Invading Ukraine was never about f%$'ing NATO (PROOF)

[jmdrake]

Your reading comprehension is bad.

Nope. It's just fine. You just have a preconceived notion and you lack the ability to understand anything that doesn't fit that preconceived notion.

Putin SAID NATO expansion into Ukraine was a problem for him but NATO expansion into Finland and Sweden is not. It's not that complicated. But you want to believe that NATO expansion isn't a problem for Putin at all, so you ignore Putin's words when it comes to Ukraine and conflate what Putin said about Finland and Sweden with what Putin said about Ukraine. You have propagandized yourself.

[TheTexan]

Nope. It's just fine. You just have a preconceived notion and you lack the ability to understand anything that doesn't fit that preconceived notion.

Putin SAID NATO expansion into Ukraine was a problem for him but NATO expansion into Finland and Sweden is not. It's not that complicated. But you want to believe that NATO expansion isn't a problem for Putin at all, so you ignore Putin's words when it comes to Ukraine and conflate what Putin said about Finland and Sweden with what Putin said about Ukraine. You have propagandized yourself.

Again, your reading comprehension fails you. I never said NATO expansion into Ukraine was not an issue for Putin, because it clearly is.

The mainstream media wants people to believe that Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion. By "NATO expansion" they mean, gaining territory in proximity to Moscow.

Putin did not invade Ukraine over NATO expansion in that sense, which is the sense that nearly everyone uses it in.

The only reason NATO expansion into Ukraine is an issue for Putin, is because NATO expansion into eastern Ukraine is an issue for Putin, because eastern Ukraine does not even belong to Ukraine and Ukraine has no authority to put eastern Ukraine into NATO.

It's not about NATO. That acronym could be replaced with anything. It's more about western intervention in general.

Does that make sense? Or do you need further assistance.

Putin SAID NATO expansion into Ukraine was a problem for him but NATO expansion into Finland and Sweden is not.

You are the one who is propagandized. Learn to read he says pretty clearly

"As for the assumption that we were fighting against NATO approaching us through Ukraine ... there is no substance behind it at all"

If you think the "no substance" was referring to the "..." part then yes your reading comprehension is bad.

[jmdrake]

Again, your reading comprehension fails you. I never said NATO expansion into Ukraine was not an issue for Putin, because it clearly is.

The mainstream media wants people to believe that Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion. By "NATO expansion" they mean, gaining territory in proximity to Moscow.

Putin did not invade Ukraine over NATO expansion in that sense, which is the sense that nearly everyone uses it in.

The only reason NATO expansion into Ukraine is an issue for Putin, is because NATO expansion into eastern Ukraine is an issue for Putin, because eastern Ukraine does not even belong to Ukraine and Ukraine has no authority to put eastern Ukraine into NATO.

It's not about NATO. That acronym could be replaced with anything. It's more about western intervention in general.

Does that make sense? Or do you need further assistance.

You just said what I said to start off with but you disagreed with for reasons I don't understand. So just to be clear, I AGREE with your position that NATO expansion by itself is not an issue. Putin isn't going to invade Finland or Sweden unless Finland or Sweden starts shelling Russians. It's NATO + Nazis that is the problem for Putin.

[TheTexan]

Not at all logically inconsistent.

NATO at border not doing anything = Putin not shaking in boots.

Neonazis shelling Donbass = Putin not shaking in boots. (This shelling has been going on since freaking 2014. So why the concern NOW?)

Neonazis shelling Donbass + Ukrain possibly about to join NATO = invasion.

It's not difficult to understand...if you want to understand it.

First off, your logic sucks because it doesn't explain at all Crimea.

Second, as for "why now", Ukraine military was about to begin an offensive to take over Donbass.

Third, your NATO explanation sucks balls because Ukraine was never going to join NATO, didn't want to join NATO, and still doesn't want to join NATO. Ukraine is run by nationalists who for whatever reason value their sovereignty (and not being ruled by NATO).

Fourth, even if you are right about "Donbass shelling + NATO = shaking" you're still basically admitting it's not about NATO, but the shelling. and NATO is just forcing the move from a timing perspective.

[jmdrake]

First off, your logic sucks because it doesn't explain at all Crimea.

Second, as for "why now", Ukraine military was about to begin an offensive to take over Donbass.

Third, your NATO explanation sucks balls because Ukraine was never going to join NATO, didn't want to join NATO, and still doesn't want to join NATO. Ukraine is run by nationalists who for whatever reason value their sovereignty (and not being ruled by NATO).

Fourth, even if you are right about "Donbass shelling + NATO = boots" you're still basically admitting it's not about NATO, but the shelling. and NATO is just forcing the move from a timing perspective.

LOL. Dude you already admitted you AGREE with my logic. Putin doesn't want Ukraine to be a part of NATO. He doesn't give a crap about Finland or Sweden being part of NATO. So....you're blowing smoke.

[TheTexan]

You just said what I said to start off with but you disagreed with for reasons I don't understand. So just to be clear, I AGREE with your position that NATO expansion by itself is not an issue. Putin isn't going to invade Finland or Sweden unless Finland or Sweden starts shelling Russians. It's NATO + Nazis that is the problem for Putin.

Good we mostly agree then.

Even if NATO is forcing Putins hand (which I don't this is true but w/e), Putins invasion is not about NATO expansion, which is the point of this thread

[jmdrake]

Good we mostly agree then.

Even if NATO is forcing Putins hand (which I don't this is true but w/e), Putins invasion is not about NATO expansion, which is the point of this thread

[TheTexan]

LOL. Dude you already admitted you AGREE with my logic. Putin doesn't want Ukraine to be a part of NATO. He doesn't give a crap about Finland or Sweden being part of NATO. So....you're blowing smoke.

"Want"

Putin probably wants a pony but he's not gonna start a war over it.

This thread isn't about what he wants, it's about why he invaded Ukraine, which is much more accurately summarized as "genocidal Nazis shelling Russians" than "NATO expansion"

[Todd]

Yea but that just reinforces how irrelevant NATO was to the decision to invade Ukraine.

If Ukraine promised never to join NATO, Putin would have invaded Ukraine.

If Ukraine agreed to join NATO, Putin would have invaded Ukraine.

If NATO had ceased to have existed on February 23, Putin would have still invaded Ukraine on February 24

But the main point is that there is Western pressure on Ukraine politics which drives the dispute and as a consequence there were zero negotiations? Does anyone believe Ukraine devoid of western influence and assistance and isolated would not have come to the negotiation table years ago? This is a direct consequence of NATO. Mearsheimer has a great take on this.

[TheTexan]

But the main point is that there is Western pressure on Ukraine politics which drives the dispute and as a consequence there were zero negotiations? Does anyone believe Ukraine devoid of western influence and assistance and isolated would not have come to the negotiation table years ago? This is a direct consequence of NATO. Mearsheimer has a great take on this.

I'm not disputing the fact that NATO (and western influence in general) had a big part to play in creating this situation.

My only point here is that NATO expansion (in the sense of, "proximity to Moscow") was not a relevant factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.

I make this point, because universally in MSM and libertarian media, for some goddamn reason, everyone (Tucker, Rand, Massie, Dave Smith, McGregor, ....) all seem to primarily attribute the invasion to Putin's fear of NATO expansion. The actual reasons (genocidal Nazi's shelling Donbass) get only the briefest of mention (if ever, which is rare that it is discussed at all).

Consider it an educational outreach thread... for the knowledge of which, could contribute to preventing WW III.

[vita3]

Mearsheimer has a great take on this.

Yes, he does.

[vita3]

I'm not disputing the fact that NATO (and western influence in general) had a big part to play in creating this situation.

My only point here is that NATO expansion (in the sense of, "proximity to Moscow") was not a relevant factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.

I make this point, because universally in MSM and libertarian media, for some goddamn reason, everyone (Tucker, Rand, Massie, Dave Smith, McGregor, ....) all seem to primarily attribute the invasion to Putin's fear of NATO expansion. The actual reasons (genocidal Nazi's shelling Donbass) get only the briefest of mention (if ever, which is rare that it is discussed at all).

Consider it an educational outreach thread... for the knowledge of which, could contribute to preventing WW III.

The fact that “our side” has Nazi’s & have killed innocent kids & children for 8 years, doesn’t play so well in psyop wars.

I’ll give neocons credit, they have duped general public into wanting to kill other people, yet again

[TheTexan]

Mearsheimer has a great take on this.

Yes, he does.

I haven't heard of him until now, and having read a couple of his pieces, his take is not "great".

Just because he blames the west and not Putin does not make his take "great".

He still (seems to) promote the idea that Putin invaded Ukraine because of fears of general NATO expansion. (meaning proximity to Moscow)

I say "seems to" because if I were to give him an extreme benefit of the doubt, I could very generously interpret his article to mean something that actually made sense.

So in the best interpretation of his writings, he's a very poor communicator.

Take this article for example:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and...sis-in-ukraine

He doesn't even mention the shelling of Donbass. And he barely even mentions Donbass at all.

If he has other articles that are better, feel free to post.... but otherwise, I'm a give 2 big to that garbage.

[vita3]

Mearsheimer has studied & discussed Russia for decades

U of Chicago professor

Hopefully you continue your own educational outreach & go deeper into his teachings

[TheTexan]

Mearsheimer has studied & discussed Russia for decades

U of Chicago professor

Hopefully you continue your own educational outreach & go deeper into his teachings

Yea, and Fauci has a MD from Cornell.

Not impressed by appeals to authority.

If someone is smart on a subject it should be evident in their work.

[vita3]

Just stating facts

what did you learn about him for 10 minutes? ...why u such a prick?

[TheTexan]

Just stating facts

what did you learn about him for 10 minutes? ...why u such a prick?

The whole point of this thread, as I posted above, is..

I make this point, because universally in MSM and libertarian media, for some goddamn reason, everyone (Tucker, Rand, Massie, Dave Smith, McGregor, ....) all seem to primarily attribute the invasion to Putin's fear of NATO expansion. The actual reasons (genocidal Nazi's shelling Donbass) get only the briefest of mention (if ever, which is rare that it is discussed at all).

I read enough of his articles in 10 minutes to see that everything that I read of his, met the above description exactly.

He gives Donbass barely a mention, and "genocidal Nazi's shelling Donbass" didn't seem to get mentioned at all.

Those kinds of articles is exactly why I posted this thread - because such articles are extremely misleading at best and more than usually entirely misinformed.

I would argue with Mearsheimer if he was here.

But he's not.

What I'm not gonna do, is waste my time "educating myself" from a person that effectively shares the same opinion as 99% of everyone else in the world. The only thing that seems unique about his position, is he (accurately) places the blame on the west instead of Putin. Otherwise it's the same old stuff as everybody else.

[jmdrake]

"Want"

Putin probably wants a pony but he's not gonna start a war over it.

This thread isn't about what he wants, it's about why he invaded Ukraine, which is much more accurately summarized as "genocidal Nazis shelling Russians" than "NATO expansion"

We're on the same page. However we got there, we're on the same page. Putin isn't worried about Sweden and Finland and Poland and (fill in the blank) joining NATO.

[TheTexan]

Further proof that Putin's decision to invade was never about Ukraine potentially being part of NATO:

Old video from April, see 4:05 through 5:01. Blinken explains why negotiations prior to the special operation fell apart. "It is abundantly clear, in President Putin's own words, that this was never about Ukraine potentially being part of NATO, ..."

And I'm not trying to dig on Rand specifically here because goddamn near every libertarian is guilty of the same ignorance, but Rand's position below is a good example of why I created this thread in the first place.

A productive conversation on the conflict in Ukraine cannot be had when nearly every other word that comes out of someone's mouth is "NATO"

[pcosmar]

Further proof that Putin's decision to invade was never about Ukraine potentially being part of NATO:

I would substantially agree,, but the NATO arming and training of the Provocateurs in Ukraine had be some of the consideration.

Provocation by proxy.

[vita3]

It’s almost always about $$$$$$

Rearming Ukraine with NATO weapons over old Soviet weapons may be a factor....

BTW what percentage of Americans know that Ukraine was strongest, biggest most well armed fighting force in Europe, 6 months ago?

4%?

[TheTexan]

I would substantially agree,, but the NATO arming and training of the Provocateurs in Ukraine had be some of the consideration.

Provocation by proxy.

Yes, NATO or western intervention more generally was absolutely a significant factor in the creation of this cluster$#@!. But once the cluster$#@! is created, it doesn't really matter who created it, it needs to be cleaned up first and foremost. If NATO neutrality is part of any peace negotiations its only to prevent future clusterfucks from being created.

[TheTexan]

It’s almost always about $$$$$$

Rearming Ukraine with NATO weapons over old Soviet weapons may be a factor....

BTW what percentage of Americans know that Ukraine was strongest, biggest most well armed fighting force in Europe, 6 months ago?

4%?

Correct

[pcosmar]

BTW what percentage of Americans know that Ukraine was strongest, biggest most well armed fighting force in Europe, 6 months ago?

Yes,they were legends in their own minds.

Thousands convinced that a 3rd world Podunk could Defeat a World Power ..

their Reality sucks.

[TheTexan]

Tucker @2:00 once again shows that he knows nothing about the motivations for this conflict.

He says that Russia was on the verge of making an agreement to leave Ukraine if they agreed to never join NATO, and it fell apart because the west didn't want them to come to an agreement.

No, Tucker... the agreement fell apart because Russia would never agree to a peace agreement that doesn't include Russian annexation/control of the Donbass.

Zelensky doesn't even care if Ukraine agrees to never join NATO or not, it's never been important to him. He would agree to it in a heartbeat if it meant that his precious sovereign borders were restored.

[sparebulb]

For all of the Jordan Peterson fanbois, here is a good clip of where his macro views are correct, but he's totally missed the storyline regarding Ukraine and he lets Piers gaslight the audience.

Disclaimer: I've never liked Jordan Peterson and find him overrated, at best.

[showpan]

I disagree. The UkNazi's would never stop killing Donbass even if Ukraine were to join NATO because their western backers (US) would continue to support such atrocities. Once Ukraine had joined NATO, then any retaliatory strikes would mean the possibility of hitting NATO and US troops stationed there. Putin had NO choice but to intervene now. The people of Donbass have been begging for Russia protection since 2014. Prior to Brandon, there was no real concern that UkNazi would be accepted into NATO, now there is. It's a very legitimate concern and NATO is definitely a part of the reason for Putin's actions.

[TheTexan]

I disagree. The UkNazi's would never stop killing Donbass even if Ukraine were to join NATO because their western backers (US) would continue to support such atrocities. Once Ukraine had joined NATO, then any retaliatory strikes would mean the possibility of hitting NATO and US troops stationed there. Putin had NO choice but to intervene now. The people of Donbass have been begging for Russia protection since 2014. Prior to Brandon, there was no real concern that UkNazi would be accepted into NATO, now there is. It's a very legitimate concern and NATO is definitely a part of the reason for Putin's actions.

You seem to be making the " @jmdrake " argument. Which is an argument that I don't take issue with. The crux of his/your point is that NATO forced Putin's hand from a timing perspective.

Which is a wholly different thing than how Tucker Carlson above (and Rand, Massie, etc) understand it.

They think that NATO is the only issue at stake. They think that if Ukraine were to promise never to join NATO, that would be sufficient for a peace agreement, because they think the only thing Russia cares about is NATO.

NATO isn't even the primary concern for Russia. The security and safety of the Russian people in Donbass has always been the primary concern.

To the extent that NATO is a factor in this conflict, it's only because NATO threatens the security and stability of Russians in Donbass.

If you look at the Minsk agreements, these were focused solely on the safety and security of the Russians in Donbass. NATO is not even mentioned in the agreements.

Even Anthony Blinken knows this (see above)

[TheTexan]

For all of the Jordan Peterson fanbois, here is a good clip of where his macro views are correct, but he's totally missed the storyline regarding Ukraine and he lets Piers gaslight the audience.

Disclaimer: I've never liked Jordan Peterson and find him overrated, at best.

Yep, another excellent example of why I created this thread.

Pretty much everyone in the public sphere has no $#@!in clue what's going on about Ukraine.

[acptulsa]

Yep, another excellent example of why I created this thread.

Pretty much everyone in the public sphere has no $#@!in clue what's going on about Ukraine.

Or if they do, they sure aren't letting anyone in on it. Or even letting anyone suspect that they know.