*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

Portland Antifa

[boost]

She knew she was going in and ruined the mugshot. Will be hard to positively identify her using it. A bit tinfoil hatty, but gotta give credit where credit is due.

Also, I'd much rather hang out with them than with some proud boy halfwits. Probably would be super friendly and teach me roll a 10 sided die or whatever.

[Poopadoop]

Can't wait to see how r/thedonald responds to his pro-vax message.

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/s...24520721866789

[boost]

where do MAGA people congregate online nowadays? Seems like all their reddits have been banned, the short lived The_Donald.win is gone. I used to lurk from time to time back in the day, especially when something juicy like this might flip their world upside down, but I don't even know what rock to peak under anymore.

[oskar]

TheDonald.win has moved to www.patriots.win in the fallout of jan6. They were prepping for a civil war and then Trump told them to go home. They hated that. They of course welcomed him back 12 hours later, but the proverbial paradise has not been without trouble since.

[oskar]

If patriots.win seems too reasonable: the real freak show is happening over at https://greatawakening.win/

[Poopadoop]

I see the 3D chess explanation is still popular.

https://greatawakening.win/p/140vViI...is-one-of-the/

[Poopadoop]

Well that answers that.

Over the years I've learned some simple things, through sheer repetition:

a) Trump knows what he's doing.
b) I don't necessarily know what Trump is doing.
c) It works out in the end, reinforcing (a).

Trump talking pro-vax has never bothered me, for this reason. I don't know exactly what he's doing, but I know that he does, so I'm comfy.

[oskar]

At this point I feel like I should be paying them for the entertainment they've been providing.

[boost]

My head hurts now.

Thanks oskar.

[Poopadoop]

I wonder if there's a similar forum somewhere but full of Brexiters.

16% of people who voted for Brexit expected it to go badly (but voted for it anyways). Whosayingwutnow?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...has-gone-badly

[Poopadoop]

My head hurts now.

Thanks oskar.

Yeah, if I read more than about 5 posts the anti-logic does that to me too.

[boost]

Yeah, it's like a big joke that they are in on but not in on. They say stuff like "it's all a movie" and talk about Trump vs Alex Jones like a wrestling match, but then they also are very very serious.

It's like when the satanic panic found Dungeons and Dragons and they were sure that the fantasy role playing would spill over into people's real lives and they'd start sacrificing animals and children or whatever in real life. But that was just a horrible misreading of a hobby of mostly social outcasts-- this is not a misreading, they're larping and living this out in real life.

[Poopadoop]

They're the kind of people who stormed the Capitol Bldg, then got inside and just wandered around aimlessly.

Or those guys who found Pelosi's binder, opened it up, and were expecting to see "Plan to Steal the Election" or something similar written on the first page.

It's funny until you realize they're actual human beings who live on this planet. Then it's just kinda pitiful.

Oskar must have some kind of natural immunity.

[oskar]

It was obviously going to happen, but they sure went above and beyond.

https://twitter.com/az_rww/status/14...004593666?s=20

[Poopadoop]

This is not a good look for a country. Just sayin'.

https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/...44d7e14d7.html

[OngBonga]

Journalism isn't quite dead, though Ned Price seemed surprised and annoyed that the one guy who turned up to his press conference actually wants to be a journalist instead of a mouthpiece for the state.

The apparently empty conference room tells its own story. Most "journalists" will simply take the transcript from this statement and copy/paste it without the slightest hint of journalism. They don't need to attend the conference to ask questions or request evidence.

Ned Price seems genuinely surprised that he's being asked these questions. It's like he hasn't met a real journalist in years.

[Poopadoop]

I heard that clip on the radio a few days ago. I mean the guy has a point - he's not going to give the evidence to the public if it was gained by spies. That said, it's perfectly reasonable to assume then there is no proof it's true that can be shared, so he could just as well be making it up.

In the bigger picture though, it's an irrelevant point. If Russian invades the Ukraine, no-one who isn't a Russian flag-shagger is going to buy any b.s. about the Ukraine "starting it." That's just not going to fly.

I don't think there's going to be an invasion. They only have 100k troops on the border, it's not really enough to occupy the Ukraine with. Second, it will cost them more than it's worth. It's just sabre-rattling by Putin to try to win some concession from the West, to boost his popularity at home.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Last 15 seconds of that clip is Ned being told, "Look if you want to be a reporter who does reporting and reports news, that's on you."

[OngBonga]

I don't think there's going to be an invasion.

Depends what you mean by "invasion". I mean, it's already happened by some measures, since Crimea is under Russian control. But that's a different beast altogether.

Donbas, no an invasion won't happen here, and this claim by our media that Russia are about to conduct a "false flag" is laughable, and designed purely to claim that the reason it didn't happen is because the West exposed the plot.

A lack of invasion is a "win" for the west, even though it was never on the cards in the first place.

What Putin wants is autonomy for Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, as outlined in the Minsk Agreement. However, a BBC correspondent recently reported that "Ukraine could never implement the Minsk Agreements, because it could result in some pro-Putin MPs being elected to the Ukrainian parliament from the Eastern areas".

Let that sink in.

[OngBonga]

Last 15 seconds of that clip is Ned being told, "Look if you want to be a reporter who does reporting and reports news, that's on you."

Ned is conducting the conference, Matt is the journalist.

The rhetoric from most news agencies is dreadful right now, almost trying to goad Putin into war. Remember when people were shouting at the sky because they thought Trump was literally Hitler and would start WWIII? Remember when people celebrated because he lost the election? Now look where we are.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oops. My bad on mixing up the names.


I remember those things, yeah. I don't at all see a through line to "Now look where we are."

Trump was a shitshow, but he wasn't a warmonger, I'll give you that.

[Poopadoop]

Depends what you mean by "invasion".

Correction: ANOTHER invasion. It's just not logistically possible. It's all posturing. 100k troops aren't going to accomplish anything unless Ukraine does a runner. At the height of WWII there were close to 10m troops active on the Russian front, about 6m Russian and 3.5m German and allied. 100k sounds like a big number but it's not.

A lack of invasion is a "win" for the west, even though it was never on the cards in the first place.

Makes you wonder what Putin is actually trying to accomplish then. He loses either way.

What Putin wants is autonomy for Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, as outlined in the Minsk Agreement. However, a BBC correspondent recently reported that "Ukraine could never implement the Minsk Agreements, because it could result in some pro-Putin MPs being elected to the Ukrainian parliament from the Eastern areas".

Let that sink in.

The Minsk II agreement was to start a dialogue on interim self-gov't for those areas that had basically revolted and set up their own gov'ts, not that the Ukraine would liberate some more areas of its own territory. Why would they agree to that?

Both FRA and GER are in favour of the Minsk II agreement, and they wouldn't agree to further weakening of the Ukraine either.

[Poopadoop]

The rhetoric from most news agencies is dreadful right now, almost trying to goad Putin into war.

The media always has an orgasm whenever there's any chance of a war. They see their profits going up. It's fucking gross to watch.

Remember when people were shouting at the sky because they thought Trump was literally Hitler and would start WWIII? Remember when people celebrated because he lost the election? Now look where we are.

Biden is starting WWIII?

[Poopadoop]

Haha, I don't actually remember anyone arguing that Trump was Hitler in the sense that he wanted to start a war to conquer the world. The comparison was more about domestic fascist policies and just being an all-around unstable whacko.

[OngBonga]

Trump was a shitshow, but he wasn't a warmonger, I'll give you that.

idk about internally, but from outside, Trump's time as president was a shitshow largely because there was so much noise coming from people who hated him. Sure he said a few dumbass things, but are the haters really going to stand there and say that dumb statements are worse than warlike rhetoric?

War is the real measure of psycho leaders.

[OngBonga]

Biden is starting WWIII?

I hope not. Someone is trying to though. Who do you think is trying to?

There are no good guys in this. We're not the good guys. Putin isn't the good guy. Ukraine aren't the good guys.

Let's look at this from a different angle. Let's pretend there's a region of the UK that was historically part of Ireland, and has close cultural and economic ties to Ireland. Let's call this hypothetical place Northern Ireland. Now let's assume the people who live in this place want to leave the UK and join Ireland.

Is the leader of Ireland a nasty bogey man because he wants to invade UK territory?

[MadMojoMonkey]

idk about internally, but from outside, Trump's time as president was a shitshow largely because there was so much noise coming from people who hated him. Sure he said a few dumbass things, but are the haters really going to stand there and say that dumb statements are worse than warlike rhetoric?

War is the real measure of psycho leaders.

I feel like you're forgetting the daily news cycle of Trump-did-WTF-this-time?.

It wasn't just his domestic political haters that were all over that shit. International news agencies were reporting articles like "I'm from a country that suffered internal political collapse and the shit he's pulling looks terrifyingly familiar."

He repeatedly attempted to destroy documents that he's forbidden by law from destroying. The Joint Chiefs of Staff repeatedly told him he could not tear up the papers they handed him, but he did it anyway. Then some poor staffer has to go back and tape back together all that shit because it's required by law to be filed away. That was just someone's job on his staff. Going around behind him and un-breaking the federal laws he'd just shat upon.

I heard he literally clogged the plumbing at the White House trying to flush documents, but not whether those documents were legal to destroy. Lol. Funny if true.

And the Jan 6 crap. It's not clear what he knew when he knew it, but it is clear that he thwarted either directly or by inaction the response to protect and keep secure the Capitol building. And has acted as an apologist for those people who were chanting "Hang Mike Pence" (the VP) and who'd broken into the houses of Congress with frankly who even knows their intent. I suspect at least 99% of them had no actual plan for what they'd do if/when they got in. It's that other 1% that is worrisome.

FFS, Trump still claims the election was stolen and that he's the rightful POTUS at this time.


Please keep in mind that none of these critiques are politically motivated. I'm not a champion of any political parties in the US.
None of these critiques of him are based on politics.

[Poopadoop]

I hope not. Someone is trying to though. Who do you think is trying to?

No-one.

Let's look at this from a different angle. Let's pretend there's a region of the UK that was historically part of Ireland, and has close cultural and economic ties to Ireland. Let's call this hypothetical place Northern Ireland. Now let's assume the people who live in this place want to leave the UK and join Ireland.

Is the leader of Ireland a nasty bogey man because he wants to invade UK territory?

Yes, because it's not his place to invade another country's sovereign territory. Pretty simple.

If the UK went to war with Australia because there's a majority of English-speaking people there, and one of their provinces for some reason wanted to be a part of the UK, would that be ok?

[OngBonga]

@mojo

Fair enough, I don't really want to get too deep into Trump politics. Not being a war hawk is a good trait in a leader to me, especially USA. From a geopolitical pov, Trump is the best president I can remember.

[Poopadoop]

idk about internally, but from outside, Trump's time as president was a shitshow largely because there was so much noise coming from people who hated him. Sure he said a few dumbass things, but are the haters really going to stand there and say that dumb statements are worse than warlike rhetoric?

Right. Just like Boris' premiership is a shitshow only because of the people who hate him. Sure, he says some dumbass things, screwed up Brexit and the pandemic, threw a bunch of parties while the rest of the country was in lockdown, and is totally corrupt and a compulsive liar on top of it, but he hasn't started a war yet so what's everyone complaining about.

War is the real measure of psycho leaders.

Who started the war in the Crimea?

[OngBonga]

If the UK went to war with Australia because there's a majority of English-speaking people there, and one of their provinces for some reason wanted to be a part of the UK, would that be ok?

This isn't remotely analogous. This isn't a regional matter any more, you couldn't have picked two places on Earth further apart.

You'd have been better off talking about the Falklands. These people actually do want to be part of the UK, for good reason... they fear the Argentinians. Morally, the Falklands should be an independent nation, free from UK rule, but I can totally understand why they want the protection that comes from the British military. Maybe their fear of Argentina is somewhat irrational, this isn't the Junta days of the 80s anymore, but their occasional nationalist rhetoric regarding the Falklands really doesn't help.

This Ukraine conflict is a whole different matter though. Donbas borders Russia. It was part of the Soviet Union in living memory. The people of this region, for the most part, share more in common with Russia than Ukraine. Of course there's a lot more to it than that, but when you have these cultural and ethnic issues at borders, you've got complicated problems.

Ukraine saying "nope this is Ukrainian territory, fuck off" is no different to the UK saying to Ireland "nope this is British territory, fuck off". You can't just sweep these kind of things under the carpet by simply declaring sovereignty.

Ultimately, democracy should prevail. But if democracy prevails here, Donetsk and the surrounding region becomes autonomous and politically closer to Russia than Ukraine.

[OngBonga]

Who started the war in the Crimea?

What war? As best I can recall, it was a locally celebrated occupation, followed by a referendum. I don't remember actual fighting when Russia annexed Crimea.

[Poopadoop]

When the USSR was formed, there was a Russian SSR and a Ukranian SSR and a bunch of others. All the territory the Russians lately claim belong to Russia (including the Crimea) were part of the Ukranian SSR. Yes, a lot of Russians moved into these areas, and a lot of people took on Russian as their language, but this is kind of like arguing Scotland is part of England now so they should hand it over piece by piece.

[Poopadoop]

What war? As best I can recall, it was a locally celebrated occupation, followed by a referendum. I don't remember actual fighting when Russia annexed Crimea.

Oh right, "military occupation." Just like in Austria and Sudetenland. We all remember how well that turned out and how much of a peace lover the guy who started that off was.

[OngBonga]

but this is kind of like arguing Scotland is part of England now so they should hand it over piece by piece.

Well, if there were a Scottish democratic appetite for it, then yeah, I guess it is.

[Poopadoop]

So if the English moved into, say, Edinburgh en masse, then decided they wanted Edinburgh to join England and leave Scotland, that's too bad for Scotland?

What if all those ethnic neighborhoods in London decided they wanted to join their respective mother countries? There'd be China, India, Jamaica, etc., all having a piece of London. Democratic will of the people. And I'm sure the UK gov't would just happily go along with that.

[Poopadoop]

So all of Trump, Bannon, and Tucker Carlson have been spending the last few days humping Putin's leg. Kompromat anyone?

Oh, and throw in Nigel Farage there as well as a leg-shagger because, you know, he loves democracy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Reps calling it Biden's fault that Putin chose now.

Some perspective.

[boost]

Ong, you do realize that essentially all populated borders are populated with at least large pluralities who have more in common with those across the border than the aggregate population of their country? Under the paradigm you propose, pretty much any militarily superior country could gerrymander border regions of neighboring countries and claim the territory as their own.

Further, if you were a resident in Donbas that has been flooded with little green men from Russia, are you really going to feel free to express your desire to remain part of Ukraine?

[OngBonga]

Ong, you do realize that essentially all populated borders are populated with at least large pluralities who have more in common with those across the border than the aggregate population of their country?

Sure, and it's why Donbas isn't the only region in the world with such tensions.

Under the paradigm you propose, pretty much any militarily superior country could gerrymander border regions of neighboring countries and claim the territory as their own.

Not really. There's a lot more to it than just Russian speaking people living across the border. This isn't like it's Italy vs Switzerland, where Italy go "they speak Italian, that's ours".

Maybe it's a bit like a hypothetical situation where for nearly a century the world have created a fuck-Italy club, then Italy breaks up and Lombardy becomes a nation state, then Lombardy wants to join the fuck-Italy club, so Italy go nah fuck Lombardy, we're having that back, or at least a border town or two.

And please don't think I'm saying what Russia are doing is right. It's not right. But neither is the fuck-Russia club putting more fuck-Russia weapons on Russia's doorstep, and former territory.

What I find amusing is that people who tend to oppose nation states and borders are now all over Russia, telling them to respect nation states and borders.

[Poopadoop]

Not really. There's a lot more to it than just Russian speaking people living across the border.

Like what? Apart from MRGA, what is Putin's endgame here?

Maybe it's a bit like a hypothetical situation where for nearly a century the world have created a fuck-Italy club, then Italy breaks up and Lombardy becomes a nation state, then Lombardy wants to join the fuck-Italy club, so Italy go nah fuck Lombardy, we're having that back, or at least a border town or two.

Then again, maybe it's not like that at all.

First, lol that the West is out to get Russia. There's no "fuck Russia" club. Russia has made itself into a pariah state by it's own actions.

If you want to go back a century, Russia attacked all of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Finland, Iran, and Lithuania prior to or during WWII without provocation.

Since WWII they invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afganistan, Chechnia, and now Ukraine, all of them again without provocation.

Who's fucking who here?


Second, there's been no democratic plebiscite about whether the Donbas or any other region wants to join Russia. Just Putin saying they want to and giving separatists weapons is not a good enough reason to start a war.


Third, NATO is not a fuck-Russia club, it's a keep-Russia-from-expanding-into-countries that can't stand up to it alone club. If you think NATO wants to invade Russia you need to stop watching RTV and Fox News. If the Ukraine were in NATO now, Russia would never have invaded them, nor would have NATO invaded Russia. That's what NATO's chief purpose is, defense. Russia is surrounded by smaller states that it habitually invades and they are rightly looking for security. It's not NATO's fault that Russia (at least under Putin) can't be trusted to leave its neighbors alone.

Putin is fucking mental. His excuse for invading is to oust the Jewish "Nazi" (lol) president of the Ukraine. Really he just wants to go MRGA on Eastern Europe. As long as he can keep going he will. The only thing that will stop him is when he's taken every country that isn't in NATO, the West grows a pair, or his own people say "fuck this", and get rid of him themselves.

But neither is the fuck-Russia club putting more fuck-Russia weapons on Russia's doorstep, and former territory.

But they didn't. Ukraine is not in NATO. They have the right to be if they want to, and NATO agrees to it. They're a sovereign country, they can make any fucking alliances they want. That's what sovereignty means. You can't tell other countries who to be friends with, or if you're afraid they'll make friends with their enemies you'll invade them. That's not how geopolitics works.

What I find amusing is that people who tend to oppose nation states and borders are now all over Russia, telling them to respect nation states and borders.

Nice try. There's a huge difference between opposing nation states and borders for the sake of trade and immigration, and wanting sovereign nation states and borders respected by not being invaded by tanks and planes.

What's really amusing is that the guy who has such a hardon for words like "sovereignty" and "democracy" when it comes to a country's right to impose economic sanctions on itself goes limp when it comes to actually respecting a third country's rights to act autonomously without getting invaded by its neighbor.

[CoccoBill]

^Well put, all of that.

Ong, I guess you'd have to live a while in small country bordering Russia to know how great fun it can be.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Describing NATO as "Third, NATO is not a fuck-Russia club, it's a keep-Russia-from-expanding-into-countries that can't stand up to it alone club." Is probably a good description, but it focuses too hard on Russia. NATO protects against all invasion forces, not just Russia.

It's fair to say that Russia is the catalyst and greatest concern of NATO most of the time, but not to describe NATO as only opposing Russian aggression.


[Putin's] excuse for invading is to oust the Jewish "Nazi" (lol) president of the Ukraine.
This is one of his reasons, yeah. It's so laughable as to make you wonder who would even believe it.
It is true that Ukrain has a military unit that is neo-nazi, and that's going to make it harder on the average uninformed Russian citizen to see it as a lie.


"You can't tell other countries who to be friends with, or if you're afraid they'll make friends with their enemies you'll invade them. That's not how geopolitics works."
All evidence to the contrary.

[OngBonga]

Like what? Apart from MRGA, what is Putin's endgame here?

Isn't it obvious? To stop further expansion of NATO on Russia's border. Presumably, his direct intent is to put in place a puppet government in Kyiv, one that will not seek NATO membership.

First, lol that the West is out to get Russia. There's no "fuck Russia" club.

That's exactly what NATO is. If you don't understand even this much, then you've no hope of understanding why this conflict is happening.

If you want to go back a century, Russia attacked all of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Finland, Iran, and Lithuania prior to or during WWII without provocation.

Yup. Enter list of countries invaded by USA and UK here. There are no good guys in this.

If we're going back a century, let's also not forget the price Russia paid to defeat Hitler.

Second, there's been no democratic plebiscite about whether the Donbas or any other region wants to join Russia. Just Putin saying they want to and giving separatists weapons is not a good enough reason to start a war.

They've been fighting the Ukrainian military since 2014, I think it's safe to assume that the people who remain are pro-independence.

Third, NATO is not a fuck-Russia club, it's a keep-Russia-from-expanding-into-countries that can't stand up to it alone club.

You just found a ludicrously elaborate, almost politician-like, way of saying "the fuck Russia club".

I'm using plain English. It's an anti-Russia alliance. That's what I mean by the "fuck Russia club" and it's what you mean by "word soup club".

If you think NATO wants to invade Russia

I didn't say that, and I don't think it.

NATO do not want to invade Russia, no more than Russia wants to invade a NATO country. Neither party want to engage in open hostilities with one another.

If the Ukraine were in NATO now, Russia would never have invaded them

I do believe this is true, which is why Putin is desperate to stop it from happening. Once Ukraine join, it's lost.

That's what NATO's chief purpose is, defense.

Defence against Russia. It is an anti-Russia alliance, I hope we can agree on that language.

You seem to think I'm pro-Russia here because I'm not drooling all over the "fuck Russia" mentality. I'm trying to understand why this is happening without defaulting to "Putin bad". It's happening because NATO is expanding ever closer to Russia. That's a two-party issue. By attempting to expand into places like Ukraine, NATO have made it a less secure place. It should have been obvious in 2014 that Russia would not allow it to happen without a fight.

It's not NATO's fault that Russia (at least under Putin) can't be trusted to leave its neighbors alone.

Russia interfere's because of NATO expansion. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. NATO is created to protect the world from Russia, Russia invades their neighbours to stop them joining NATO and allowing missile systems and whatnot to be parked on their doorstep.

Let's not forget how outraged USA were that Soviet missile systems were parked in Cuba. You surely understand why USA didn't like that, don't you? There are similarities.

Putin is fucking mental.

So is Biden. These two are in charge of the most powerful nuclear nations on the planet.

His excuse for invading is to oust the Jewish "Nazi" (lol) president of the Ukraine.

idk about the President, but Ukrainian politics does have a problem with neo-Nazism.

The only thing that will stop him is when he's taken every country that isn't in NATO...

Imagine actually thinking this.

Let me know when he invades Kazakhstan or Mongolia. My guess it'll be shortly after they announce plans to join NATO, if they're stupid enough to try.

But they didn't. Ukraine is not in NATO. They have the right to be if they want to, and NATO agrees to it. They're a sovereign country, they can make any fucking alliances they want. That's what sovereignty means.

Sure, if Ukraine want to exercise their sovereignty to do the thing that will annoy their former overlords the most, they can. Just like Finland can. But they won't, because they're not stupid enough to want a security problem with Russia.

What's really amusing is that the guy who has such a hardon for words like "sovereignty" and "democracy" when it comes to a country's right to impose economic sanctions on itself goes limp when it comes to actually respecting a third country's rights to act autonomously without getting invaded by its neighbor.

Do you not understand what you're doing here? Because I'm not sucked into Western propaganda, because I attempt to understand what is motivating Putin to make the moves he's making, you think I'm "going limp". What are you doing? Getting hard for Putin hate? Have you changed your facebook profile to the Ukraine flag? Have you done your bit of virtue signalling? Nobody gives a fuck about Yemen or Palestine, but Ukraine gets invaded and suddenly it's fuck Putin. And this coming from a fuck-Boris guy. It's ridiculous how someone who despises the Tories so much is sucked into British foreign policy and propaganda.

There are two sides to this. There are no good guys. Putin is a cunt. So too is every leader who has their beaky nose in this affair. War is profit. Who do you think is selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to bomb the shit of out Yemen? We are. And we'll be supplying Ukraine too, no doubt.

Just don't sit there thinking Putin is the only bad guy. And don't assume that because I'm calling other people bad, that I'm somehow pro-Putin. I don't live in the same binary world you live in poop.

[Poopadoop]

Ong what you're saying is we should try to sympathize with a guy who invaded another country. I don't care what his reasons are. His country is not being threatened by anything except his imagination.

On your analysis, now that we're out of the EU we should see it as a military threat (what with the whole "EU Army" and everything), and if Norway announces one day they're thinking of joining the EU, we should invade them first so they can't.

You can accuse me of blinkered thinking or virtue signalling or being woke or whatever all you want. But the fact is Putin started a war with no justification. It really is that black and white. There's no shame in taking the side of Ukraine, the shame is making apologies for a warmonger.

[Poopadoop]

Ong would be the guy in 1939 telling people to stop virtue signalling over Hitler, talking about how Germany was being encircled by its enemies and how the League of Nations was a "fuck Germany" club.

[Poopadoop]

...Ukraine gets invaded and suddenly it's fuck Putin. And this coming from a fuck-Boris guy.

lol, missed this little gem. Like I can't be against two different shitty leaders at the same time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Putin's on record saying something like the dissolution of the soviet republics is the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.
He's annexing Ukraine as part of that vision.

His stated reason for doing so now is to protect the Ukrainian people from their (Jewish) nazi President.

Putin was all, Hey Ukraine if you ask to join NATO, I'm gonna war you. @NATO if you let them in I will war.
Ukraine doesn't get into NATO and Putin does this.
Now other countries are like, "We no longer have any choice than to join NATO." and Putin's all, if you do that I will war you.

Your assertion that Putin fears a NATO invasion is unjustified. Putin only fears the ex-soviet states joining NATO because that will make it much, much harder for him to annex them into Russia.


It's folly to underestimate your enemy, and I don't take offense to acknowledging that Putin is a smart man, but he's also an evil man, bent on a fictitious former glory that never existed. His vision is not widely shared by the Russian people or other Russian businessmen and political leaders. But Putin controls them, and the price of disagreement is a charge of treason.

Still, thousands of Russian people are not suckling at the propaganda teat, and are protesting in over 50 cities. Thousands have been arrested.


If the current estimates of death toll on Russia is to be believed (>3,500 lives lost in less than 4 days), that's more fatalities that the US suffered during the entire occupation of Afghanistan.

This is a blight on the Russian people.

[OngBonga]

Ong what you're saying is we should try to sympathize with a guy who invaded another country.

We invade countries. We're helping Saudi Arabia and Israel kill civilians. Why are you only afraid of Putin? They're all psychopaths.

But the fact is Putin started a war with no justification.

His reasons are no worse than ours.

There's no shame in taking the side of Ukraine, the shame is making apologies for a warmonger.

You say this like there's only one warmonger.

Ong would be the guy in 1939 telling people to stop virtue signalling over Hitler, talking about how Germany was being encircled by its enemies and how the League of Nations was a "fuck Germany" club.

Putin literally Hitler.

You do know that the Ukrainians celebrate their Nazi history, don't you? It's bitterly ironic that you compare Putin to the Nazis when it's not the Russians who still celebrate the Nazis. In fact, the Russians killed Nazis. Lots of them. The Russians pretty much won the war. America might have finished it off with their flashy bombs, but without Russia Hitler probably wins. Yet here we are in 2022 comparing their leader, who opposes Nazi sympathisers in Ukraine, of being literally Hitler.

Here's some light reading for you poop, an article about how USA and Ukraine were the only two countries in the UN to vote against measures to combat Nazi ideology .

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...e-and-the-usa/

[OngBonga]

Your assertion that Putin fears a NATO invasion is unjustified.

Who are you talking to here? Me?

I haven't asserted this. Poop jumped to this conclusion, now you.

It's problematic when people make these assumptions.

I haven't once said Russia fears a NATO invasion. It fears NATO expansion on its doorstep. That's not NATO in Russian territory. That's not an invasion.

Putin only fears the ex-soviet states joining NATO because that will make it much, much harder for him to annex them into Russia.

Maybe. Or maybe he fears missile systems being pointed at Moscow at such close range that Russia is a sitting duck in the event of a world war. Maybe he considers this a matter of national security.

What does USA do when it is presented with matters it deems to be of national interest? Recent history shows it is willing to invade sovereign states, and enforce regime change.

What does USA do when enemies deploy missile systems to neighbouring territories? It throws a wobbler. You understand that, right? You don't want Russian missiles in Cuba pointing at USA, do you? Do you think Russians want American missiles in Ukraine pointing at them?

Why can't anyone even attempt to see it from a Russian perspective? Why is everyone so blinded by propaganda?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Who are you talking to here? Me?

I haven't asserted this. Poop jumped to this conclusion, now you.

It's problematic when people make these assumptions.

I haven't once said Russia fears a NATO invasion. It fears NATO expansion on its doorstep. That's not NATO in Russian territory. That's not an invasion.



Maybe. Or maybe he fears missile systems being pointed at Moscow at such close range that Russia is a sitting duck in the event of a world war. Maybe he considers this a matter of national security.

What does USA do when it is presented with matters it deems to be of national interest? Recent history shows it is willing to invade sovereign states, and enforce regime change.

What does USA do when enemies deploy missile systems to neighbouring territories? It throws a wobbler. You understand that, right? You don't want Russian missiles in Cuba pointing at USA, do you? Do you think Russians want American missiles in Ukraine pointing at them?

Why can't anyone even attempt to see it from a Russian perspective? Why is everyone so blinded by propaganda?

For someone who's not asserting Putin's afraid of a NATO invasion, you sure have a lot to say about Putin being threatened by invasion.

[OngBonga]

For the third time, NATO putting missiles in Ukraine is not an invasion of Russia.

Didn't you say that you though North Korea was going to invade South Korea?

No? I'm going to pretend you did anyway.

[OngBonga]

So you can't see this from a Cuban Missile Crisis pov? You can't see that Russia don't like NATO in Ukraine in the same way USA didn't like the Soviets in Cuba?

Granted it's not quite the same, NATO haven't yet put any missiles in Ukraine, but that's what this is about. Putin doesn't want NATO on his doorstep. He already has NATO in three border countries - Estonia, Latvia and Norway, though you could walk the Norway border in a day it's so small. NATO has already pushed Putin to the limits of his tolerance by being in these places. Russia trusts Finland because they have never seeked NATO membership (more hassle than it's worth for them), but Ukraine is different. idk why that's a red line for him when Latvia and Estonia are not, but that's where we are.

Of course it's easier to believe he's just literally Hitler and he wants to take over the world. If you don't want to understand the enemy, fair enough, but at least admit it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If I misunderstood your assertion that Putin not wanting missiles on his doorstep has nothing to do with a fear of those missiles being used, then just stop being so pedantic.

My assumption that him not wanting missiles "on his doorstep" is because those missiles might be used to invade is not illogical.

Quit picking such an inconsequential nit.
No one wants missiles on their border pointed at them. Acting like I can't or don't understand that is trolling at best.
There is evidence from Putin himself that his ambitions go well beyond a hypothetical threat.


This is the important bit before I started editorializing.

Putin's on record saying something like the dissolution of the soviet republics is the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.
He's annexing Ukraine as part of that vision.

His stated reason for doing so now is to protect the Ukrainian people from their (Jewish) nazi President.

Putin was all, Hey Ukraine if you ask to join NATO, I'm gonna war you. @NATO if you let them in I will war.
Ukraine doesn't get into NATO and Putin does this.
Now other countries are like, "We no longer have any choice than to join NATO." and Putin's all, if you do that I will war you.





Until and unless Putin begins ethnic cleansing and concentration camps, I think the Hitler thing it going too far.
Troll

[boost]

Ong, the US was wrong to attempt to assassinate Castro, over and over. The US was wrong to be so dogmatic in their anti communism that they abandoned their support of the right to self determination.

I appreciate that you're willing to entertain Putin's perspective. I think that's important to be able to do. But now do the same for the people of Ukraine. Look at the cold war and its aftermath. Which way would you want to lean? Where is life better? The remaining client states of Russia, or Poland, unified Germany, etc? Would you rather align with the powerful entity that will tend to exert soft power over you, or the one that will tend to exert overt power over you?

You claim that people are treating this as black and white, and while certainly some are, I think your contrarian stance has you both-sides'ing your way to a nihilistic rendering in which neither side is worthy of support. Ofc this works in Putin's favor, since if neither side is worthy of support, the militarily superior (that's becoming questionable) side is left to have their way.

[OngBonga]

If I misunderstood your assertion that Putin not wanting missiles on his doorstep has nothing to do with a fear of those missiles being used, then just stop being so pedantic.

I feel like this is kind of missing the point. Are you happy to sit there with a gun pointing at you if they promise not to shoot you?

NATO is part of the problem. I do appreciate the value of a defence union, I've seen footage of British troops moving tanks into Estonia and Latvia, Russia basically cannot invaded these places without engaging with NATO troops, in this case British. So Russia won't invade. The deterrent is real. That's the good side of NATO. The bad side is that if Ukraine were not seeking NATO membership, Russia would not have invaded. Russia took Crimea because it's far too strategic on the Black Sea to allow it to fall into NATO hands. Russia does not want NATO sea bases in the Black Sea. That's probably why he tolerates Estonia and Latvia, but won't tolerate Ukraine. Ukraine has a Black Sea coastline.

There is evidence from Putin himself that his ambitions go well beyond a hypothetical threat.

I'm sure there are, what he would consider, "historical wrongs" that he'd like to right. Crimea was one example. I don't think his only motivation is NATO expansion. But I'm pretty sure that if these Eastern regions were allowed at least semi-autonomy, and if Ukraine were not seeking NATO membership, then Putin would not have invaded Ukraine. He'd already be getting what he wants. He doesn't want Kyiv, it's useless to him, the people of Kyiv will never accept Russian rule.

Putin's on record saying something like the dissolution of the soviet republics is the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.He's annexing Ukraine as part of that vision.

He can never fulfil this vision. Estonia, Latvia Lithuania, am I missing anyone? They're already in NATO. They are forever lost. Western Ukraine will never accept Russian rule, that's as good as lost too.

He can't restore the Soviet Union without going to war with NATO. I'm not convinced Russia can win a war against Ukraine, let alone NATO.

And he's not annexing places with Russia-friendly governments in place. Belarus is under his thumb, Kazakhstan don't seem to have problems with Russia, that's massive and would be a huge territorial gain for an expanding Soviet vision, I'm not convinced it's his ultimate goal. It's impossible to fulfil without world war, and he's not attacking governments who don't seek NATO membership.

His stated reason for doing so now is to protect the Ukrainian people from their (Jewish) nazi President.

This is obviously Russian propaganda. I don't think their president is into this Nazi sympathy stuff, but just because the Russians are milking it, don't assume that means there's no basis to it. Their president seems to be trying to clean up Ukrainian politics, I don't think these Nazi charges against him are based on any fact. But Ukraine has a problem with Nazism, that is a fact. People seem to be losing sight of that.

Until and unless Putin begins ethnic cleansing and concentration camps, I think the Hitler thing it going too far.

Yeah I mean when it becomes obvious that he's motivated by Russian ethnic supremacy and is intent on spreading it around the world, that's when I'll start calling him literally Hitler. Until then, he's just another Bush, Blair, Obama, Macron, Clinton, or any other world leader who is willing to sacrifice soldiers and civilians for their geopolitical goals.

To be clear about where I am on this, Putin is an asshole and should get the fuck out of Ukraine. I don't support this war at all. But I can understand why it's got to this point. Ukraine should, in my opinion, have taken advise from Finland on how to be allied to both NATO and Russia, while simultaneously standing up to Russian rhetoric. Finland manage their Russia relations superbly. Ukraine have taken the gamble that seeking NATO membership, and in doing so infuriating Putin, is the way to deal with Russia. I think this is reckless. I feel like what is happening is an inevitable consequence of this decision.

I think the endgame here is Ukraine agreeing to not pursue NATO membership, and the breakaway states retaining autonomy. That's probably what Ukraine need to agree to for us to see a Russian withdrawal. If Putin is trying to take all Ukraine, he's got a long and bloody war on his hands, and one he's not going to win.

[OngBonga]

Ong, the US was wrong to attempt to assassinate Castro, over and over. The US was wrong to be so dogmatic in their anti communism that they abandoned their support of the right to self determination.

I appreciate that you're willing to entertain Putin's perspective. I think that's important to be able to do. But now do the same for the people of Ukraine. Look at the cold war and its aftermath. Which way would you want to lean? Where is life better? The remaining client states of Russia, or Poland, unified Germany, etc? Would you rather align with the powerful entity that will tend to exert soft power over you, or the one that will tend to exert overt power over you?

You claim that people are treating this as black and white, and while certainly some are, I think your contrarian stance has you both-sides'ing your way to a nihilistic rendering in which neither side is worthy of support. Ofc this works in Putin's favor, since if neither side is worthy of support, the militarily superior (that's becoming questionable) side is left to have their way.

They can lean West without poking the bear in the process. Finland manage this just fine. It doesn't have to involve NATO membership. They must have known that war was a possibility.

I do get it from Ukraine's pov, which is why I am happy to see Russia struggling to take cities. Russia are the invading force. Anyone who takes up arms against an invading force, good luck to you. And I understand why they want to be friends with the West. But to basically say "yeah we'll be friends and we'll even allow Russia's enemies to bring all sorts of military hardware not only to the Russian border but also to the Black Sea", that's where we're not really doing anything to remain at least on talking terms to your big fuck off powerful neighbour.

I think Ukraine has been reckless in its policy.

[OngBonga]

It's strange because I'm actually a little more pro-NATO than I was. But I definitely oppose NATO expansion on the Russian border, because it only increases geopolitical tension. It's not very diplomatic, is it? It's basically a huge "fuck you" to Russia.

But Russia actually invading Ukraine, it makes me think he would do the same to Estonia and Latvia if they weren't NATO member states. But maybe this is just ultimately about the Black Sea. NATO already had access to the Baltic Sea, and it's not quite as important to Russian trade as the Black Sea is.

All Putin is doing right now is showing the world why NATO exists. A better strategy would have been to convince the world it didn't need to exist.

[Poopadoop]

if Ukraine were not seeking NATO membership, Russia would not have invaded.

How do you know this? They (Putin) invaded them in 2014 and invaded Chechnia before that. No-one ever mentioned joining NATO then.


The rest of your post is just more trying to shift blame onto Ukraine. They're a sovereign country, they should be able to ally with any other country they want without being invaded by their neighbor.

[Poopadoop]

But maybe this is just ultimately about the Black Sea. NATO already had access to the Baltic Sea, and it's not quite as important to Russian trade as the Black Sea is.

This line about the Black Sea is wrong. The only value the Black Sea has is if you can ship out of it into the Mediterranean. It doesn't matter if you own all the ports on the Black Sea if NATO holds the straights in Turkey. Guess who belongs to NATO?

[OngBonga]

The rest of your post is just more trying to shift blame onto Ukraine. They're a sovereign country, they should be able to ally with any other country they want without being invaded by their neighbor.

Sure, I agree they should be allowed to. But I also think it's reckless to actually do it.

Don't you find it amusing that you'll call UK withdrawal from the EU a stupid decision, economic suicide and whatnot, laugh in my face when I talk about sovereignty, and now you tell me that you respect Ukraine's sovereign right to infuriate their mentally unstable superpower enemy? I find it hilarious.

This line about the Black Sea is wrong. The only value the Black Sea has is if you can ship out of it into the Mediterranean. It doesn't matter if you own all the ports on the Black Sea if NATO holds the straights in Turkey. Guess who belongs to NATO?

Yeah there's also Bulgaria, so NATO already has access to the Black Sea. But there's more to it than just military. There's a fuck load of gas under the sea, and whoever controls Crimea controls the majority of that gas.

NATO do actually have trouble getting ships into the Black Sea. Russia employ treaty loopholes, for example the treaty that governs the Istanbul straight. There's a limit to how many military ships can be in there at any one time, so Russia maintains a permanent presence in there to reduce that further. This is why Turkey are planning on building a canal, to bypass this treaty.

It seems to me that Putin wants to stop Ukraine from having access to most of the Black Sea gas reserves, since if Ukraine can fully exploit these reserves, that will be a challenge to Russia's energy sector. And that's hitting the powerful elite in Russia.

[Poopadoop]

Sure, I agree they should be allowed to. But I also think it's reckless to actually do it.

Don't you find it amusing that you'll call UK withdrawal from the EU a stupid decision, economic suicide and whatnot, laugh in my face when I talk about sovereignty, and now you tell me that you respect Ukraine's sovereign right to infuriate their mentally unstable superpower enemy? I find it hilarious.

You're still working on the assumption that you know Putin's mind. I don't think Putin even knows Putin's mind anymore.

And...did the EU invade us when we talked about leaving? I don't remember that.

Yeah there's also Bulgaria, so NATO already has access to the Black Sea. But there's more to it than just military. There's a fuck load of gas under the sea, and whoever controls Crimea controls the majority of that gas.

Russia already controls Crimea. They didn't need to attack Ukraine again to control the Crimea.

[Poopadoop]

Germany now sending military aid to Ukraine. Putin should never have poked the sausage.

[OngBonga]

[MadMojoMonkey]

I appreciate the point that all governments do deplorable things.
No government exists without the creation of dirty laundry. The bigger the country, the longer it's been a country, the more it's got.
That's fair.

It's devolving into whataboutism, though.

To the extent that you're trying to acknowledge human behavior and soften the accusatory language by tempering it with self-reflection, that's awesome!

To the extent you're using other transgressions to excuse a new one, that's not poggers, as the kids say.

[oskar]

It's not a contest. I'm not even sure Ukraine is getting more media attention than any of those at the time.
Not sure how fitting those picks are for those particular wars, but you very well could draw parallels. I'm just not sure what the point is. Old war bad, so new war... less bad? I don't get it.

[OngBonga]

I'm sorry, it was the blackface that made me laugh.

It's easy to say "whataboutism" like it's a dirty word, but we should reflect on the actions of our leaders, and we should hold them to the same standards we hold foreign leaders too, in fact we should hold our leaders to higher standards when it comes to geopolitics. That's what being the guy goods is about... having higher moral standards.

I'm not saying we should turn a blind eye, but we should be looking beyond ending immediate hostilities and explore the reasons why we got to this point. If we want peace in this region, I think NATO has to stop expanding, or at least agree to not allow Ukraine to host missile systems. NATO need to come to the negotiating table. That shows good faith on our part, and puts the ball in Putin's court. Is this just about NATO? That's one way to find out.

[Poopadoop]

You got me, Ong. I was all in favour of unjust wars until Russia did one. What a fucking hypocrite am I.

[Poopadoop]

Zelensky just applied for Ukraine to join the EU (Edit: Goddamn EU and it's red tape - look at the size of that form). Guess he doesn't agree with Ong's foreign policy assessment. Either that or the EU is trying to provoke Russia into attacking another country so it can unleash the Hitlerpolean EU Imperial Army on his ass.

[Poopadoop]

Have to admit, a part of me is suprised the peace talks weren't a ploy to kidnap/muder Zelensky. Which I'd be ok with btw, because Cortez kidnapped Montezuma that way and Spain is now in NATO.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's easy to say "whataboutism" like it's a dirty word, but we should reflect on the actions of our leaders, and we should hold them to the same standards we hold foreign leaders too, in fact we should hold our leaders to higher standards when it comes to geopolitics. That's what being the guy goods is about... having higher moral standards.

Whataboutism is a dirty word. It's when one collection of bad behaviors are excused because other actors have committed those same bad behaviors in the past. As though a precedent for bad behaviors has been established as a moral guide. It is a bad thing.

If the word whataboutism is used in other contexts / with a different definition, then I'm open to revise my opinion. If we agree that above definition is apt, then I should hope we agree that's some illogical BS.

I'm not saying we should turn a blind eye, but we should be looking beyond ending immediate hostilities and explore the reasons why we got to this point. If we want peace in this region, I think NATO has to stop expanding, or at least agree to not allow Ukraine to host missile systems. NATO need to come to the negotiating table. That shows good faith on our part, and puts the ball in Putin's court. Is this just about NATO? That's one way to find out.

I agree with the sentiment of this.

But I feel it's missing the point that no real peace talks or negotiations can happen while one nation is actively invading the other nation. FFS, while the current peace talks were happening, the Russian offensive increased.

That's what Putin has done in the past. Negotiate at gunpoint. That cannot be allowed on the world stage.
It's abject bullying. It's saying "Fuck you, I'm bigger, so I get to say what's what."

I'm much, much more comfortable having that kind of power divested into a collective. Like the UN or like NATO. Where many interested parties must agree to affect change. Democratic rule may be shit, but it's still better than all the alternatives on the biggest scales.


NATO is a peacekeeping organization. I do not believe NATO has invaded anywhere (correct me if I'm wrong. 9/11 is the only thing close I can find, and I'm certain we can agree that the actual invasion of Iraq was NOT a NATO operation.)
Saying that Russia is threatened by a peacekeeping organization that has never attacked anyone is fucking cause for pause at the very least.

I'm not at all inclined to see any legitimate threat to Russia coming from NATO. The only threat is to Russia's expansion and annexation of other nations against their will. If those nations choose to join Russia, NATO isn't going to stop them. It's only when Russia tries to force a nation to join that NATO engages.

So I'm just not seeing this as a threat the way you do. I see it as definitely uncomfortable for Putin. But his actions this week have shown that the world is perfectly justified in fearing an invasion from him, whereas I'm not seeing anything that justifies his fear of invasion.

[OngBonga]

That's what Putin has done in the past. Negotiate at gunpoint. That cannot be allowed on the world stage.

This is why "whataboutism" isn't something you just just dismiss. This is exactly how we do war. We negotiate at gunpoint.

Serious talks cannot happen until Russia withdraws. That is clear. Preliminary talks are what achieve a Russian withdrawal. There's always a certain amount of negotiating at gunpoint at times of war.

NATO is a peacekeeping organization. I do not believe NATO has invaded anywhere

This is a matter of contention. NATO doesn't expand its territory by invasion. NATO expands by treaty. NATO can extend its influence politically, by supporting opposition parties that can apply for NATO membership when they get into power.

It's all very well saying NATO is a peacekeeping force, but from Russia's pov, it's an anti-Russia military alliance expanding into its former territory.

Saying that Russia is threatened by a peacekeeping organization that has never attacked anyone is fucking cause for pause at the very least.

This is failing to see it from their pov. You're using language like "peacekeeping organisation" like it's how Putin see it. Russia does not view NATO in the same way you do. And frankly, I'm more inclined to think Putin is better placed to judge NATO's geopolitical intentions than you, or indeed myself.

NATO exists to ensure military dominance over Russia. NATO is basically USA's satellite states bound by treaty to defend USA's de facto empire. That's how I view NATO. Maybe I'm wrong. But in this context, I see NATO causing the very problems it seeks to solve. NATO wants these problems because it ensures their existence and further expansion.

You can't blame Russia for feeling like a cornered rat, if their view of NATO is anything like mine. And it is.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is why "whataboutism" isn't something you just just dismiss. This is exactly how we do war. We negotiate at gunpoint.

Serious talks cannot happen until Russia withdraws. That is clear. Preliminary talks are what achieve a Russian withdrawal. There's always a certain amount of negotiating at gunpoint at times of war.

The invasion didn't pause for negotiations. The invasion didn't even stay at a status quo. The invasion increased. Putin used the negotiations as an opportunity to ramp up the movement of troops into Ukraine.

I don't see any intention of negotiation. He's trying to steam roll Ukraine into submission. Not diplomatically solve anything.

That's not negotiation. That's fuckery.

This is a matter of contention. NATO doesn't expand its territory by invasion. NATO expands by treaty. NATO can extend its influence politically, by supporting opposition parties that can apply for NATO membership when they get into power.

It's all very well saying NATO is a peacekeeping force, but from Russia's pov, it's an anti-Russia military alliance expanding into its former territory.

NATO expands its territory when someone asks to join and NATO accepts. They are not invading and claiming anything.

The difference is night and day.


Re. bold. Significant. Would you be attempting to justify the UK warring against the world to restore its former territorial holdings?
Would you think the world was unjustified in forming alliances against such aggression if the UK started doing that?

This is failing to see it from their pov. [...] NATO wants these problems because it ensures their existence and further expansion.

See above. NATO is not aggressively taking land away from self-ruled peoples. Russia is.

If self-ruled peoples agree to band together to safeguard each other from a very large and militant neighbor, that strikes you as wrong?
I don't at all understand what sovereignty means to you. Not that I ever really did, but what I thought it meant can't be what it means if that's your opinion on other people's sovereignty.

To your last point: Just lol. Whether "they" "want" Putin to be a dickhead so they can expand is pure speculation, and not even relevant. Try to stay on topic.
SMH.

You can't blame Russia for feeling like a cornered rat, if their view of NATO is anything like mine. And it is.

I only blame Putin for feeling like a cornered rat. I blame him for putting himself in that position. I blame him for very similar things I blame my own political leaders for. I hate this war on Ukraine the same way I hated US wars committed in the past decades.

I blame him for creating the corner he crawled into by acting like he can do whatever he wants just because he's leader of a major world power. I blame him for asserting that people who do not want his "help" being attacked as his means of "helping" them.
Just like I blamed Bush for that same BS in Iraq.

[Poopadoop]

This is a matter of contention.

It really isn't. He said NATO never invaded another country, and he's right. There's no ifs or buts about it.

NATO doesn't expand its territory by invasion. NATO expands by treaty. NATO can extend its influence politically, by supporting opposition parties that can apply for NATO membership when they get into power.

How is that a bad thing? If a peacekeeping organisation tries to get more members?

It's all very well saying NATO is a peacekeeping force, but from Russia's pov, it's an anti-Russian expansion military alliance expanding into its former territory.

fyp.

The Baltic States are not Russian! They were conquered by Stalin during WWII. They broke free when the USSR collapsed.

The Ukraine is also not Russian. Hence the name "Ukraine," meaning "country where Ukrainians live."

Chechnia is also not Russian. Chechens live there.

Your mistake is confusing the Russian Empire with the Russian nation. They're two different things.

This is failing to see it from their pov. You're using language like "peacekeeping organisation" like it's how Putin see it. Russia does not view NATO in the same way you do. And frankly, I'm more inclined to think Putin is better placed to judge NATO's geopolitical intentions than you, or indeed myself.

This is quite the logical corner you've painted yourself into to. No-one can tell what NATO's intentions are, but you can tell what Putin thinks NATO's intentions are. That is some serious meta-power of thinking you possess there.

NATO exists to ensure military dominance over Russia so they stop invading them.

fyp again.

NATO is basically USA's satellite states bound by treaty to defend USA's de facto empire.

At the end of WWII, Russia had the largest army in the world. The previous largest army in the world had just been defeated. Stalin installed puppet regimes throughout Eastern Europe. NATO was a strategic alliance arranged to stop that expansion. W. Europe alone could not have stopped Stalin if he had attacked them. So they created NATO which was a way of the US guaranteeing the security of W. Europe against Russia.

It's really not as complicated as you're trying to make it out, and it's certainly not nefarious. NATO has never attacked either Russia or its allies in 75 years.

But in this context, I see NATO causing the very problems it seeks to solve. NATO wants these problems because it ensures their existence and further expansion.

Fine, that's what you think. But no-one agrees with you.

You can't blame Russia for feeling like a cornered rat, if their view of NATO is anything like mine. And it is.

Equally plausible a priori is Mojo's argument that NATO is the only thing stopping Putin from going MRGA on Eastern Europe.

And in the bigger picture, there's no point in trying to soulread Putin over this. His actions are what counts. And his actions are consistent not with a nation that's been attacked, but with an empire trying to expand into its former territories.