Good to see the meds arrived.
Those of us who both have spent this entire life every day waking up to to learn, and as well have been on an arduous spiritual journey..... we know what we know....and what we are made of.
GET BENT.
NATO encroachent in Russian Black Sea waters is a war waiting to happen
- Thread starter dukkha
- Start date
Those of us who both have spent this entire life every day waking up to to learn, and as well have been on an arduous spiritual journey..... we know what we know....and what we are made of.
GET BENT.
Alexander Litvinenko was not a spy, but he was a prominent critic of Putin. He maintained that Putin's rise to power had been organized by a faction of the former KGBpoisoning spies is not an act of war.. the UK accused Russia of murder -nothing else..stop the Russiaphobic drama
Russian people are n0t stupid, and they've seen NATO expansion and now the Ukraine in line -
right on Russia's border, with Donbass being a Russian speaking and oriented area.
so this "paranoia" isnt without foundation.
How about we try to integrrate Russia more into the west , instead of treating them only like an existential threat?
*oh nos.. DA RUSSIANS!!*
(of which Litvinenko had been a member, like Putin). In 2000 he sought and was granted political asylum in the UK; in 2006 he became a naturalized British citizen.
In November 2006 Litvinenko fell ill after meeting with two Russians in central London. He died of radioactive poisoning three weeks later.
These events, if ordered by the Kremlin, could not be construed an act of war? If you say so ...
Where have you been? That's exactly what western nations were trying to do around 2000, before the expansion of Nato. Then came PUTIN. Integration has to work both ways, and he wanted nothing to do with it.
Twenty years later, you want us to try for more integration?
How the fuck does a former Soviet/now Brit living in Britain spy for Britain? Or is the claim he was spying for Russia in Britain and Putin was committing another murder to clean house?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko#Allegations
Yes, Putin murdering a British citizen is an act of war. No one is going to go nuclear over a murder, even a Brit spilling the goods on Putin and his thugs.
One day a Russian patriot will stand up, walk up and blow a 9mm hole just behind Putin's ear. Do any JPP members believe that could ever be anatta/dukkha? Me neither. LOL
2000 Putin was talking about joining NATO "who knows" he said.
Does that sound like someone who wanted nothing to do with detente?
2009 Here is the infamous Russian reset button (misspelled as 'overloaded' ) but Hillary and Lavrov were serious about better relations
The US screwed up the Euromaidan "just because" they could, and forced Russia to secure Sevastopol access
after Poroshenko threatened the lease
Seems the west has been throwing up roadblocks to improving relations.
I wont even go into the fake poisonous Russian collusion hysteria
Nothing more need be said..All true but: Look what the USA has done since then.. Not even going to name off the long, long list from Iran, Vietnam-Grenada, Libya & Baghdad etc... & the lest goes on..
The sad thing is also the obvious thing- we judge our selves by "our good intentions" & our "foes" by their actions...
The USA/West did nothing while China & gobbled up Tibet & Russia gobbled up the Northern Part of Japan, for years China prosecuted Muslims, Buddhist & Christians, Falun Gong & nothing was said......
do you get Chechnya terrorists? The separatist movement is kind of the same as Ukraine in Donbass, and Chechnya has long been part of the Russian empire/USSR
The speech is a nationalist speech - it also shows Putin wanted to be European oriented.
We stopped all that with NATO expansion -much more important than any speech, Baker lied to Gorbachev
and now Ukraine is on the list of NATO expansion.
Putin mentioned to Biden Russia feels "surrounded".. Biden was too busy drooling to respond
friend of mine went to Grenada post US role.. said the people wanted us there.
so maybe that wasnt a fiasco like the rest
The canon of international law developed after 1945 did not end war. I do not think it ever promised to end war.
But it ended the world wide conflagrations of the first half of the 20th century, and it significantly curtailed the propensity and frequency of stronger nations invading weaker neighbors and grabbing their territory.
maybe. I think WWII just ended the Eurowars -after all WWII was caused in part by the Treaty of Versailles . The borders were settled after and then came the end of colonialism - which also stopped land grabs
But teh smaller wars continue for land/independence
Russia has steadfastly opposed NATO expansion. Virtually all political forces within the country view this policy as an encirclement, a containment that will lead to greater isolation. Thus, Russia is particularly sensitive about the inclusion of bordering countries–the Baltics, Ukraine, Moldova. Should the Baltic countries join NATO, Russian officials hinted that they would counter with troop concentrations or tactical nuclear weapons on the border, thus decreasing, not increasing, security in the region. The Yeltsin government also threatened to scuttle key arms control agreements such as START II, CFE, and INF. Since Russia poses a considerably diminished security threat to Europe (see In Focus: U.S.-Russian Relations), expansion is an aggressive act that threatens to undo decades of security cooperation and tilt Russia closer toward considering an anti-Western alliance with China or pariah states such as Iraq.
Even if Russia should suddenly change its mind, NATO expansion still represents a step backward for Eastern and Central Europe. On the heels of Soviet withdrawal, expansion would reverse the trend toward demilitarization in the region. New NATO members would have to devote enormous funds to buy the weapons and communication systems necessary to mesh with the Western command structure–an increase by one estimate of at least 60 percent and possibly 80 percent over current military expenditures. These defense budget hikes would put enormous pressure on strained budgets and divert money from the reform of productive sectors at a time when the region is cutting its military spending (Hungary has pared its defense spending by 60 percent since 1988, Poland by 44 percent). Expansion will also undo the steps, however tentative, that these countries have taken toward military conversion.
NATO has promised to pick up some of the bill, but this aid would be earmarked for military expenditures rather than critical economic or civic reform. U.S. policy is driven in part by domestic considerations: new NATO members would be prime markets for U.S. arms exports (F-16 and F-18 fighter aircraft and Cobra attack helicopters have already been offered to the region). Yet, even with NATO subsidies and weapons giveaways from the Pentagon, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Visegrad Four would still be unable to afford the necessary modernization.
The costs to the region are not simply monetary. By admitting certain countries before others, NATO would sharpen already existing divisions in the region–between the more prosperous North and the less prosperous South, between Eastern Europe and the struggling countries of the former Soviet Union. This division in particular threatens Ukraine, whose eastern half contains a large ethnic Russian population. Russia simply cannot countenance the absorption of Ukraine into a Western security alliance. Ukraine itself suspects that it will be allowed to slip into the Russian sphere of influence in exchange for Russia’s approval of Visegrad Four membership in NATO. The Clinton administration’s preference for limited expansion–a “two-community solution”–would draw new lines of demarcation through an already conflicted region.
https://ips-dc.org/the_costs_and_dangers_of_nato_expansion/
Clinton era assessment
Even if Russia should suddenly change its mind, NATO expansion still represents a step backward for Eastern and Central Europe. On the heels of Soviet withdrawal, expansion would reverse the trend toward demilitarization in the region. New NATO members would have to devote enormous funds to buy the weapons and communication systems necessary to mesh with the Western command structure–an increase by one estimate of at least 60 percent and possibly 80 percent over current military expenditures. These defense budget hikes would put enormous pressure on strained budgets and divert money from the reform of productive sectors at a time when the region is cutting its military spending (Hungary has pared its defense spending by 60 percent since 1988, Poland by 44 percent). Expansion will also undo the steps, however tentative, that these countries have taken toward military conversion.
NATO has promised to pick up some of the bill, but this aid would be earmarked for military expenditures rather than critical economic or civic reform. U.S. policy is driven in part by domestic considerations: new NATO members would be prime markets for U.S. arms exports (F-16 and F-18 fighter aircraft and Cobra attack helicopters have already been offered to the region). Yet, even with NATO subsidies and weapons giveaways from the Pentagon, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Visegrad Four would still be unable to afford the necessary modernization.
The costs to the region are not simply monetary. By admitting certain countries before others, NATO would sharpen already existing divisions in the region–between the more prosperous North and the less prosperous South, between Eastern Europe and the struggling countries of the former Soviet Union. This division in particular threatens Ukraine, whose eastern half contains a large ethnic Russian population. Russia simply cannot countenance the absorption of Ukraine into a Western security alliance. Ukraine itself suspects that it will be allowed to slip into the Russian sphere of influence in exchange for Russia’s approval of Visegrad Four membership in NATO. The Clinton administration’s preference for limited expansion–a “two-community solution”–would draw new lines of demarcation through an already conflicted region.
https://ips-dc.org/the_costs_and_dangers_of_nato_expansion/
Clinton era assessment
WW2 was not just a European war spawned by the treaty of Versailles.
First of all, Versailles is no excuse for what Hitler did. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway had virtually nothing to do with Versailles, and they still got invaded.
Soviet Russia was not even a party to Versailles, but they still invaded Finland and Poland.
The Japanese were were waging war on east Asia long before 1939, and the Japanese imperialists cannot blame Versailles for their aggression.
Italy really cannot point to Versailles for their militarism in Africa.
South American wars were relatively frequent prior to the 1930s. Something like the 1930s Chaco War is almost inconceivable today. Venezuela would dearly love to grab territory from Suriname, but the new international order seemingly puts a check on that ambition.
World War 1 did not end with Versailles, the Greco-Turkish wars, the Soviet-Polish war, and various and sundry eastern European conflicts continued unabated after Versailles.
War and militarism was a recurring feature between sovereign states up until 1945.
The new world order after 1946 never promised to end all war, but by any objective measure it prevented any more international conflagrations and it reduced the frequency of stronger states grabbing territory from weaker ones.
When the invasion took place I had a very good friend from there, I hung out w/ many "West Indians"- he was a HS teacher & somewhat ambivalent of the "revolution" aka the overthrow of Sir Eric Gairy-best known @ the time for his UFO speech @ the UN..
Maurice & a few boys, & they were very few, were able to take over the place eventhough they didn't know what they were doing..
The premise, from what I recall was they were building a commie air strip
(Reagan rolls in grave @ commie china controlling/invading usa/world economics) when in fact it was for tourism & there was never any threat to the medical school(Ronnie's gulf on Tonkin incident)...While he had sympathy for getting rid of the kook Gairy, he would often mock "the revolution" & many of the symbols & new jargon.. My favorite was "can I l[liberate] a smoke", this or that..
There was prob more threat in Panama, not from Noriega, but from it turning into present day Mexico & the gangs, which I doubt Bush even considered..
That a local (reliant of tourist money) would tell an American or any tourist what they wanted to hear isn't surprising, is it??
When the invasion took place I had a very good friend from there, I hung out w/ many "West Indians"- he was a HS teacher & somewhat ambivalent of the "revolution" aka the overthrow of Sir Eric Gairy-best known @ the time for his UFO speech @ the UN..
Maurice & a few boys, & they were very few, were able to take over the place eventhough they didn't know what they were doing..
The premise, from what I recall was they were building a commie air strip
While he had sympathy for getting rid of the kook Gairy, he would often mock "the revolution" & many of the symbols & new jargon.. My favorite was "can I l[liberate] a smoke", this or that..
There was prob more threat in Panama, not from Noriega, but from it turning into present day Mexico & the gangs, which I doubt Bush even considered..
That a local (reliant of tourist money) would tell an American or any tourist what they wanted to hear isn't surprising, is it??
thanks great info. But them commie Cubans were building the runway.....gotta invade
China invaded Tibet in the early 50's.......... They did nothing..
I am not taking issue w/ the Pax Americana but rather the opportunistic application of "international law".............
The USA has acted w/ impunity......
China as well, I believe there was some ruling on the 9 DASH line -other then that -silence of the S China sea territory.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Tibet refused to become a UN member state. The UN was powerless.
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
Ah yes, the terrorists! In September 1999 Russia was hit by the so-called apartment bombings which killed several hundred in Moscow and other cities. The bombings were attributed to Chechen terrorists. People were terrified.
On September 13 the Chairman of the Russian State Duma, Seleznyov, made an announcement: “I have just received a report ... an apartment building in the city of Volgodonsk was blown up last night.” On September 16 an apartment building in Volgodonsk duly blew up. Seleznyov said it wasn’t the bombing he had announced three days before, it was a different one.
On September 22 three agents of the FSB (formerly KGB) were detained by police in Ryazan after planting a bomb in the basement of an apartment block. The chief of the FSB (a Putin man, naturally) explained it was an exercise to test the alertness of local people. Well done, local people!
At this time Putin was prime minister under Yeltsin. The ending of the terrorist atrocities, and the Second Chechen War that immediately followed, earned him great popularity. He won the presidency in 2000 and never looked back.
Now, I’m not claiming there were no Chechen terrorists, just wondering if Chechens were the only ones. Litvinenko certainly thought they were not responsible for these atrocities, and you know what happened to him.
Yes, the world order and international treaty cannon subsequent to 1945 did not stop all wars and has not been implemented equitably.
On the flip side, on balance it has prevented world wide conflagrations the world experienced from the 30 years war though the Napoleonic era through 1945.