Kinsella
Copy & Paste Merchant
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 2,776
What's predictably terrible?A predictably terrible argument made by the lesser Hitchens brother.
I wonder what his superior, yet much less wise, brother would've made of it all?
What's predictably terrible?A predictably terrible argument made by the lesser Hitchens brother.
He's really not saying much beyond "I once lived in Moscow" and "the establishment needs a villain so it uses Russia", then using bizarre analogies of what would the US do if a hostile force were in Mexico. He's completely omitting the reality that Putin is a corrupt authoritarian dictator who is using the existence of NATO as a pretext to invade his neighbors as a tool to reestablish the old Soviet sphere and avoid democracy reaching Russia. A predictably shallow argument from Peter.What's predictably terrible?
I wonder what his superior, yet much less wise, brother would've made of it all?
I think the talk or speech was more about trying to provide a fuller and more nuanced understanding of Russia itself than anything else, and he did say that Putin is a sinister tyrant.He's really not saying much beyond "I once lived in Moscow" and "the establishment needs a villain so it uses Russia", then using bizarre analogies of what would the US do if a hostile force were in Mexico. He's completely omitting the reality that Putin is a corrupt authoritarian dictator who is using the existence of NATO as a pretext to invade his neighbors as a tool to reestablish the old Soviet sphere and avoid democracy reaching Russia. A predictably shallow argument from Peter.
absolutely as some here are saying the same thing in opposite. In reality you can say NATO is using Putin to expand itself. Very conveniently forgetting that Russia wanted to join NATO and was willing to be a partner and the Americans kicked them while they were down. Yeltsin did everything to accommodate the Americans yet it was all for nothing. No need to be someone's lapdog. As for the claim that Russia is getting closer to NATO's borders it is the most ridiculous thing ever mentioned. Russia has not moved at all. NATO has expanded to Russian borders.I think the talk or speech was more about trying to provide a fuller and more nuanced understanding of Russia itself than anything else, and he did say that Putin is a sinister tyrant.
And forgive the tangent but democracy means nothing if the culture and conditions in a given country aren't there to support it.
No one is forcing nations to join NATO. Its each nation's right to determine its own path, which is what Putin objects to. He wants nations he doesn't rule to do as he wants or else he will invade them. That's what Putin apologists are justifying by arguing in his favor.absolutely as some here are saying the same thing in opposite. In reality you can say NATO is using Putin to expand itself. Very conveniently forgetting that Russia wanted to join NATO and was willing to be a partner and the Americans kicked them while they were down. Yeltsin did everything to accommodate the Americans yet it was all for nothing. No need to be someone's lapdog. As for the claim that Russia is getting closer to NATO's borders it is the most ridiculous thing ever mentioned. Russia has not moved at all. NATO has expanded to Russian borders.
Yes Putin is a very authoritarian leader but more so are all the Gulf countries.
That's true but it reads as a summary of US foreign policy since World War Two, as well. If the shoe were on the other foot, America would be doing the same. We know this because America did the same in Chile, Cuba, and South America more broadly.He wants nations he doesn't rule to do as he wants or else he will invade them
That's true, although in the present context Ukraine is a democracy with legitimately elected leaders, so if they want to join NATO, Putin doesn't get to have any say in the matter. That is fundamentally what all of this is about - the jilted ex-lover attempting to coerce his ex into not dating anyone they don't approve of - or else face violent consequences.That's true but it reads as a summary of US foreign policy since World War Two, as well. If the shoe were on the other foot, America would be doing the same. We know this because America did the same in Chile, Cuba, and South America more broadly.
Oh please. There's no way Russia's getting in. NATO requires the following as a condition of membership:absolutely as some here are saying the same thing in opposite. In reality you can say NATO is using Putin to expand itself. Very conveniently forgetting that Russia wanted to join NATO and was willing to be a partner and the Americans kicked them while they were down. Yeltsin did everything to accommodate the Americans yet it was all for nothing. No need to be someone's lapdog. As for the claim that Russia is getting closer to NATO's borders it is the most ridiculous thing ever mentioned. Russia has not moved at all. NATO has expanded to Russian borders.
Yes Putin is a very authoritarian leader but more so are all the Gulf countries.
Nobody sensible listens to Peter Hitchens on anything, everyone knows that.He's really not saying much beyond "I once lived in Moscow" and "the establishment needs a villain so it uses Russia", then using bizarre analogies of what would the US do if a hostile force were in Mexico. He's completely omitting the reality that Putin is a corrupt authoritarian dictator who is using the existence of NATO as a pretext to invade his neighbors as a tool to reestablish the old Soviet sphere and avoid democracy reaching Russia. A predictably shallow argument from Peter.
I disagree,I think the talk or speech was more about trying to provide a fuller and more nuanced understanding of Russia itself than anything else, and he did say that Putin is a sinister tyrant.
And forgive the tangent but democracy means nothing if the culture and conditions in a given country aren't there to support it.
Obviously NATO had expanded a bit more over the past 30 years but Russia did literally move its borders what, 7 years ago? I’m not even talking about its military presence in neighboring countries & contested territories like Donetsk, Lugansk, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria etc.As for the claim that Russia is getting closer to NATO's borders it is the most ridiculous thing ever mentioned. Russia has not moved at all. NATO has expanded to Russian borders.
Good point, well argued.Nobody sensible listens to Peter Hitchens on anything, everyone knows that.
When Russia wanted (apparently) to join in it was late Yeltsin/early Putin era, which was very different to today’s Russia (or Putin himself). He actually had great relationships with US, UK & Germany and it seemed like he was moving towards wider integration into Europe (as a partner, not as a dominant force though). And Russia was even a democracy at that point (a widely flawed one, but a democracy nonetheless). It’s scary to think how the things have changed over the last 2 decades.Oh please. There's no way Russia's getting in. NATO requires the following as a condition of membership:
"A functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully; an ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutions". Source.
There's your answer.
The fact is, now Russia wouldn't join NATO even if we wanted it to, NATO is far more useful these days to Russian nationalists, cast in the role of an enemy.
This idea that Russia is hurt because it really, really wanted to subordinate itself to a US-led military command structure, and was rejected, is laughable.
I don’t think the idea of Russia joining NATO ever had legs (I suspect the two sides had incompatible worldviews), but, to be honest, there is a NATO member just to the south of Russia which would struggle to meet some of the criteria you cite.Oh please. There's no way Russia's getting in. NATO requires the following as a condition of membership:
"A functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully; an ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutions". Source.
There's your answer.
The fact is, now Russia wouldn't join NATO even if we wanted it to, NATO is far more useful these days to Russian nationalists, cast in the role of an enemy.
This idea that Russia is hurt because it really, really wanted to subordinate itself to a US-led military command structure, and was rejected, is laughable.
Wasn't it an oligarcy back then?When Russia wanted (apparently) to join in it was late Yeltsin/early Putin era, which was very different to today’s Russia (or Putin himself). He actually had great relationships with US, UK & Germany and it seemed like he was moving towards wider integration into Europe (as a partner, not as a dominant force though). And Russia was even a democracy at that point (a widely flawed one, but a democracy nonetheless). It’s scary to think how the things have changed over the last 2 decades.
I wouldn’t call it oligarchy, but it was a flawed democracy with a lot of power & influence held by oligarchs. But I wouldn’t say that oligarchs were synonymous with government & politicians at that point.Wasn't it an oligarcy back then?
Defend from who? What are you even talking about?The sentiment of WWII has not left Russian psyche and I’m absolutely convinced, if Russians have enough supposed pretext, then they’ll defend their motherland like a motherfecker. I’ll just say it now - the west haven’t got the stomach for it.
Weirdly enough, he’s kind of on point as Putin has developed this idea of a constant harassment from a foreign force (USA & the West in general), so every offensive action so far had been labeled as a defensive one. The current military presence in Eastern Ukraine is, for example, justified as a defense of Russian people that live in the region — and a surprising amount of people bought that.Defend from who? What are you even talking about?
You don't seem to understand that NATO's expansion is not done with tanks and threats but with the express will of said countries and votes, referendums etc. Those countries want NATO precisely because of Russias behaviour towards it's neighbors. We don't live in the 30s anymore where central and eastern countries are treated as non entities to be shared by Hitler and Stalin. Countries have the right to self determination and more often then not, that means they chose the west and as much protection as possible from a Russia that still has governments living in the past.absolutely as some here are saying the same thing in opposite. In reality you can say NATO is using Putin to expand itself. Very conveniently forgetting that Russia wanted to join NATO and was willing to be a partner and the Americans kicked them while they were down. Yeltsin did everything to accommodate the Americans yet it was all for nothing. No need to be someone's lapdog. As for the claim that Russia is getting closer to NATO's borders it is the most ridiculous thing ever mentioned. Russia has not moved at all. NATO has expanded to Russian borders.
Yes Putin is a very authoritarian leader but more so are all the Gulf countries.
Russian militia..The sentiment of WWII has not left Russian psyche and I’m absolutely convinced, if Russians have enough supposed pretext, then they’ll defend their motherland like a motherfecker. I’ll just say it now - the west haven’t got the stomach for it.
It seems Russia plays along the boogeyman role quite convincingly.Are we back to Russia in the cycle of foreign bogeymen then?
Every year is the same thing, almost like it benefits some.
Don't be coy, who specifically?Are we back to Russia in the cycle of foreign bogeymen then?
Every year is the same thing, almost like it benefits some.
*cough*georgesoros*/cough*Don't be coy, who specifically?
This is funny and all, but unfortunately there are a lot of genuinely dangerous people in the American militia movement. They undoubtedly have a more dangeorus militia movement than Russia.Russian militia..
US Militia..
Yeah those thousands of dead in eastern ukraine really need to stop with this propaganda.Are we back to Russia in the cycle of foreign bogeymen then?
Every year is the same thing, almost like it benefits some.
They have the same boss tbf!This is funny and all, but unfortunately there are a lot of genuinely dangerous people in the American militia movement. They undoubtedly have a more dangeorus militia movement than Russia.
You mean like 1000’s of civilians indiscriminately killed by Ukrainian far right/nazi loving azov battalion?Yeah those thousands of dead in eastern ukraine really need to stop with this propaganda.
I see you’re one of those…Putin loving and propaganda spreader but living in the west? Why don’t you go back to motherland free of nazis?You mean like 1000’s of civilians indiscriminately killed by Ukrainian far right/nazi loving azov battalion?
What the feck are you talking about? I don’t love Putin at all. I think it’s a great tragedy that innocent people have gotten caught up in this. The rebels have to take the blame by staying close to populated areas but I can absolutely say that Ukrainian forces shelled plenty of populated areas when they didn’t need to.I see you’re one of those…Putin loving and propaganda spreader but living in the west? Why don’t you go back to motherland free of nazis?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean.You mean like 1000’s of civilians indiscriminately killed by Ukrainian far right/nazi loving azov battalion?