Poland and the Soviets happened in 1932, not 1934…?
Poland-Germany not Poland-Soviets
The main point is that Stalin's non-agression pact with Hitler was long after all other nations appeased and it was obv. Hitler would attack in order to buy time.
Lol, we’ve been arguing this whole time how NATO was formed in the first place…
It's because you can't read. I at least been arguing about when NATO was formed. And it was formed on a thing geopolitical Pre-Text ("defacto" pretext as opposed to "dejure" pretext which is easier to justify decisions to other countries)
Lol, yeah they were so upset when they were performing joint peace keeping exercises together, or stopping an ethnic cleansing…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin
so I think I’ll be okay with leftist sources.
https://valleysunderground.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/blackshirts-and-reds-by-michael-parenti.pdf
Lying about history doesn’t do any of that.
Thinking that there's only one or "true" version of history snief
seems you're such a lib that you believe "actual events recorded in history" can be presented neutrally, when you can "actual events recorded in history" only in a biased manner. There is no such thing as no-bias. When I say you're justifying it, it is because you giving the capitalist narrative.
Lol, so first you were "libs automatically discount any non western sources", now you're claiming that all western sources are biased.
You'll notice when I quote from wikipedia I'm not quoting subjective opinions, I'm quoting dates and primary sources. While you have done nothing but source from opinion pieces that don't even back up your claim. Embarrassing.
because you giving the capitalist narrative.
And normally when someone presents evidence that supports their affirmation and you don't agree with it, you would submit your own evidence that supports your rebuttal. You have done nothing but rely on nonsensical rhetoric.
suddenly you do care about defacto
Lol, no I'm fine with the original statement. I was just attempting to not argue about such a pedantic dispute.
Poland-Germany not Poland-Soviets
Right, but your sentence structure in the claim suggested that the Soviet Poland non aggression pact was made in reaction to the Nazi non aggression pact. It could have been done mistakenly though, I'm guessing English is not your first language?
The main point is that Stalin's non-agression pact with Hitler was long after all other nations appeased and it was obv. Hitler would attack in order to buy time.
Ahh I see, so your claiming the Soviets invaded Poland to create a buffer state between that Nazi Poland and Russia? Do you have any evidence to support this? It doesn't seem likely considering just how caught off guard Stalin was when operation Barbarossa started.
I would link primary sources, but I'm sure if I used wiki to quote fucking Stalin and his military commanders you would shriek about capitalist biases.
It's because you can't read. I at least been arguing about when NATO was formed. And it was formed on a thing geopolitical Pre-Text ("defacto" pretext as opposed to "dejure" pretext which is easier to justify decisions to other countries)
And I've linked plenty of supporting evidence to show that's not true. I understand pretext, but there are clear historical accounts of action and reaction, something that wouldn't exist if you were operating solely on pretext.
You have not given an iota of evidence to support this theory, other than your rhetoric of Soviet good, NATO bad. Soviet good, NATO bad does not mutually exclude NATO from being formed from a genuine reaction of the west.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Puti
Lol, so no non western sources then? Also, what does this have to do with Bosnia, which happened in the 90s? Another mistake with keeping your timeline together?
https://valleysunderground.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/blackshirts-and-reds-by-michael-parenti.pdf
Lol, what does this have to do with my statement about my family being involved in socialist uprisings?
You should actually read this at some point. It has a pretty good section in it about the privilege of exploitation inherent to your western societies.
Thinking that there's only one or "true" version of history snief
There's a difference between the narrative of history and actual historical events you uneducated moron. The point of historic discourse that avoids the brunt of biased historical narrative is to avoid subjective claims, and rely on dates and quotes from primary sources. When we are arguing over the narrative of history we utilize these dates and quotes to strengthen our affirmation of what the narrative should be. That is the point of the actual discussion.
The argument you are utilizing is called alethic relativism, but you are pushing it to the point of rhetorical fallacy. You can claim there is no subjective truth and all facts are viewed subjectively to support ones own argument. However, you cannot then claim that your perspective is true.
You should really read some of the theory you claim to uphold. Parenti is good material for introducing leftism to libs, but if you just stop there, all you are going to know is how to be an agnsty teenage agitator. This is not what builds the mutual aid networks actual revolutions start from. Go read setting sites by Scott Crow, that's where actual leftism starts.
You're just a spoiled first world brat who is only a "socialist" because it provides you an excuse to validate your laziness. You were born with more opportunities that 99% of the rest of the world, what have you done with it? How have you used that privilege to help others?
You've just brought the arrogance and elitist perspective inherent in your people to ideas youve colonized from others. What do you know about being a worker or the world, what work have you done?
Typical game chair leftist.
It's funny how I rattled you so much, for saying that you're carrying water for NATO (while seem to be viewing yourself as leftist lol)
Lol, so first you were “libs automatically discount any non western sources”, now you’re claiming that all western sources are biased.
Both statements are true? Did I claim something to the contrary? All sources are biased and the bias has to be taken into account.
You’ll notice when I quote from wikipedia I’m not quoting subjective opinions, I’m quoting dates and primary sources. While you have done nothing but source from opinion pieces that don’t even back up your claim. Embarrassing.
Wikipedia for example has a heavy western/nato/neoliberal bias. It's fine to quote it, but it's not "actual events recorded in history" or not "subjective opinion". The moment you have an author writing phenomena there's bias to it. Try Derrida or Foucault sometime.
And normally when someone presents evidence that supports their affirmation and you don’t agree with it, you would submit your own evidence that supports your rebuttal. You have done nothing but rely on nonsensical rhetoric.
Wikipedia is counted evidence I see, while heavy biased sources that have articles not supporting their current current narrative is just opinion. Ok.
And I’ve linked plenty of supporting evidence to show that’s not true. I understand pretext, but there are clear historical accounts of action and reaction, something that wouldn’t exist if you were operating solely on pretext.
You copy pasted wikipedia. You're right there are clear accounts, but these have been done on thin pretext? Just because it happened how it happened doesnt mean it was right to happen? And when the thin pretext is pointed it's:
Lol, no I’m fine with the original statement. I was just attempting to not argue about such a pedantic dispute.
Details matter. Especially with history, because it can shift narrative. Doesn't seem to be very intellectually honest from your side just to dismiss as pedantic.
Soviet good, NATO bad does not mutually exclude NATO from being formed from a genuine reaction of the west.
Mf NATO is a reaction of the west ('s capital class). It's what I'm saying the entire time. It's a reaction to an economic powerhouse that was forming in the east. And forming a defensive alliance to counter that is a major escalation in threat. And it resulted in forming the warsaw pact. You keep reversing cause and effect. When I called you out that "annexing" of CSSR didn't formally happen and you admitted it, you hopefully do understand how the formation of NATO is at the root of the problem, do you? I don't understand how you are so obtuse and thick about it?
Ahh I see, so your claiming the Soviets invaded Poland to create a buffer state between that Nazi Poland and Russia? Do you have any evidence to support this? It doesn’t seem likely considering just how caught off guard Stalin was when operation Barbarossa started.
Yes the evidence for the buffer zone is molotov-ribbentrop? And no Stalin wasn't caught off guard as the M-R was a way to buy time to shift the USSR Industrial center closer to the Urals/Crimea. USSR needed the time because shifting Industrial centers takes time. Nazi Germany was europes economic powerhouse at the beginning of WW2, mind you. You also saw at the beginning of the war how the USSR was taken by the Blitzkrieg. Once the SU industrial centers fully formed to support the war effort you saw how the USSR was starting to crush the nazis.
Lol, so no non western sources then?
What do you mean no western sources? I've been providing western sources. But when you do quote at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge their bias. i.e. NATO biased source saying NATO did a humanitarian action is not the same as a NATO biased source admitting their humanitarian action killed a bunch of people in passive voice.
Also, what does this have to do with Bosnia, which happened in the 90s? Another mistake with keeping your timeline together?
You do understand that after the dissolution of the SU, Russia was friendly and tried to join NATO so they did these operations together? Russia was aspiring to join NATO? 2007 Putin munich speech marks a shift as Putin starting to realize that they cannot get into the big boy imperial club, when he's making demands on NATO and not privatizing Russias SOEs?
You can claim there is no subjective truth and all facts are viewed subjectively to support ones own argument.
Fighting strawmans I see.
Yes there is subjective and an objective truth (which only can be experience, but not materialize as it will become subjective), but to arrive closer at the objective truth you need to take multiple perspectives (subjective truthts) into account , but regardless how many subjective truths you view, there's no way of ever fully claiming that it is "objective" as there always will be contradictions to resolve. The variety of subjective truths are a mere lense/abstraction of the objective truth. And one's own is also one as such.
The "art" of reading subtext is to having to have understood multiple contexts (subjective truths) in order to "fill gaps" of what is not being told in the text that you're reading, and trying to get a skewed glimpse of the objective truth.
There's no "objective" perspective as you seem to think, in the sense that you can read about it on wikipedia.
You comprehend the natural world dialectically/"objective", and interpret it materially. Once it's materialized, it has been interpreted and thus is subjective.
Reading Derrida, Foucault, Hegel/Marx, Stalin, etc. might help.
You seem to have accepted that the NATO perspective is the "truth" when it's one skewed/subjective truth of many.
You gave no answers to these simple questions:
The overall argument is that NATO is a reaction. First there was the creation of NATO and then came the Warsaw pact chronologically. The USSR, mind you, was an economic alliance. Arguing that the "annexations" is valid pretext to form NATO is carrying water for imperalists, when you yourself admitted that it wasn't officially annexed. Even if we assume NATO saw the USSR as a threat (it actually was for it’s capitalists as I admitted before) and was created as a result, why keep it, if not for imperialism after the dissolution of the USSR? Seeing the "serious demilitarization" efforts from NATO in the 90s is just naive to keep it around (Could the forces of the MIC be at play?) The US even handpicked Putin so it was all friendly back then, why increase members? For what threat? USSR is dissoloved and Putin was friendly at the time. If you had signs form Putin that expansion is seen as aggressive, why agitate? Saying now that the threat came true is a fucking joke.
You seem to read a lot, but don't seem to be understanding the things that you read.
I rattled you so much, for saying that you're carrying water for NATO
Lol, there is that european penchant for self flattery. Rich coming from someone supporting the man who set the death nail of communism in Russia.
All sources are biased and the bias has to be taken into account.
Lol, correctly naming dates where historical events occurred.... Biased as fuck dude.
but it's not "actual events recorded in history" or not "subjective opinion". The moment you have an author writing phenomena there's bias to it. Try Derrida or Foucault sometime.
Lol, yes let's deconstruct the idea of a shared reality where skepticism of subjectivity is high we can't agree on events occurring on dates recorded by multiple parties. I'm sure that will help this historical discourse move right along.
Also, this is just an appeal to a eurocentric perspective of authority.
Wikipedia is counted evidence I see, while heavy biased sources that have articles not supporting their current current narrative is just opinion. Ok.
Lol, attacking the source of the evidence and not the evidence itself? Also, the last piece of "evidence" you cited was literally an opinion piece, one that didn't even support your argument.
Doesn't seem to be very intellectually honest from your side just to dismiss as pedantic.
Defacto literally means in fact. Demanding someone to say in fact a Russian coup rather than Russian coup is being pedantic.
Mf NATO is a reaction of the west ('s capital class). It's what I'm saying the entire time. It's a reaction to an economic powerhouse that was forming in the east.
And I'm saying that you haven't given any evidence to support that theory, while I have given specific events of expansions by the Soviets. When NATO first formed the Soviet state was not the economic powerhouse that we know of post WW2. There's a reason why the lend and lease program was so important to Soviets after Barbarossa.
When I called you out that "annexing" of CSSR didn't formally happen and you admitted it, you hopefully do understand how the formation of NATO is at the root of the problem, do you?
Defacto annexation means annexation you dolt.
Yes the evidence for the buffer zone is molotov-ribbentrop?
Lol, this ignores the fact that as relations soured between germany and Russia they actually created a buffer zone in Poland. If all of Poland was supposed to be a buffer zone for an imminent attack, wouldn't he have moved more troops in the area?
Stalin wasn't caught off guard as the M-R was a way to buy time to shift the USSR Industrial center closer to the Urals/Crimea. USSR needed the time because shifting Industrial centers takes time.
Yes, I threw away the brunt of my military power for logistical advantage...... despite the industrial centers being moved only happened as a reaction to the invasion.
What do you mean no western sources?
Read what you quote...... No nonwestern sources.
2007 Putin munich speech marks a shift as Putin starting to realize that they cannot get into the big boy imperial club, when he's making demands on NATO and not privatizing Russias SOEs?
Except they already took this position in 99 with Kosovo.....
Yes there is subjective and an objective truth (which only can be experience, but not materialize as it will become subjective), but to arrive closer at the objective truth you need to take multiple perspectives (subjective truthts) into account , but regardless how many subjective truths you view, there's no way of ever fully claiming that it is "objective" as there always will be contradictions to resolve. The variety of subjective truths are a mere lense/abstraction of the objective truth. And one's own is also one as such.
A long winded way to say truth is what I believe to be true.
The "art" of reading subtext is to having to have understood multiple contexts (subjective truths) in order to "fill gaps" of what is not being told in the text that you're reading, and trying to get a skewed glimpse of the objective truth.
Ahh, fill the gaps with assumptions that suit your biases...
You comprehend the natural world dialectically/"objective", and interpret it materially. Once it's materialized, it has been interpreted and thus is subjective.
Lol, eurocentric trash. You should read more about dualism, you would benefit from learning about the mind body problem. Try Yukio Mishima.
You seem to read a lot, but don't seem to be understanding the things that you read.
Ahh yes, my interpretation is perfect because my brain was damaged by reading too much 19th century eurotrash whom separated the mind from the body because it made sense of their religious worldview.
Euro-brain, Euro-body, Euro-gaming chair, the perfect comrade. It's funny how much you hate the west, but embody all of its worst qualities. Right down to the dogmatic appeal to rhetoric that allows you to quantify the world into a false dichotomy of physical and metaphysical.
Go kick rocks, I'm done with you and your odd internal contradictions. How can someone be so eurocentric and hate the west so much? I mean I get hating the west..... But then believing the same flawed philosophy that caused all the reasons to hate the west, to be valid?Strange.