|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not having Eastern Europe be a basket case like Ukraine is certainly in the interest of everyone in Europe, since it facilitates trade, puts some distance between us and any hot spot, and reduces the risk of cross-border criminal organizations wreaking havoc. Western Europe has no interest in sharing a border with a European Mexico, and possibly even worse, a European Mexico that can't be fixed because Russia is constantly undermining any attempt at fixing poo poo. Well, first of all, Mexico is a pretty great country to be bordered with, all things considered. Secondly, and more importantly, I also think that having stability, democracy, human rights, etc, in Eastern Europe, benefit the US and Old Europe. But I also think that the course of action that you and others advocate will not only not help those things in Eastern Europe, but they will also undermine American and Western European interests elsewhere. A worse relationship with Russia than we're already seeing means a substantially greater risk of global WMD proliferation worldwide, less cooperation on climate change, less help with Syria, Iraq, and Iran, etc. These interests are extremely important too - so important that they require us to find a way out of this mess while still trying to stay friendly with Russia. edit for clarity Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Mar 10, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Majorian posted:It makes that argument, and it's not terribly convincing, given that it was written during a different context from the one we see now. Nationalist sentiment had only just begun to sweep the Russian political arena, and NATO still had a number of blunders left to make that would make nationalism seem more enticing to the Russian public. So I guess your 16 pages of posts really were about nothing. quote:I, personally, can't quite tell you why you posted that long piece, because it didn't really support your argument all that much.  "The war over Kosovo did more damage to Russia-NATO relations than any other event since 1991." "Irreparable damage has been done to Russian perception of NATO through the three policies NATO had undertaken in 1999, 1.Expansion of NATO by way of including the three new members; 2. Modernization of American high-tech weaponry and most importantly 3. The bombing campaign in Serbia." Contrast this to: "The admission of the three central European states into NATO even though it had been known to take place and even though the Russians had long ago made peace with this decision, still generated a sense of injured isolation. " quote:You're looking at it right now: an entrenched right-wing nationalist regime in power in Russia, feeding off of Russian fear that NATO is out to get them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:So... you actually agree that Poland, Hungary and the Czechs joining NATO is mostly irrelevant to current situation because "NATO still had a number of blunders left to make that would make nationalism seem more enticing to the Russian public." It was one mistake in a chain of them. I wouldn't say it's irrelevant at all, since it's part of that chain, but there were more mistakes. quote:
Yes, what Dr. Brovkin is arguing there kinda-sorta resembles what you're arguing. The problem is, it doesn't do much to discount my argument that NATO and US mistakes helped drive Russia into nationalist political water, since a lot of those mistakes hadn't been made yet. It's amazing to me that this is so difficult for you to grasp. quote:So I take it you can't. Russia accepted the 1999 expansion without much incident and then just grumbled a bit about the 2004 expansion. Somehow the two NATO expansions are the crucial events that made conflict unavoidable 10-15 years afterwards. Yet for some reason Russia did not flip out, risk the prime minister crashing into the ocean and almost start WW3 as in the case of the Kosovo War. Gee, I wonder which issue Russia cared more about? This is a pretty unconvincing argument; large-scale trends and animosities can rise between nations and blocs quietly and gradually. The Pristina Airport incident, while tense, wasn't some grand display of Russian national will; it was a series of miscommunications. It's ridiculous to suggest that the Russians cared about that more than the perceived threat from NATO, particularly when that incident was part of why they were afraid of NATO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It was one mistake in a chain of them. I wouldn't say it's irrelevant at all, since it's part of that chain, but there were more mistakes. quote:Yes, what Dr. Brovkin is arguing there kinda-sorta resembles what you're arguing. The problem is, it doesn't do much to discount my argument that NATO and US mistakes helped drive Russia into nationalist political water, since a lot of those mistakes hadn't been made yet. It's amazing to me that this is so difficult for you to grasp. As I've shown, NATO expansion was performed in a collegial manner with Russia, and "Russia's drive into nationalist political water" could be averted if the other NATO/US mistakes had been prevented.  Meanwhile, those eastern European countries would have still gotten all the benefits from joining NATO.quote:This is a pretty unconvincing argument; large-scale trends and animosities can rise between nations and blocs quietly and gradually. The Pristina Airport incident, while tense, wasn't some grand display of Russian national will; it was a series of miscommunications. It's ridiculous to suggest that the Russians cared about that more than the perceived threat from NATO, particularly when that incident was part of why they were afraid of NATO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:Good, now that you've admitted that NATO expansion was only one of a whole chain of mistakes That's not what I said. I said that the first wave of expansion was one link in a longer chain of mistakes. quote:f "a lot of those mistakes hadn't been made yet", then NATO expansion cannot be the "the straw that broke the camel's back"! You're so close to getting this! There were other waves of NATO expansion.  e: Have a look, see for yourself. NATO expansion did not happen in one fell swoop. The fact that you're treating it as a singular instance instead of a trend that occurred over a broad period of time suggests that you don't really know what you're talking about. quote:Please read a bit more about the Pristina incident. It was not miscommunication. Yes, it was. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not what I said. I said that the first wave of expansion was one link in a longer chain of mistakes. quote:There were other waves of NATO expansion. quote:Yes, it was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:I'm not quite understanding your semantic point here. It's not that hard, dude: Russia saw NATO expanding eastward, gradually, in successive waves, and as the US adopted more neoconservative policies and unilateral actions, they began to worry that NATO's primary objective was to weaken Russia and expand the American empire. Each blunder the US and NATO made led Russia closer to the present state of affairs. quote:Yes, I wanted to deal with that separately later. No you didn't; you just indicated that you thought NATO expansion happened all at once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Sounds to me like the fundamental problem is that the Russians don't seem to realize nobody really gives a poo poo about them anymore, if they thought all of that was aimed at Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Sounds to me like the fundamental problem is that the Russians don't seem to realize nobody really gives a poo poo about them anymore, if they thought all of that was aimed at Russia. You may not give a poo poo about them, but when a country has as many nukes as they do, trust me - the world cares about what they do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You may not give a poo poo about them, but when a country has as many nukes as they do, trust me - the world cares about what they do. Yeah, the idea they are doing this out of attention is misguided, the Russians want to dominate Ukraine and their place in the sun is guided in their terms not western ones. Saying they are "washed up" is fine and all, but isn't actually going to stop they trying to maximize their control over the former Soviet Union nor is it going to wish away their nukes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You may not give a poo poo about them, but when a country has as many nukes as they do, trust me - the world cares about what they do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Russia's inferiority complex far predates nuclear weapons. Absolutely it has. But it didn't exactly need nuclear weapons to sweep across Europe in 1815, or to lower the Iron Curtain after 1945. Russia is a powerful country - it has been one for a long time, and it probably will continue to be one, in one sense or another, for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Russia's inferiority complex far predates nuclear weapons. It is surprising how many countries have inferiority complexes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You may not give a poo poo about them, but when a country has as many nukes as they do, trust me - the world cares about what they do. No, I meant that there are a significant number of Russians who unironically believe that someone wants to invade and physically conquer their lovely petrostate wasteland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Majorian, literally every poster disagrees with you, even me. Maybe its time to accept that you've been examining the issue through a bias frame of reference, and have come to inappropriate and unproductive conclusions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, first of all, Mexico is a pretty great country to be bordered with, all things considered. Majorian posted:Secondly, and more importantly, I also think that having stability, democracy, human rights, etc, in Eastern Europe, benefit the US and Old Europe. But I also think that the course of action that you and others advocate will not only not help those things in Eastern Europe, but they will also undermine American and Western European interests elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Look at the Eastern European states that joined NATO. Now look at Moldova/Ukraine/Belarus/Russia. IT HAS ALREADY HELPED. If you are talking about economic growth and corruption, that is more the EU than anything. I actually don't think keeping Eastern Europe out of NATO would have worked through, nevertheless US-Russian relations probably could have gone a different route and how shock therapy had worked out. Also, I don't think Russians are necessarily scared of an Western invasion but at the same time do wish to have a buffer zone. Obviously, there isn't a interest in the West grant them that but the question at this point is how much Germany, France or the US will fight them over it and it doesn't look like it is very much. Ultimately, it is was going to be difficult to near impossible to get the Russians to forget about the past when the 1991 revolution was in many ways framed around Russian nationalism. then you had the comparable disaster of the rest of the 1990s to add to it. All it took was a guy like Putin come along to under those conditions to build the rest narrative (the Second Chechen War, a (deregulated) energy boom) for the issue to come to ahead. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If you are talking about economic growth and corruption, that is more the EU than anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I have a hard time seeing how you separate the two though. Membership of EU and the option of joining NATO is sort of a package deal, a giant carrot to encourage a more Western outlook in Eastern Europe. Taking NATO membership off the table would be actively telling these countries that they would always be second-tier within the EU, and btw Russia, we don't actually care about them enough that EU membership is a solid guarantee that we'll do more than the minimum to defend them if you want to gently caress with them. (Because in that case we would have let them join NATO.) It is possible to be in NATO not the EU though (Albania). As far as taking NATO membership off the table, I don't think that was going to happen on the Russian border but nevertheless it needs to be pointed out that it is EU membership in itself that if anything was the first goal in Ukraine and it was only after Russian intervention NATO membership became more of an issue. Unfortunately for Ukraine their economy and finances have taken enough damage to delay EU membership possibly for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Look at the Eastern European states that joined NATO. Now look at Moldova/Ukraine/Belarus/Russia. IT HAS ALREADY HELPED. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this: NATO benefited those states that joined it, at least in the short-to-medium term. In the long-term, it has destabilized the region, threatens to turn Russia into a proliferation risk again, and will likely hurt U.S. interests worldwide. e: You and others seem to have tunnel vision on this issue, where you think that the only people that could lose out from this crisis are those living in Poland, the Baltics, and Ukraine. But the fact of the matter is, the Baltics and Poland probably aren't going to get attacked in any meaningful way, Ukraine is and has been beyond our salvation, and in the meantime, everybody else on Earth stands to lose (and lose big) if a new Cold War starts with Russia. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Didn't Wes Clark want to go to the mat over Pristina? It takes two sides to start WW3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't see what's so hard to understand about this: NATO benefited those states that joined it, at least in the short-to-medium term. In the long-term, it has destabilized the region, threatens to turn Russia into a proliferation risk again, and will likely hurt U.S. interests worldwide. Of course there is the question of how Ukraine is being lost, there is little recognition that Western countries now look like they simply don't want to spend the money to keep Ukraine above water. It isn't WW3 or fear of Russia and another Cold War that is holding them but simply the fear of dumping money on a country they may simply not get back. In a sense, it isn't just Russia that is fighting to dominate Ukraine but the West is letting it go. If you look at the Eurocrisis or American politics in general, it isn't that surprising but an interesting portent for the world. Global stability requires financing, and as it slowly gets sapped, bigger and bigger cracks are going to form. "Humbled" states like Russia are going to exploit this opportunity as much as they can, as will up and coming powers such as China. That said, it is going to be safer to be in NATO in this sense (simply because it is more likely to get some type of resources spent on you) then it is in the gathering wilderness. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
The idea that Russia has to not feel threatened to maintain stability is pretty hilarious. Because the only way for them to not feel threatened is to be at parity or stronger than their perceived enemies. The possibility of that happening is near zero. Modern Russia has a power hangover and can't accept their place in the world. If only we completely restore the Soviet Union because Russians are insecure we can bring peace in our time!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is possible to be in NATO not the EU though (Albania). Majorian posted:I don't see what's so hard to understand about this: NATO benefited those states that joined it, at least in the short-to-medium term. In the long-term, it has destabilized the region, threatens to turn Russia into a proliferation risk again, and will likely hurt U.S. interests worldwide. 2. I'm quite confident that the region would be less stable both short- and long-term if NATO had not expanded like it did. Majorian posted:e: You and others seem to have tunnel vision on this issue, where you think that the only people that could lose out from this crisis are those living in Poland, the Baltics, and Ukraine. But the fact of the matter is, the Baltics and Poland probably aren't going to get attacked in any meaningful way, Majorian posted:Ukraine is and has been beyond our salvation, and in the meantime, everybody else on Earth stands to lose (and lose big) if a new Cold War starts with Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:1. I don't believe it has destabilized the region much, compared to NATO adventures in non-NATO countries. I've acknowledged that NATO expansion was beneficial to New Europe throughout the 90's - the question is, has NATO expansion made instability made instability in the region an inevitability in the long-term? You have a lot of very smart people who know a hell of a lot more about Russia and Eastern Europe than you do telling you that it has. Your argument is starting to sound like Jim Inhofe's anti-climate change argument: "Welp, there's still snow in DC in February, so climate change must be a hoax!" quote:Also, what does "attacked in any meaningful way" even mean? Like, what's happened in Ukraine, for example. I meant that to distinguish a hybrid invasion from, say, Russian troops kidnapping an Estonian guy (which was hosed-up and evil, but not exactly an invasion). quote:A Cold War it's far from certain we would have avoided even without the NATO expansion. When George Kennan is saying that NATO expansion pushed us more in that direction, I'm more inclined to believe him than you. Also, this isn't a Cold War yet. It will be if we follow the strategies towards Ukraine that you and other hawkish types are advocating, but luckily I don't see the EU or the US adopting them. crabcakes66 posted:The idea that Russia has to not feel threatened to maintain stability is pretty hilarious. No one's claiming this - it's a ridiculous strawman. No state can feel 100% secure. That's one of the problems with international security as a field. What I and others are claiming is that Russia needs to not feel as threatened by NATO as they currently are, to maintain stability - just as the US needed to not feel as threatened by Cuban alignment with the USSR to stand down from the Cuban Missile Crisis. quote:Because the only way for them to not feel threatened is to be at parity or stronger than their perceived enemies. Can you source this claim, please? Majorian fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You may not give a poo poo about them, but when a country has as many nukes as they do, trust me - the world cares about what they do. We do but not in a way that is good for Russia. Russia isn't a superpower anymore but it's trying to be by using nukes as leverage. This isn't how it works. France and the UK are not superpowers despite having nukes. America is a superpower because of its economy and giant military, not because it has nukes. China is becoming a superpower because of massive industrialization, not because it has nukes. Russia is reduced to a shadow of its former self and thinks threatening people with nuclear war is going to make it a superpower again. It's going to end badly for Russia or all of us, Russia included. In no scenario does Russia "win" by being an idiot with nukes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:We do but not in a way that is good for Russia. Russia isn't a superpower anymore but it's trying to be by using nukes as leverage. How are they using nukes as leverage, exactly? And they do have other significant areas of leverage as well: energy, proximity to areas of US interest, lots of airspace that our armed forces need to traverse routinely, etc. Of course it's not a superpower anymore, except in terms of nuclear weapons totals, but still - it's foolish to deny that they're a powerful state. You can quibble about what tier of power they're currently at or whatever, but the fact of the matter remains: the West wants Russia to do a whole list of things. We need to figure out how to get them to do these things without resorting to violence. So how do you think we should get them to leave Ukraine? And will your solution jeopardize other interests for the US and the international community writ large? If so, how will getting Russia to leave Ukraine alone be worth jeopardizing those interests?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What I and others are claiming is that Russia needs to not feel as threatened by NATO as they currently are, to maintain stability - just as the US needed to not feel as threatened by Cuban alignment with the USSR to stand down from the Cuban Missile Crisis. I guess this entire argument hinges on whether you truly believe that Russia actually feels increasingly threatened, or this is just an excuse for violently expanding their power. An excuse that plays both to people like yourself and nationalists in Russia. Russia's more aggressive attitude is as much or more about domestic perceptions and Putin retaining power by appealing to said nationalists. Western actions are convenient for the narrative. But not really the cause of what Russia is doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:I guess this entire argument hinges on whether you truly believe that Russia actually feels increasingly threatened, or this is just an excuse for violently expanding their power. A lot of people who know what they're talking about are saying that the Russian public truly does feel threatened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A lot of people who know what they're talking about are saying that the Russian public truly does feel threatened. So threatened that they are willingly isolating themselves by making moves condemned internationally. Its one thing to feel threatened and react, its quite another to PUT yourself in a situation and then claim you are feeling threatened post fact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A lot of people who know what they're talking about are saying that the Russian public truly does feel threatened. People do tend to become scared when their government tells them horrible things. So this is not surprising.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So threatened that they are willingly isolating themselves by making moves condemned internationally. Countries and governments sometimes take dumb, counterproductive positions that isolate themselves. We Americans/Westerners should know. quote:Its one thing to feel threatened and react, its quite another to PUT yourself in a situation and then claim you are feeling threatened post fact. Russia has helped dig itself deeper and deeper into this hole, no question. But it's a little silly to pretend that NATO's mistakes in the 90's didn't get this particular ball rolling. crabcakes66 posted:People do tend to become scared when their government tells them horrible things. So this is not surprising. But they were scared of the West's intentions in expanding eastward before their government was telling them horrible things. Yeltsin's government was pro-Western, particularly early in his first term. The Russian public didn't need propaganda to feel threatened by NATO's blundering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Countries and governments sometimes take dumb, counterproductive positions that isolate themselves. We Americans/Westerners should know. Okay, be honest: Do you honestly believe the Russians, with a basically insurmountable army in that region, are REALLY afraid of NATO encroachment? So afraid that they were willing to start a covert war and annex portions of a country? I don't buy it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Okay, be honest: Do you honestly believe the Russians, with a basically insurmountable army in that region, During the 90's? Nope. Their army was in pretty poo poo shape, actually. quote:are REALLY afraid of NATO encroachment? So afraid that they were willing to start a covert war and annex portions of a country? I don't buy it. Well, that's fine - you're allowed not to buy it, just as climate change skeptics are allowed to not believe what the people who actually know what they're talking about are saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:During the 90's? Nope. Their army was in pretty poo poo shape, actually. But we don't live and work in the 1990s. Its the year 2015. If they are holding over fears from a transitional phase after the collapse of the USSR, that is NOT the fault of NATO, especially considering their actions and the current status of the Russian Army. This makes about as much sense as saying the Nazis wanted the Sudetenland back just to secure their borders, its not being truthful in the actions being taken and their goals. Majorian posted:Well, that's fine - you're allowed not to buy it, just as climate change skeptics are allowed to not believe what the people who actually know what they're talking about are saying. "Skeptics". This is a real disingenuous argument, because you make the assumption that you have all the right answers already and everyone else is wrong. This is not climate change where all the scientific evidence is laid bare for all to see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
The Russian army is far from insurmountable. The NATO militaries have better equipment, better training, a better strategic situation and far more money behind them. We could beat the Russian army in the field if we wanted to, we just don't, because it's a stupid idea that would be cataclysmic in the best case and the end of civilisation in the worst. And we are getting stronger all the time, and are extremely belligerent and duplicitous.My Imaginary GF posted:Majorian, literally every poster disagrees with you, even me. Maybe its time to accept that you've been examining the issue through a bias frame of reference, and have come to inappropriate and unproductive conclusions? A lot of people agree with Majorian in whole or in part, they just don't post in the Eastern Europe thread because it's beyond help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Peel posted:The Russian army is far from insurmountable. The NATO militaries have better equipment, better training, a better strategic situation and far more money behind them. We could beat the Russian army in the field if we wanted to, we just don't, because it's a stupid idea that would be cataclysmic in the best case and the end of civilisation in the worst. And we are getting stronger all the time, and are extremely belligerent and duplicitous. So did the Germans. And the French. Its not really about who has the best equipment, sometimes overwhelming numbers really do count. That was the entire point of the Warsaw Pact doctrine to begin with, they KNEW they didn't have as good equipment or training, but they had numbers that could do serious damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But we don't live and work in the 1990s. No, but perceptions formed in the recent past tend to linger - particularly when those perceptions are ones of threat and antagonism. The effects of the US and NATO's blunders also have had lingering effects on Russia. quote:Its the year 2015. If they are holding over fears from a transitional phase after the collapse of the USSR, that is NOT the fault of NATO Why not? Because it happened in the past? If so, that's some rather specious reasoning. quote:This is a real disingenuous argument, because you make the assumption that you have all the right answers already and everyone else is wrong. Given that it's the opinion of a bunch of uninformed internet posters versus that of people like George Kennan, Sam Nunn, Jack Matlock, Richard Davies, Jonathan Dean, etc, I think it's a pretty safe bet to trust the latter group's opinion more than the former's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, but perceptions formed in the recent past tend to linger - particularly when those perceptions are ones of threat and antagonism. The effects of the US and NATO's blunders also have had lingering effects on Russia. So Putin is just a scared child reliving the heydays of the end of the USSR and is just shivering in his boots over NATO encroachment and lashing out at Ukraine? Are you being serious? Majorian posted:Given that it's the opinion of a bunch of uninformed internet posters versus that of people like George Kennan, Sam Nunn, Jack Matlock, Richard Davies, Jonathan Dean, etc, I think it's a pretty safe bet to trust the latter group's opinion more than the former's. From the guys who brought you the game Containment: Stop the Scourge of Communism through various paramilitary operations, comes 'Oh no, don't press to hard on the sensitive Russians' CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Majorian, literally every poster disagrees with you, even me. Maybe its time to accept that you've been examining the issue through a bias frame of reference, and have come to inappropriate and unproductive conclusions? It takes some pretty huge balls to say that a few SA goons have a less biased, more appropriate, more productive point of view on this issue than a former ambassador to Russia, several former ambassadors to Eastern European countries, the father of modern arms control, and George Kennan. CommieGIR posted:So Putin is just a scared child reliving the heydays of the end of the USSR and is just shivering in his boots over NATO encroachment and lashing out at Ukraine? Are you being serious? No, Putin is a cynic who has benefited from the fears of the Russian public. CommieGIR posted:From the guys who brought you the game Containment: Stop the Scourge of Communism through various paramilitary operations, comes 'Oh no, don't press to hard on the sensitive Russians' LOL, yeah, that's really what Kennan, Matlock, Nunn, Mendelson, etc, advocated. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:36
|
|