*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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.