US upset by Russian Planes in Baltic

[Wee Willie]

It's fine to have that opinion in general.

However, in this specific conflict I'm not sure how you could come to any other conclusion than that the West / the USA is the defender of those values.

Last December the UK parliament voted to bomb ISIS in the middle-east.

Surely they could have opted tae bomb the rebels in the Ukraine along with their Russian allies.

Why did they no?

[THE KING]

It's fine to have that opinion in general.

However, in this specific conflict I'm not sure how you could come to any other conclusion than that the West / the USA is the defender of those values.

Lol The US (with its 1000 military bases around the globe) is .Anti-Imperialist

[Newbornbairn]

I sure at some point Cuba and some Central American countries would have loved Russian war ships cruising around them, I think we know what the US response to that would be , and it would be the Russians branded as being aggressors.

Russia has few bases abroad and most of them are in the former Union, The US has about a 1000 bases all over the globe.

And if your auntie had baws...

[Yank Mike]

Lol The US (with its 1000 military bases around the globe) is .Anti-Imperialist

So you're really gonna go all in on the US behaving outrageously and immorally for defending a few small countries who were recently freed from a fairly harsh imperial power?

 

 

Last December the UK parliament voted to bomb ISIS in the middle-east.

Surely they could have opted tae bomb the rebels in the Ukraine along with their Russian allies.

Why did they no?

Dunno. Maybe the UK parliament considers ISIS to be the enemy of the British people and they don't consider anybody in Ukraine to be a British enemy. Maybe it's easier to bomb a bunch of people who's allies don't include a nuclear armed state.

Don't think ISIS or the Ukraine have much to do with NATO defending the Baltic Republics.

[williemillersmoustache]

So you're really gonna go all in on the US behaving outrageously and immorally for defending a few small countries who were recently freed from a fairly harsh imperial power?

 

Recently? Like the liberation of Japan and South Korea?

[Ad Lib]

I consider democracy and anti-imperialism to be very important. I don't however consider the west to be the keepers of those values.

One of the excellent points in that 'bitter lake (or something similar)' documentary was how western leaders have simplified all political issues (especially foreign policy) over the last 30 years to create a narrative that suits their agenda.

I'm no defender of Putin or Russia but the shite that we tell ourselves in the west is nowhere near the truth.

If there were two words I would use to describe Vladimir Putin's government, the words "anti-imperialist" and "democratic" would be almost at the bottom of the list.

[McRuffian]

You could just as easily read the situation as the West rolling post-Cold War Russia back towards their natural boundaries from their imperial borders.

For the record, I'm generally on "the US has no interest in Eastern Europe worth fighting a war over" side of things. But it's clear who's the bad guy on the block in that part of the world.

What is EU and NATO expansion if not western economic and political imperialism?

By the way, as was kind of alluded to above, what do you think the U.S. response would be if a pro-Russian Latin American bloc of countries (hypothetically speaking) and Russian forces were conducting military exercises in seas comparably close to the States?

[Wee Willie]

So you're really gonna go all in on the US behaving outrageously and immorally for defending a few small countries who were recently freed from a fairly harsh imperial power?

 

 

Dunno. Maybe the UK parliament considers ISIS to be the enemy of the British people and they don't consider anybody in Ukraine to be a British enemy. Maybe it's easier to bomb a bunch of people who's allies don't include a nuclear armed state.

Don't think ISIS or the Ukraine have much to do with NATO defending the Baltic Republics.

Maybe it's easier to bomb a bunch of people who's allies don't include a nuclear armed state.

Precisely. They war-mongering c**ts in Westminster ken who tae pick a fight with.

 

Don't think ISIS or the Ukraine have much to do with NATO defending the Baltic Republics.

I would have thought it had everything to do with it.

It's the good guys versus the bad guys.

[Jacksgranda]

I sure at some point Cuba and some Central American countries would have loved Russian war ships cruising around them, I think we know what the US response to that would be , and it would be the Russians branded as being aggressors.

Russia has few bases abroad and most of them are in the former Union, The US has about a 1000 bases all over the globe.

Very hard to cruise around Central American countries without going through the Panama canal, which I doubt would have been an option.

 

The alternative would have been to sail round Cape Horn.

[Ad Lib]

What is EU and NATO expansion if not western economic and political imperialism?By the way, as was kind of alluded to above, what do you think the U.S. response would be if a pro-Russian Latin American bloc of countries (hypothetically speaking) and Russian forces were conducting military exercises in seas comparably close to the States?

The purpose of NATO is mutual self-defence against a number of things, and for the more effective coordination of international military responses to uphold international law in the absence of a standing UN Army.

One of the primary threats in respect of which NATO provides mutual self-defence is a country with a track record of invading its neighbours since the fall of the Berlin Wall and whose political regime stirs up minority nationalism within the Baltic states to generate disorder. It is the successor to a political regime that violently suppressed popular civic movements for independence from Soviet rule or influence. And when we are talking recent actions here we aren't just talking about Ukraine, where Crimea was subject to the most transparent of imperialist takeovers and East Ukraine has been plunged into civil war by Russian financed and armed separatist groups. There was also Georgia, which NATO and the EU and Europe generally had absolutely nothing to do with.

Russia is and for my whole life has been a threat to the security of Eastern Europe and the sovereign states that exist in it. It is an imperialist power, one which flagrantly and systematically disregards even the most basic of human rights, and which has regressed from being a fledgling democracy to an oligarchy.

"The West" is not perfect, but if imperialism, in its proper sense, and democracy, in any sense, is the criteria, then NATO is the lesser of two evils.

[ScotSquid]

and it would be the Russians branded as being aggressors.

Russia has few bases abroad and most of them are in the former Union,

Ah yes, this 'Union'.

How exactly did that come about again?

[Yank Mike]

Recently? Like the liberation of Japan and South Korea?

We are talking about the Baltic Republics here.

 

 

What is EU and NATO expansion if not western economic and political imperialism?

By the way, as was kind of alluded to above, what do you think the U.S. response would be if a pro-Russian Latin American bloc of countries (hypothetically speaking) and Russian forces were conducting military exercises in seas comparably close to the States?

Letting people in Eastern Europe decide their own fate?

I'm pretty sure that the Russian military does conduct exercises with a few fairly odious regimes in Latin America.

 

 

Don't think ISIS or the Ukraine have much to do with NATO defending the Baltic Republics.

I would have thought it had everything to do with it.

It's the good guys versus the bad guys.

My view is that there isn't necessarily a good or bad side in Ukraine or Syria, but that there is a good side and a bad side in Russia v. the Baltics. I'd wager that both the US and UK governments agree with that assessment.

[Ad Lib]

Anyone who seriously thinks it is not legitimate for Ukraine to choose to try to join the EU and NATO is applying a criminal double standard to Western countries seeking to expand cooperation and influence with one another as compared to Russia doing the same.

[ScotSquid]

Wait... Has anyone seriously claimed Ukraine shouldn't be able to do this??

[Ad Lib]

Wait... Has anyone seriously claimed Ukraine shouldn't be able to do this??

We've been told that NATO and EU expansion is "imperialism" so one must assume so.

[Yank Mike]

The Ukraine is different than the Baltics because their Russian speaking population has large majorities in geographically concentrated areas.

There's also the fact that the Baltic countries seemed to have adopted Western norms in their economy and government while I'm not sure how much popular support those norms have in the Ukraine.

[McRuffian]

The purpose of NATO is mutual self-defence against a number of things, and for the more effective coordination of international military responses to uphold international law in the absence of a standing UN Army.

One of the primary threats in respect of which NATO provides mutual self-defence is a country with a track record of invading its neighbours since the fall of the Berlin Wall and whose political regime stirs up minority nationalism within the Baltic states to generate disorder. It is the successor to a political regime that violently suppressed popular civic movements for independence from Soviet rule or influence. And when we are talking recent actions here we aren't just talking about Ukraine, where Crimea was subject to the most transparent of imperialist takeovers and East Ukraine has been plunged into civil war by Russian financed and armed separatist groups. There was also Georgia, which NATO and the EU and Europe generally had absolutely nothing to do with.

Russia is and for my whole life has been a threat to the security of Eastern Europe and the sovereign states that exist in it. It is an imperialist power, one which flagrantly and systematically disregards even the most basic of human rights, and which has regressed from being a fledgling democracy to an oligarchy.

"The West" is not perfect, but if imperialism, in its proper sense, and democracy, in any sense, is the criteria, then NATO is the lesser of two evils.

Sorry, I'm on a bus and the connection is not great. I will respond in full later.

But to ask "a proven track record of invading its neighbours since the fall of the Berlin wall"? The invasion of Georgia and Ukraine was a direct response to Western meddling and a stance against these states joining NATO. Military meddling or political meddling. We are both as guilty as each other. But not if you adhere to the current narrative promulgated in Western media.

What interest is there in having Georgia a member of NATO other than to heap more pressure on Russia? And as I said despite insurances to Russia that there would be no further Eastern expansion?

[THE KING]

Very hard to cruise around Central American countries without going through the Panama canal, which I doubt would have been an option.

 

The alternative would have been to sail round Cape Horn.

Could you imagine if the Russians had a base in Mexico and had ships sitting off the coast or California ?

[Ad Lib]

Sorry, I'm on a bus and the connection is not great. I will respond in full later.But to ask "a proven track record of invading its neighbours since the fall of the Berlin wall"? The invasion of Georgia and Ukraine was a direct response to Western meddling and against these states joining NATO.What interest is their in having Georgia a member of NATO other than to heap more pressure on Russia?

This is a total perversion of what happened with Georgia.

Georgia expressed a long-standing desire to join NATO. They weren't "pressured" into it. At the NATO summit that happened just before hostilities broke out they were merely held to the status of aspiring member. Very little if anything was done to advance their or the Ukraine's potential membership.

Clearly Georgia believed it was in its interests to seek eventually to become a member of NATO. That is something Georgia is entitled to do. NATO would probably be happy to have it happen because they like having good relations with other countries. The reason Georgia was NOT fast tracked to membership was precisely because NATO didn't want to cause tensions with Russia.

As it happens, Georgia is vindicated for wanting to join NATO, given the Russians stoked up separatists in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, withdrawing from an international sanctions regime against the militants, then rolled in the tanks onto Georgian sovereign territory effectively to annex them, in the process enabling South Ossetian troops to commit war crimes against Georgian communities.

NATO supporting or encouraging other countries voluntarily to join their mutual defence club isn't a "provocation" that justifies Russian military aggression. If anything the reverse is true.

[Ad Lib]

Could you imagine if the Russians had a base in Mexico and had ships sitting off the coast or California ?

There's a big difference though isn't there: The USA doesn't have an interest in or history of annexing everything south of the Rio Grande.