But it was never Putin's "empire" to begin with mate. He didn't build it. He never held the keys to it so to speak. He came to power long after the Soviet Union collapsed and long after Ukraine, along with many other nations, voted for independence. Putin was a fucking nobody when the Soviet Union was still intact.I am not so daft as to think there is any genuine military threat to Russia from having Ukraine in NATO. And I am pretty sure - although not 100% convinced - that Putin actually didn't feel very threatened by it either.
But whether he did or not, I genuinely think it is quite a big part of what's in his head. There's an excellent (IMO) interview with Michael Portillo from early last week - before the full invasion had started - and he gives some interesting perspective. The fact that Kiev was a thriving city whilst Moscow was still a village, and that in some respects Russia was borne out of Ukraine. The most significant Russian orthodox churches are in Kiev. It's an area of deep cultural significance and with deep cultural ties with Russia. I can very much imagine that a power-crazed Imperialist is monumentally fucked off at the demise of their empire, but that Ukraine's leaving his grip is particularly aggravating. And yes, there's also fighting in the eastern Ukrainian districts with some Ukrainians who are genuinely unhappy about their countries move westwards. And things like that only add to his ire and to some extent embolden him.
I can perfectly understand in these circumstance why Putin thought "no fucking way am I have them join NATO as well, that is a bridge too far". It may not have been over fear of NATO attack, just thrashing around with frustration at seeing his once great empire slowly an inexorably dwindle. I think it became his line in the sand.
I think Russia just wants total control of Ukraine, it's NATO that want it within its 'sphere of influence'.Here's an example for the NATO bashers.
In the 50s/60s De Gaulle wasn't happy with NATO so France withdrew. Nothing happened.
In 1956/1968 Hungary then Czechoslovakia wanted to decide for themselves how they wanted to be governed. The USSR invaded both of those countries for having the temerity to not want to have the same system of government as them that was fully aligned to Moscow.
NATO doesn't force its values on anyone and consists of countries with huge differences in their approach to governance who can leave NATO whenever they want. Unsurprisingly, other than France who fully re-joined in 2009, no other country has chosen to leave.
Russia wants to control everything in its sphere of influence. The fact that its not the USSR any more is immaterial. It's the same totalitarian principle.
So with the benefit of hindsight NATO should have been wound down in the 90s? Have you been smoking spice this morning?NATO was essentially a cold war necessity to confront the very real threat of the Warsaw pact. With the benefit of hindsight we should probably have looked to wind down NATO during the 90's. I suppose though that with the old Soviet nuclear arsenal still very much there and European countries not willing or able to commit to the nessecary defense spending we still needed the us military presence in Europe. I think Europe/the EU could possibly extend to Ukraine etc in a benign way, but NATO membership just carries too much cold war (anti russian) baggage.
NATO wouldn't have let Ukraine join until its territorial disputes in Crimea and the Donbass had been resolved. In other words, you're wrong.I think Russia just wants total control of Ukraine, it's NATO that want it within its 'sphere of influence'.
Because countries want to be protected by the ALL FOR ONE nature and know that once they’re in, their sovereignty is guaranteed. Which Georgia and Ukraine would happily have right now. Why do you think Moldova now want in in double fast time?
I suppose it depended which side of it you lived on - symbolic if you lived this side, brutal subjugation if you lived on the other. I do remember the palpable sense of joy when it came down as being the overwhelming feeling rather than 'we won the cold war'.Sorry, but I completely disagree.
Whilst it was symbolic for sure, it was not installed as a symbol, it was a brutal and essential part of subjugating a whole region to Russian domination and communist ideology.
The East knew they couldn't sustain their totalitarian state without it.
Taken random pictures from random accounts as gospel is silly but if it’s from well known and verified sources, it doesn’t matter if it’s social media or on the BBC website. All media companies use social media, as do actual experts.Anyone usimg aocual media to be educated on this war should stay off the internet.
Up to now known false claims
Russia took control of Odessa early on woth pictures of flags being hoisted - footage was from 2014 and Denesk
Russians wiping out the ukrainina forces of Snake Island - they all turned up alive in Odessa.
Russaia blowing up and arms factory - was a warehouse fire from china
The ghost of kyiv - footage from a video game and of an argentinain pilot
Zelensky on the front line in combat gear - all photos are from a visit to an army vamp in 2021
Little girl covered in blood on a hospital bed - was a Syrian girl from a picture 5 years ago.
All of these have been shared widely giving false stories of russian and ukrainian victories and other events, all are not true.
Twitter itls the worst place to follow this war or learn about it.
Absolutely this Cheesey. While the blame for Putin's actions cannot be laid at the door of NATO (though it seems some have tried), it would be naïve in the extreme to ignore the fact that the failure to review its purpose (and perhaps, existence) - particularly following the fall of communism in the 90's - has presented Putin with justification, however unfounded, for what could otherwise only be categorised as aggressive imperialist expansionism. Historically, both the west and the newly formed Russian Federation failed to grasp an opportunity to reach out to each other in an attempt to forge stronger ties and prevent future conflict in Europe. Sadly, that ship has long since sailed.NATO was essentially a cold war necessity to confront the very real threat of the Warsaw pact. With the benefit of hindsight we should probably have looked to wind down NATO during the 90's. I suppose though that with the old Soviet nuclear arsenal still very much there and European countries not willing or able to commit to the nessecary defense spending we still needed the us military presence in Europe. I think Europe/the EU could possibly extend to Ukraine etc in a benign way, but NATO membership just carries too much cold war (anti russian) baggage.
I suppose it depended which side of it you lived on - symbolic if you lived this side, brutal subjugation if you lived on the other. I do remember the palpable sense of joy when it came down as being the overwhelming feeling rather than 'we won the cold war'.
It does lag behind somewhat which is why we have the trade winds.I think you'll find the atmosphere revolves with the earth. Either that or we'd be living in 1000 mph winds. Latitude might make a difference.
Hate to break the news to you but it is categorised as aggressive imperialist expansionism by everyone who is not a Putin apologist.Absolutely this Cheesey. While the blame for Putin's actions cannot be laid at the door of NATO (though it seems some have tried), it would be naïve in the extreme to ignore the fact that the failure to review its purpose - particularly following the fall of communism in the 90's - has presented Putin with justification, however unfounded, for what could otherwise only be categorised as aggressive imperialist expansionism. Historically, both the west and the newly formed Russian Federation failed to grasp an opportunity to reach out to each other in an attempt to forge stronger ties and prevent future conflict in Europe. Sadly, that ship has long since sailed.
Oh well that's alright then.I think Russia just wants total control of Ukraine
I may have worded my comment a little clumsily but that was the point I was trying to make. That and the fact that Putin apologists (and of course, Putin himself) have seized on an opportunity to switch attention away from that dead-eyed fucker's culpability.Hate to break the news to you but it is categorised as aggressive imperialist expansionism by everyone who is not a Putin apologist.
Sadly, it’s a lot easier than you’d imagine. I’d imagine that 3 weeks ago, many of the Russian army were reasonably normal men. I’d also imagine that now, many have turned into inhumane raping machines. I suspect the line between good and evil is a lot narrower than we’d all hope and believe it or be.What is a very sad and depressing thought for me - and a bit off topic perhaps - is how on earth did Putin get into such a state that he thinks that killing people is perfectly OK? What on earth did his parents ever teach him? How do monsters like this get made?
Of course sometimes, wars are unavoidable in the protection of our freedoms, but we should never be the aggressors. Killing in self-defence if someone with a knife breaks into your house, and tries to kill you and your kids? Well that is one thing.
But sitting in an ivory tower and ordering the executions for e.g. the Skripals or Litvinenko, or doubtless the countless dozens or hundreds in Russia we never get to hear about? And sending thousands of Russian soldiers to their deaths, in order to achieve some political objective?
How on earth does anyone ever become this evil??? It boggles my mind.
Rascal, think of what NATO expansionism actually means. I know what you think it means, you think it means joining an extension of the sphere of influence of the US and its foreign policy goals but that is not true at all because that is not the NATO purpose. The most famous example of this is NATO did not go into Iraq because there was no UN security resolution for Iraq and so the US had to create a coalition of its own.Alaska/Russia , Norway/ Russia both in the frozen wastelands. were the only borders where the founding members of NATO/Russia interjected. Alaska is separated from Russia by the Bering sea, Norway land border with Russia is tiny.
Using Russia and USSR is disengenous, the USSR no longer exists, the Warsaw Pact has gone. The Warsaw Pact bordered NATO of course, but since its disintegration many Warsaw Pact countries are now NATO countries.
Putin may be an Imperialist who wants to restore the former influence of Russia over its former satellite states, but it has shown no sign at all of the expansionism of NATO.
Lenin referred to Imperialism as the highest stage of Capitalism and NATO is being used to promote Capitalism and as we have seen in this thread demonise the left. It is eradication of left wing thinking on a mass scale.
Putin though is not a left wing leader, he is an authoritarian Nationalist and I have said before he is dangerous and should be stopped. However NATO is not the cuddly benign organisation its made out to be. This is not as black and white as its being made out. The propaganda is not one sided. FFS, we had Nadine Dorries praising the BBC yesterday and she wanted to defund it last week.
Maybe as @swpsback says i should educate myself on twitter
Did you also have plenty of loo rolls?You are channelling your inner my late mum.......when she passed away my Dad had no idea about cooking etc so we went through the cupboards in the kitchen - she was thorough and ordered I'll give her that but there were piles of tins of beans in a neat pile then peas then soups - some were rusty but it could be we may end up ruing our actions ( this was 15 years ago lol )
The thread was written about Russia’s imperialist desires and written by a professor that’s written a fucking book on it so don’t talk shite.
I know West Ham got knocked out of the FA cup, and are behind the rags in the league, but do you really want to risk WW3 over it?so Russia could drop a bomb on a nuclear plant and we still won't enforce a no fly zone
NATO’s fault as well I expect.Russian civilian's now face 5years in prison for calling the "operation" a war.
Surely with this and the sanctions on Russia the people will start to turn on the regime?