War with Russia

[Ian H]

I am not. Answer my question, stop parrying.

Oh dear. Why do you need to know my opinion? How does it change the import of the article?

The piece stands on its own feet as a matter of record, not opinion. It's from a reliable source.

The only thing I shall say is that I chose a particular extract that would grab people's attention But if you don't read the entire thing you won't know what it says.

 

[Pinno718]

Oh dear. Why do you need to know my opinion? How does it change the import of the article?

The piece stands on its own feet as a matter of record, not opinion. It's from a reliable source.

The only thing I shall say is that I chose a particular extract that would grab people's attention But if you don't read the entire thing you won't know what it says.

I am going around in circles. You posted the article because it reflected your POV? Or... it backs up your POV? What is it?
Do you think that the expansion of NATO justified Putin's aggression towards the West?

 

[Pinno718]

Here's an interesting article [Source: Die Welt]

Putin used coercion/bribery to induce prisoners to serve in the military. Hardened criminals who often did their stint and came back and murdered people or in one case, a veteran threw a grenade into the court yard of a block of flats.

Add: Russia is short of 200,000 thousand police. It has always been hard to sign up recruits- wages are low and the incentive is the corruption inside the Police forces because they can 'top up' their salaries through nefarious activities. So there is a mutual understanding that the government needs police and they need the corruption to entice people to join the police..

This completes this particular circle: the lack of police means that policing veterans and ex-criminal veterans is very hard. Add the almost complete lack of rehabilitation of veterans.

So Putin does not want them to return. they are literally canon fodder: under trained and a liability should they return to civilian life.

 

[Ian H]

I am going around in circles. You posted the article because it reflected your POV? Or... it back up your POV? What is it?
Do you think that the expansion of NATO justified Putin's aggression towards the West?

As far as I can see it reflects what people said at the time. You can agree or disagree with their actions as you like, but the article gives a record of what was said.

Why on earth do you need to know what anyone else thinks of it? Judge it for yourself!

 

[Pinno718]

As far as I can see it reflects what people said at the time. You can agree or disagree with their actions as you like, but the article gives a record of what was said.

Why on earth do you need to know what anyone else thinks of it? Judge it for yourself!

I read the article.
As PB said, that was before Putin started to throw Russian weight around. As soon as he got into power. he launched heavy assaults on Chechnya and Georgia.
It's fully understandable why Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO before Putin.
Smaller countries who felt intimidated and not able to defend themselves against such a big foe. Remember, Russia divided Poland in 1920 and infiltrated their government in the 80's - Solidarnosk?

Why did Gorbachev want 'no expansion eastwards'? Russia had posed a threat to the West for over 4 decades since the end of WW2? It was an unreasonable condition.
Equally, Bush should never had made these promises.

Ultimately, Putin has used the apparent threat of NATO as a weapon and the contrived rhetoric coinciding with that, a political tool to a) bolster his power by uniting Russians against the expansive and 'manipulative', nefarious West and b) justifying his own expansionist actions. Note; he has never overtly attacked a NATO country so, NATO serves it's purpose. NATO was formed as a defence alliance, not an attack alliance.
Subsequent Russian presidents, Andropov, Yeltsin, Medvedev never sought or took the opportunity to change the relationships with particularly Europe or the West as a whole.
This is significant. The speculations why are for a thread all of it's own.

Anyway, this does not detract from why you posted the article. It's as if you are somehow justifying Putin's antipathy and reasons for active aggression towards the West.

 

[Ian H]

Anyway, this does not detract from why you posted the article. It's as if you are somehow justifying Putin's antipathy and reasons for active aggression towards the West.

Only in your imagination. It adds context and gives an insight into the history of relations between Russia and the West. Do you want it suppressed or something? If you are unwilling to look at all the relevant information, you'd make a crap historian.

 

[First Aspect]

Only in your imagination. It adds context and gives an insight into the history of relations between Russia and the West. Do you want it suppressed or something? If you are unwilling to look at all the relevant information, you'd make a crap historian.

Nah, you are just gaslighting.

 

[Pinno718]

If you are unwilling to look at all the relevant information, you'd make a crap historian.

I added context and history in my post.
You are still avoiding the question of what you think.
Wot FA said.

 

[Ian H]

I added context and history in my post.
You are still avoiding the question of what you think.
Wot FA said.

What I think is that "It adds context and gives an insight into the history of relations between Russia and the West", as I've already said.

 

[Pblakeney]

What I think is that "It adds context and gives an insight into the history of relations between Russia and the West", as I've already said.

If only it was relevant to the Russia of today. It covers steps on the way but stops short of the full picture.

 

[Ian H]

If only it was relevant to the Russia of today. It covers steps on the way but stops short of the full picture.

It has some relevance in that Putin is using it as a reason for 'pushing back' (euphemism alert). There is a genuine reason for a grudge, but I don't think many folk would regard it as a reason for wanting to occupy Ukraine (there are historical reasons for that, which have been used as justification). Essentially, Putin is attempting to empire-build, cos-playing Catherine the Great, if you like. He's also stuck, because backing down would likely mean admitting defeat, which would quite likely lead to his downfall.

 

[Pblakeney]

It has some relevance in that Putin is using it as a reason for 'pushing back' (euphemism alert). There is a genuine reason for a grudge, but I don't think many folk would regard it as a reason for wanting to occupy Ukraine (there are historical reasons for that, which have been used as justification). Essentially, Putin is attempting to empire-build, cos-playing Catherine the Great, if you like. He's also stuck, because backing down would likely mean admitting defeat, which would quite likely lead to his downfall.

Yeah, most just disregard it as complete codswallop.
He is now in a war that he cannot win, and cannot lose. Donnie was stupid enough to follow suit.

 

[Pinno718]

It has some relevance in that Putin is using it as a reason for 'pushing back' (euphemism alert). There is a genuine reason for a grudge, but I don't think many folk would regard it as a reason for wanting to occupy Ukraine (there are historical reasons for that, which have been used as justification). Essentially, Putin is attempting to empire-build, cos-playing Catherine the Great, if you like. He's also stuck, because backing down would likely mean admitting defeat, which would quite likely lead to his downfall.

You cannot legislate for future tyrants.
Putin's rhetoric about NATO and the West is simply about power mongering, corruption, expansionism and uniting the nation so they will support his actions. Add; he's the strongman who is more than capable of asserting and maintaining Russia's position and power on the world stage.

It's almost like Reform/Alt-right: The country is in an imminent state of collapse because of the brown people except, in Putin's case: our country is in a state of perpetual peril... because of NATO and the nefarious, decadent, manipulative West and generate the whole narrative to suit that rhetoric. Stay in power, anoint the loyalists, line your pocket, rig elections, bully neighbours, form conducive yet wholly destructive alliances...

Oh but- it's all NATO's fault. There's no f*cking grudge. That's manufactured. You don't monopolise power and institutions as well as lock up or disappear opposition domestically because of a grudge. He's a megalomaniac. Simple.