Your obsession with my posts is unhealthy and maybe you should get that checked out. Just saying.

That's two in a row! What? Is Twitter down? jk

Every single one on this list and the previous one has implicated NATO expansion as the main provocation for war in Ukraine. — Isaac

Quote them, then, if you think it can help your argument. Name dropping ain't enough, for your words are worth little.

The "facts" are either what Putin says directly, which is undoubtedly the most unreliable source for any kind of fact, or a historic fact with the rhetorical suffix that it somehow connects to such motivations without any real connection established. — Christoffer

Missed this gem.

So what Putin says and what Putin does are consigned to the wastebasket as far as evidence is concerned. What's far more compelling is what you think he thinks.

:lol:

Quote them, then, — Olivier5

I already have, but sure...

In 1998 George Kennan warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia"

Henry Kissinger here https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome. — John Mearsheimer

[NATO expansion is] the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed — Jack Matlock

if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential — Stephen Cohen

NATO enlargement is utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine, and of global peace, should be calling for a US and NATO compromise with Russia. — Jefferey Sachs

I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests — Bill Burns

How many do you want?

What bothers me is that while the US is actively bombing Iraq, killing children, orphaning children, and giving children a charred wreck to grow up in, this is the time to clearly condemn the US and Bush in particular if it turns out he made this decision against the will of his own government and people.

There will be plenty of time later to analyze how the US was provoked, which UN inspectors warned that Iraq was hiding something, why geopolitically, the war seemed to make sense before it all fell to pieces in an ISIS nightmare.

You know?

I wanted those you mentioned, but now you decided to quote some other random guys...

I happen to know Jeffrey Sachs. He's a nice guy but never found a cliché he could resist, and is in part responsible for ruining post communist Russia through shock therapy. He bears some responsibility in my view.

Cohen liked Putin a lot. People make mistakes.

Matlock and Mearsheimer are I believe bright and respectable. But I don't see the "provoked" word in their quote.

It's one thing to say the US fucked up, another to say they provoked this war. The latter is a much graver accusation which implies that other players have no agency.

the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia — Malcolm Fraser

Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation" — Former US defense secretary Bob Gates

[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level. If you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it. — Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia

Your turn. The experts concluding that

There was no provocation ... It's all on Putin. — Olivier5

...?

I blame the Iraq war on the French, who lacked the moral ingenuity to shoot first and think later... The French were absolutely disgusting in their defence of the right of the Iraqi people to leave in peace. Freedom fries!

Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation" — Former US defense secretary Bob Gates

That critique pertains to the Bush administration, right? Or Clinton? Because Georgia and Ukraine are not in NATO and there are no current efforts to bring them in. So the quote is outdated. And so are your other quotes as well.

In 2022, there wasn't any threat to Russia nor any provocation by NATO, and yet a war was started.

By whom? Nobody seems to know...

lacked the moral ingenuity to shoot first and think later... The French were absolutely disgusting in their defence of the right of the Iraqi people — Olivier5

So true. The French seemed to be friends of the Iraqi children, but they were really more like drug dealers, getting those children killed. Or more killed. More severely blown up than otherwise we would expect from a full scale invasion.

The French seemed to be friends of the Iraqi children, but they were really more like drug dealers, getting those children killed. — frank

Exactly. It's by the fault of the French that Americans and Brits had to kill so many Iraqis, including them kids. Because you see, the French tried to meddle in the US sphere of influence. Tsk tsk tsk. One million Iraqi deaths later, they still haven't learnt from their mistake.

the French tried to meddle in the US sphere of influence. — Olivier5

Well, the US is just a giant killing machine. If you piss it off, you get what you deserve. Obviously.

the US is just a giant killing machine. — frank

As we can see in Ukraine right now... The Americans are bombing a lot of cities there, you know?

I mean, provoking such bombing, I think... or wait, perhaps they even bomb themselves, I don't remember what my FSB handler said.

I think you meant to say that America is financing neo-nazi chemical warfare plants in Ukraine. Or biological warfare. But then, anthrax is actually made of chemicals, so it's probably the same thing.

So George Kenan, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Cohen, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Vladimir Pozner,Jeffrey Sachs, former United Nations Under-Secretary-General Pino Arlacchi, former CIA director Bill Burns, former US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates...

These are all what now? Non-experts on Russia? — Isaac

Can you read what I wrote? And then understand what I wrote?

It's this inability to actually make coherent arguments where premises (facts) actually relate to the conclusion that creates a mess of a discussion where people just cite historical facts as premises for conclusions of their own opinion. — Christoffer

Fact: Nato is expanding.
Fact: Russia doesn't like it.
Fact (based on these experts): Nato expansion could lead to a response by Russia.

Conclusion (yours and others): Nato is partly responsible for the invasion.

Counter-argument (mine): No premise denies the possibility that an invasion would have happened anyway (logic). If an invasion would have happened anyway, there's no responsibility for Nato in this invasion (logic).

This creates a hole in the argument people make about Nato's blame, a hole that needs to be plugged before continuing any other argument using Nato's responsibility as a factual conclusion (which is done over and over, using that conclusion as a premise for everything else being said).

I then ask for further premises to back up that the expansion of Nato, led to the invasion of Ukraine. So far, such premises haven't been presented. This means you can't draw a definitive conclusion of Nato's responsibility. The fact that the expansion of Nato provokes Russia, does not equal Russia's motivations and plans for invasions to be because of Nato's expansion. It can, as I've said numerous times, be the logical outcome that a nation Russia wants to invade and overtake becomes blocked by becoming a Nato member and therefore Russia invades sooner rather than later.

What this means is that Nato might unintentionally provoke an earlier reaction, but the act could most likely happen anyway. This possible conclusion makes it impossible to establish that Nato is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. Even outside of the fact that Russia's act is still made by them and cannot be blamed on provocation when no military provocation has been done. And since many of the surrounding nations have been fearing a future invasion of their nation, they have been seeking security through Nato, which means that the aggression and the motivations and fears all originate from Russia's acts and behaviors, not Nato.

Every single one on this list and the previous one has implicated NATO expansion as the main provocation for war in Ukraine. — Isaac

Yes, but can you conclude that Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway? Would aggressions and previous provocation of Russia over the years against their neighboring nations that led to them seeking security with Nato be another causality factor? So:

1. Soviet Union falls.
2. Neighboring nations seek independence.
3. Russia acts aggressively against these nations, claiming they should be part of Russia or exist under Russia's regime. (aiming to invade or gain control in some way)
4. Neighboring nations seek security from these aggressions by joining Nato or asking to join Nato.
5. Neighboring nations joining Nato provokes Russia.
6. Russia invades.

So far, the causality you propose starts with point 5, not point 2. How then, does Nato become the one provoking? The fact that Russia "feels provoked" and that these experts state that fact, does not equal Nato being to blame for the invasion. There has to be a definitive conclusion that an invasion would not have happened without Russia "feeling provoked", which isn't established and also ignoring a causality of provocations that first starts with Russia provoking neighboring nations.

The problem isn't the experts, the individual facts, it's how those facts are put into a deduction by you and others who ignore logical gaps and other factors to the extent that you continue to build arguments that use your previous faulty deduction as a matter of fact.

You can't list experts' facts when the problem I point to has to do with the deduction you're doing using those facts. Gaps in logic don't fill up by just reciting facts you used wrongly in the first place.

So what Putin says and what Putin does are consigned to the wastebasket as far as evidence is concerned. What's far more compelling is what you think he thinks. — Isaac

You can induce a lot by looking at what someone says in contrast to what he does. Combining that with the research into his regime, there are a lot of puzzle pieces fitting together far better than much of the logical gap crap some people spew out over hundreds of pages in this thread. It at least pokes holes in the logic of your conclusions.

Counter-argument (mine): No premise denies the possibility that an invasion would have happened anyway (logic). If an invasion would have happened anyway, there's no responsibility for Nato in this invasion (logic). — Christoffer

Lol.

"If I disregard everything and assume my conclusion from the beginning, then I am correct".

Saved everyone from reading the ramble above.

My worry is that we don't agree here even on what constitutes provocation.

, rt·com is run out of Moscow (you can call them at +7-4997500075, by the way).
Not banned, not here at least.

Over a thousand children died from completely preventable consequences of poverty just in the time since you posted that picture. — Isaac

Do you think that makes bombing the Saltivka residential district, killing Romanchenko, right?
Putin's disrespect, like a loose cannon, contributes to the worry of the nuclear scenario and to resentment of Putin, as well it should.
Great, what we need is another disrespecting, authoritarian top-bully with ☢ ☣ :death: :fire: and a Москва imperial vision, almost leisurely kicking others around.
(This was sort of a "meaningless" comment, .)

Lol.

"If I disregard everything and assume my conclusion from the beginning, then I am correct".

Saved everyone from reading the ramble above. — StreetlightX

Except it was just part of my argument. As well as you totally not fucking understanding what I write as usual. If I point out a hole in the logic of someone's argument, that isn't me saying "my conclusion is right", it's me saying "your conclusion is not solid enough to be right". If all you are doing is to make these kinds of low-quality posts in response to what I write, then do me a favor and just stop, just ignore what I write, ok?

(1) Unicorn monkeys have inflected Putin's brain with rainbows (which have made him mad).
(2) No one has yet precluded the possibility of unicorn monkeys infecting Putin's brain with rainbows.
(3) You can't draw a definitive conclusion that unicorn monkeys have not infected Putin's brains with rainbows (which have made him mad).

QED.

My worry is that we don't agree here even on what constitutes provocation. — FreeEmotion

1. Soviet Union falls.
2. Neighboring nations seek independence.
3. Russia acts aggressively against these nations, claiming they should be part of Russia or exist under Russia's regime. (aiming to invade or gain control in some way)
4. Neighboring nations seek security from these aggressions by joining Nato or asking to join Nato.
5. Neighboring nations joining Nato provokes Russia.
6. Russia invades. — Christoffer

Most seem to just focus on point 5 and the result in point 6. What about Russia provoking neighboring nations into wanting to join or joining Nato, indirectly expanding Nato east? So if we're talking about provocations here, who actually provoked who here?

(1) Unicorn monkeys have inflected Putin's brain with rainbows (which have made him mad).
(2) No one has yet precluded the possibility of unicorn monkeys infecting Putin's brain with rainbows.
(3) You can't draw a definitive conclusion that unicorn monkeys have not infected Putin's brains with rainbows (which have made him mad).

QED. — StreetlightX

Are you unable to do anything but kneejerk posts?

1.
Is there enough evidence to conclude the possibility that Russia would have invaded Ukraine anyway?
Yes or no?

If yes, how can Nato be blamed for the invasion of Ukraine?

2.
Is there enough evidence to conclude that neighboring nations have felt threatened by Russia over the years since the Soviet Union fell?
Yes or no?

If yes, how does them joining Nato be the provocation to blame for the invasion and not the initial provocation by Russia?

3.
"Nato expanding east could lead to actions by Russia" is a fact that's been used as a premise over and over in here.

How does this fact lead to "Nato is to blame for the invasion of Ukraine" when taking into consideration points 1 and 2.

Is there enough evidence to conclude the possibility that Russia would have invaded Ukraine anyway?

Yes or no? — Christoffer

This is dumb. Just pulling a counterfactual out of thin air then saying ha ha you can't prove it would or wouldn't have happened is meaningless and trivial. Anything can count as 'possible' if you fantasize hard enough about it. The question is why anyone should take these "possibilities" seriously in a way that does not just build in your conclusion at the outset.

This is dumb. Just pulling a counterfactual out of thin air then saying ha ha you can't prove it wouldn't have happened is stupid and meaningless and trivial. — StreetlightX

What is stupid are your kneejerk responses. I asked you for yes and no answers. I asked if there's enough evidence to draw a conclusion of a possible other outcome. Which if true, would have poked holes in the argument for Nato to be blamed, not to prove some conclusions about the possible other outcome being true. You just don't seem to understand the difference between the two or just keep intentionally misunderstanding in order to bully your way forward, ugh. Fucking waste of time you are.

The existence of a possible other outcome means there can't be a true conclusion to arguments just pointing the blame at Nato. Would you say that through all the Russian empire loving delusions dug up around Putin and his strong men, such a possible outcome of an invasion anyway is off the table? Out of thin air? Or just conveniently ignored?

And if you agree with yes on point 2, then how can Nato be blamed anyway if the provocation began with Russia provoking neighboring nations and not Nato provoking Russia? Are you saying that Russia hasn't provoked other nations? Are you saying that Russia hasn't broken air space intentionally as they recently did in Sweden? If we in Sweden see this as a provocation by Russia and therefore we join Nato to secure ourselves from the Russian provocations, does that mean that Nato is provoking Russia by expanding east through Sweden joining? What's "out of thin air" here?

You just don't seem to actually care to read what is being written, just puke out your kneejerk answers without even an inch of engagement. May I predict a similar answer as before? I don't have any proof you will, I'm just inducing the possibility based on analyzing behavior and previous events.

I asked if there's enough evidence to draw a conclusion of a possible other outcome. — Christoffer

And I said this is irrelevant.

And I said this is irrelevant. — StreetlightX

You just don't seem to actually care to read what is being written, just puke out your kneejerk answers without even an inch of engagement. May I predict a similar answer as before? I don't have any proof you will, I'm just inducing the possibility based on analyzing behavior and previous events. — Christoffer

Oh the irony

America is financing neo-nazi chemical warfare plants in Ukraine — frank

That sounds so crazy that it must be true. And as we all know, Josef Mengele was an American of Ukrainian origins, who never read Tolstoï. That should tell you something. (wink wink)

After 9/11, Judith Butler wrote a depressing piece in which she had to explain - to idiots apparently far more numerous than could have been imagined - that explanation is not, in fact, exoneration. It's equally depressing to read it today:

The Left 's response to the war waged in Afghanistan ran into serious problems, in part because the explanations that the Left has provided to the question "Why do they hate us so much? " were dismissed as so many exonerations of the acts of terror themselves. This does not need to be the case. I think we can see, however, how moralistic anti-intellectual trends coupled with a distrust of the Left as so many self-flagellating First World elites has produced a situation in which our very capacity to think about the grounds and causes of the current global conflict is considered impermissible. The cry that "there is no excuse for September 11" has become a means by which to stifle any serious public discussion of how US foreign policy has helped to create a world in which such acts of terror are possible.

We see this most dramatically in the suspension of any attempt to offer balanced reporting on the international conflict, the refusal to include important critiques of the US military effort by Arundhati Roy and Noam Chomsky, for instance, within the mainstream US press. This takes place in tandem with the unprecedented suspension of civil liberties for illegal immigrants and suspected terrorists, and the use of the flag as an ambiguous sign of solidarity with those lost on September 11 and with the current war, as if the sympathy with the one translates, in a single symbolic stroke, into support for the latter. — Judith Butler, Explanation and Exoneration

Considering that the US shortly after carried out a slow-motion holocaust in the Middle East, it's sad to note that few seemed to have learnt anything.