New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Meanwhile, remember who was right all along wrt Ukraine...

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Russia has the same right to defend its borders from hostile military forces as the US has to impose its Monroe Doctrine. Finland offers a recent example of neutrality:

http://nato.gov.si/eng/topic/national-security/neutral-status/neutral-countries/#:~:text=Finland derives its policy of,, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance).

"Finland derives its policy of neutrality from the period directly following the Second World War.

"Its interest in remaining neutral in conflicts between great powers was first recognised in a treaty between Finland and the USSR in 1948 (the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance).

"The treaty forbids the signatories to join a military alliance against the other, and Finland could not allow its territory to be used for an attack on the USSR.

"Finland was also bound to preserve its neutrality through adequate armed forces.

"Finland's neutrality does not have roots in international law, and there are no international pledges for its neutrality.

"Thus Finland, like Austria, is a case of enforced neutrality, again by the USSR."
Russia invaded Finland without provocation early on....after having invaded Poland without provocation in 1939. Russia also invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968....again, without actually needing to defend their borders.

Seems to have repeated history. So Stalin imposed neutrality on Finland by threat of an additional invasion after the end of the war. You seem to think that can be classified as "defending its borders". It isn't.
 

EatTheRich

President
Russia invaded Finland without provocation early on....after having invaded Poland without provocation in 1939. Russia also invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968....again, without actually needing to defend their borders.

Seems to have repeated history. So Stalin imposed neutrality on Finland by threat of an additional invasion after the end of the war. You seem to think that can be classified as "defending its borders". It isn't.
Defense of the Soviet workers’ state was a legitimate reason for the invasions of Poland and Finland.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Defense of the Soviet workers’ state was a legitimate reason for the invasions of Poland and Finland.
Bullshit...How were Finland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia a threat to the USSR?

It seems you can bend the facts anyway you want to if your goal is simply to defend a dictatorship....So you think military force used against sovereign nations can be justified? I disagree.
 

EatTheRich

President
Bullshit...How were Finland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia a threat to the USSR?

It seems you can bend the facts anyway you want to if your goal is simply to defend a dictatorship....So you think military force used against sovereign nations can be justified? I disagree.
Well, Finland happened to join the Axis and invade the USSR … the border was close to Leningrad, and defense of Leningrad diverted the Red Army from defending Kyiv, Kursk, Moscow, Stalingrad, or Baku.

I have not defended the attacks on Hungary or Czechoslovakia, whose incipient democratic revolutions were threats only to the counterrevolutionary bureaucratic dictatorship.
 
er, yes, but no one was threatening russia, russia invaded ukraine.

thanks!
NATO expansion threatened Russia since four of the western imperialist nations currently enrolled in NATO have invaded Russia over the past two centuries. This was and is well known to those familiar with European history prior to February 2022.

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999

"That perspective isn’t held just by Russians; some influential American foreign policy experts have subscribed to it as well.

"Among others, Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. That’s when Burns, then a political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, reported to Washington that 'hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.'"
 

EatTheRich

President
After the US inflicted a far-right coup government spearheaded by Nazis on the majority of Ukrainians who voted for Yanukovych in 2010.
.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election
49% is a majority now?

Poroshenko’s government was voted into power following a popular revolution and was by no means far-right (certainly not to the extent that Putin’s government is).
NATO expansion threatened Russia since four of the western imperialist nations currently enrolled in NATO have invaded Russia over the past two centuries. This was and is well known to those familiar with European history prior to February 2022.

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999

"That perspective isn’t held just by Russians; some influential American foreign policy experts have subscribed to it as well.

"Among others, Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. That’s when Burns, then a political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, reported to Washington that 'hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.'"
And if there had been any NATO expansion to speak of in the decades preceding the invasion, you might have a point.
 
49% is a majority now?

Poroshenko’s government was voted into power following a popular revolution and was by no means far-right (certainly not to the extent that Putin’s government is)
49% is not a majority.
Yanukovych won the popular vote in 2010 when the electorate included Donbass and Crimea; Poroshenko did not. His administration was riddled with Nazis and corruption:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary-idUSKBN1GV2TY/

"In an ideal world, President Petro Poroshenko would purge the police and the interior ministry of far-right sympathizers, including Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, who has close ties to Azov leader Andriy Biletsky, as well as Sergei Korotkykh, an Azov veteran who is now a high-ranking police official.

"But Poroshenko would risk major repercussions if he did so; Avakov is his chief political rival, and the ministry he runs controls the police, the National Guard and several former militias.

"As one Ukrainian analyst noted in December, control of these forces make Avakov extremely powerful and Poroshenko’s presidency might not be strong enough to withstand the kind of direct confrontation with Avakov that an attempt to oust him or to strike at his power base could well produce. Poroshenko has endured frequent verbal threats, including calls for revolution, from ultranationalist groups, so he may believe that he needs Avakov to keep them in check."
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Well, Finland happened to join the Axis and invade the USSR … the border was close to Leningrad, and defense of Leningrad diverted the Red Army from defending Kyiv, Kursk, Moscow, Stalingrad, or Baku.

I have not defended the attacks on Hungary or Czechoslovakia, whose incipient democratic revolutions were threats only to the counterrevolutionary bureaucratic dictatorship.
Looks like you forgot who invaded whom...Russia invaded Finland in November 1939. Finland was forced to surrender about 10% of their territory to Russia.

Finland then joined with Germany in 1941. Payback is a bitch.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Can't find any examples of NATO expansion lately?

https://time.com/6151115/nato-russia-ukraine-article-4/
1. Countries have joined in mutual defense treaties for as long as there have been countries. Even before that, tribes would join to enable joint defense. There is no defensible excuse for Russia assuming it had authority over other countries defense or economic treaties.
2. As the USSR disintegrated a number of countries that had been subjected to control by the Kremlin joined NATO. That included Poland, Hungary, the Czech republic in 1999. Solovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria joined in 2004.

What that actually meant was that Russia could not use the threat of military force to control their policies as they had done in 1956, 1968 and 1979...(and again in 2014).

There are no offensive NATO weapons stationed in those countries. They are not a threat to Russia.

Russia went to war in Chechnya in 1994. There was a ceasefire from 1996 to 1999...and then fighting started up again.

Russia went to war in Georgia in 2008.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
If the Russian goal in Ukraine was conquest (it wasn't), there would be more dead civilians in Ukraine after 18 months of fighting than in Gaza after eight weeks of US-sponsored ethnic cleansing.
Gaza has no air force, no tanks, no anti-aircraft ability. Attempting to draw a comparison between the two is getting pretty desperate...even for you.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Russia never intended to conquer all of Ukraine.
It's purpose was to end the genocide of ethnic Russian speakers in Donbass by the demilitarization and denazification of the US puppet government in Kiev.
Mission accomplished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_conducting_a_special_military_operation#:~:text=He said the purpose of,perpetrated by the Kyiv regime".

"Days earlier, on 21 February, Russia officially recognised the DPR and the LPR as independent states,[6][7] which were agreements with the DNR and LNR referred to by Putin.

"They were ratified by the State Duma and the Federation Council.

"He said the purpose of the 'operation' was to 'protect the people' in the predominantly Russian-speaking region of Donbas who, according to Putin, 'for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime'.[3][8]

"Putin also stated that Russia sought the 'demilitarization and denazification' of Ukraine."
1. Russia invaded Donbas in 2014. If not for the interference from Putin in encouraging Russian backed militia groups to take government buildings and lay siege to Ukrainian military installations...there would have been no violence in Donbas from 2014 to 2022.

2. Notice that Putin's statement on the purpose of the invasion didn't have anything to do with NATO membership.
 

EatTheRich

President
49% is not a majority.
Yanukovych won the popular vote in 2010 when the electorate included Donbass and Crimea; Poroshenko did not. His administration was riddled with Nazis and corruption:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary-idUSKBN1GV2TY/

"In an ideal world, President Petro Poroshenko would purge the police and the interior ministry of far-right sympathizers, including Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, who has close ties to Azov leader Andriy Biletsky, as well as Sergei Korotkykh, an Azov veteran who is now a high-ranking police official.

"But Poroshenko would risk major repercussions if he did so; Avakov is his chief political rival, and the ministry he runs controls the police, the National Guard and several former militias.

"As one Ukrainian analyst noted in December, control of these forces make Avakov extremely powerful and Poroshenko’s presidency might not be strong enough to withstand the kind of direct confrontation with Avakov that an attempt to oust him or to strike at his power base could well produce. Poroshenko has endured frequent verbal threats, including calls for revolution, from ultranationalist groups, so he may believe that he needs Avakov to keep them in check."
Rightist does not equal “Nazi.” Reagan had a fascist on his White House staff … does that make his government “far-right”?
 

EatTheRich

President
Looks like you forgot who invaded whom...Russia invaded Finland in November 1939. Finland was forced to surrender about 10% of their territory to Russia.

Finland then joined with Germany in 1941. Payback is a bitch.
The USSR’s pre-emptive strike blunted the force of the coming invasion. Simply by virtue of geography and the reality of imperialist foreign policy, Finland was (it goes without saying) going to invade whether the USSR first secured its border or not.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You made the claim there had been no significant NATO expansion in the decades before the US-instigated coup in 2014.
BY NATO expansion you mean countries formerly controlled by the USSR voluntarily seeking to form mutual defense treaties to prevent further Russian dominance and interference?

Russia was no longer free to intimidate their neighbors.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The USSR’s pre-emptive strike blunted the force of the coming invasion. Simply by virtue of geography and the reality of imperialist foreign policy, Finland was (it goes without saying) going to invade whether the USSR first secured its border or not.
The USSR was engaged in negotiations with Finland to take part of the nation as part of Russia and forcing Finland to allow Russian bases on Finnish territory. There was no threat of invasion by the Finns. Russia had a treaty with Germany and had invaded Poland. Was Poland a threat? Hell no.

Your desperate attempt to find the Kremlin blameless is sad.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
NATO expansion threatened Russia since four of the western imperialist nations currently enrolled in NATO have invaded Russia over the past two centuries. This was and is well known to those familiar with European history prior to February 2022.

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999

"That perspective isn’t held just by Russians; some influential American foreign policy experts have subscribed to it as well.

"Among others, Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. That’s when Burns, then a political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, reported to Washington that 'hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.'"
Baloney.

Dismissed
 
Top