And then there's Raymond Geuss' lovely little piece, which can be rewritten line-by-line, replacing Al-Qaeda with Putin, and US troops in Saudi Arabia with NATO expansion:

One normal way of going about determining why someone did something is to ask the person in question. The question why Al-Qaeda bombed the Pentagon and the World Trade Center has a relatively clear answer: “They say they did it because of U.S. support for the corrupt Saudi monarchy and the garrisoning of American troops in Saudi Arabia.” One might then expect people to start asking why U.S. troops should be in Saudi Arabia anyway, why exactly control of this region is so important, and finally, how much real power the United States has and how it can be best deployed. Instead public discussion almost immediately began to focus on elaborating various fantasies about Islamic fundamentalism, “their” hatred of “our” values, freedom, and way of life, etc.

The creation of imaginary hate figures may give some immediate psychic satisfaction, but in the long run it only spreads and increases confusion and aggression. Troops can in principle be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, policy toward the Saudi monarchy can change, but how can one deal in a satisfactory way with inherently spectral “Islamic terror”? It no doubt suits some political circles in the United States that the population continue to be fearful, mystified, and frustrated, the better to gain their acquiescence in various further military operations, but it is hard to believe that this kind of emotional and cognitive derangement of the population contributes to increasing U.S. political power.

Fantasizing about the mad-King Putin and his billionaires does have the disadvantage of being a little less spectral than 'Islamic terror', although 'Russian terror' will probably do the same job, I guess.

Saudi monarchy

They are the good guys, on the right side of history, and also supplying oil. I don't see anything wrong with the Saudi monarchy - Saudi Arabia comes across as a wealthy, progressive nation.

Don't believe me? Here is CNN in one instance:

Saudi Arabia Fast Facts | CNN

cnn.comhttps://www.cnn.com › 2015 › 04 › 01 › middleeast › saudi-arabia-fast-facts › index.html

Apr 1, 2015 Read CNN's Fast Facts about Saudi Arabia and learn more about the oil-rich, Middle Eastern kingdom, home to Islam's holiest cities, Mecca and Medina.

Can you read what I wrote? — Christoffer

I quoted what you wrote at the head of my post.

people who actually research Russia and Putin's presidency for a living, point towards how Putin's motivations relate to the expansion of Russia, not to the fantasy of a Nato invasion. — Christoffer

Its clearly false. They point to how Putin's motivations relate other issues such as the threat of NATO.

I'm not going to repeat the flaw in your argument because if you didn't understand it when @StreetlightX explained it, I don't imagine I'd have any greater success.

can you conclude that Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway? — Christoffer

No.

Can you conclude that Russia would have invaded anyway?

No.

So where does that get us?

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. — Christoffer

Well, that may be, but since you not provided us with a shred of evidence for anything you've asserted so far, I guess we'll have to remain in chair-clutching suspense. You old tease, you.

Do you think that makes bombing the Saltivka residential district, killing Romanchenko, right? — jorndoe

Why would I think that?

(This was sort of a "meaningless" comment, ↪Benkei
.) — jorndoe

If you don't understand a comment, you can just ask.

the quote is outdated. And so are your other quotes as well. — Olivier5

Well, Lyne spoke last year and Beebe in January, but whatever...

What dates do you have for all the other sources I cited, you must know them pretty intimately to be able to declare them all out if date?

And, more importantly, perhaps, what exactly dates them? Has NATO retreated? Has Russia had a change of heart about it?

And as we all know, Josef Mengele was an American of Ukrainian origins, who never read Tolstoï. That should tell you something. — Olivier5

Oh yea. He'd never even heard of Dostoevsky.

What a lot of these "Putin bad" people don't get is that it's not Russians invading Ukraine. It's Americans! They're all blond, blue eyed, neo nazi Americans.

That's what's so dastardly about the whole thing. :grimace:

And what's really interesting is that the MOSSAD is not saying a thing... What are they hidding?

And what's really interesting is that the MOSSAD is not saying a thing... What are they hidding? — Olivier5

They're in on it. No doubt about it. George Soros, man. It all links up.

They're in on it. No doubt about it. George Soros, man. It all links up. — frank

Yep. The only thing I'm still unclear about is how the 9/11 hoax and pizzagate fit in all this.

We'd probably need to get that directly from QAnon. :razz:

:starstruck:

Has NATO retreated? — Isaac

As already mentioned:

Georgia and Ukraine are not in NATO and there are no current efforts to bring them in. — Olivier5

Scholz said there were no plans to accept Ukraine into NATO, and

"That is why it is [peculiar] that the Russian government is making something that is practically not on the agenda the subject of major political problems"

following the Russian military invasion in Ukraine and parliamentary elections in October 2014, the new government made joining NATO a priority.On 21 February 2019, the Constitution of Ukraine was amended, the norms on the strategic course of Ukraine for membership in the European Union and NATO are enshrined in the preamble of the Basic Law, three articles and transitional provisions. — Wiki

At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference. — Wiki

Scholz was in damage control mode on 22 Feb, because on 14 Feb he said all countries have the right to choose their alliances freely, and the principle is not negotiable. That pissed off the Finnish.

Zelensky also clearly stated before the invasion that he had no hopes for joining NATO.

I think you might be on the verge of being semi-reasonable about this if you accept the above statement. :eyes:

As already mentioned:

Georgia and Ukraine are not in NATO and there are no current efforts to bring them in. — Olivier5 — Olivier5

So...you think all the experts cited didn't know that? What relevance does their exclusion have for the argument?

To remind you. It was claimed that...

people who actually research Russia and Putin's presidency for a living, point towards how Putin's motivations relate to the expansion of Russia, not to the fantasy of a Nato invasion. — Christoffer

I responded by citing a large number of experts who don't believe Putin's motivations relate solely to the expansion of Russia, but rather to the threat from NATO expansion.

You tried to claim my sources were out of date (without providing any relevant dates). Then you claimed that Georgia and Ukraine were not being considered for membership.

Given that all the experts I cited know this and yet still thought NATO expansion a motivating factor, I fail to see the relevance.

before getting into the substance of that, why don't you share a source?

Zelensky also clearly stated before the invasion that he had no hopes for joining NATO. — frank

When does he say this before the invasion?

He's said, after the invasion, that he's been "cold on NATO" for a while.

And, also, I think just yesterday, said pretty clearly that he asked NATO to tell him when they could actually join, or to say no clearly, and that NATO told him that Ukraine would never be allowed to join, but the door would be left open publicly.

This is after the invasion.

Before the invasion and the first week, I only remember ever seeing a defense of Ukraine's "right" to join NATO.

Do you have a citation of Zelensky that he had no hopes of joining NATO stated before the invasion?

Zelensky also clearly stated before the invasion that he had no hopes for joining NATO. — frank

Putin clearly stated before the invasion that he was only conducting a 'special operation' to de-nazify the independent regions.

Do you even know how diplomacy works?

I hate to break your little Disney version of the world, but global leaders lie.

Oh and Santa Claus isn't real either I'm afraid.

before getting into the substance of that, why don't you share a source? — Benkei

Here.

Sorry guys, but if you wanted to discuss this sanely, you should have demonstrated that earlier. I can't deal with either of you.

same article :

His comments caused a stir, and the Ukrainian government quickly sought to clarify the matter. The spokesman for Ukraine’s foreign ministry, Oleh Nikolenko, tweeted that Mr. Prystaiko’s comments had been reported out of context. “Ukraine’s position remains unchanged,” he said. “The goal of NATO membership is enshrined in the constitution.”

And he didn't state no hope of joining but he would consider letting the plan go if it would avoid war.

In any case, Zelensky's statement can't set aside the constitution or change established NATO policy.

And he didn't state no hope of joining but he would consider letting the plan go if it would avoid war. — Benkei

Ok.

In any case, Zelensky's statement can't set aside the constitution or change established NATO policy. — Benkei

Correct.

Literally the first paragraph of your source...

For Ukraine, joining the NATO security alliance is an aspiration enshrined in its constitution. And although Western leaders say membership is at best a distant prospect at best, Russia regards even the possibility as an existential threat.

...explains exactly the point being so rabidly denied. That the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was something Russia viewed as a threat.

considering all the shit you raised about how important it was to get the facts straight (funding arms, not donating arms, remember?) and all the later shit about the word 'provoked'. To now claim that

"Maybe the question of open doors is for us like a dream.” While emphasizing that NATO membership “is for our security and it is in the constitution,”

...is the same as...

"clearly stated before the invasion that he had no hopes for joining NATO"

...is bullshit.

Zelensky's soundbite there is all over the news. I specifically picked an article that mentions it in the context of the Ukrainian constitution. Pundits say interpreting that statement (which is directed to Ukrainians) requires that context.

following the Russian military invasion in Ukraine and parliamentary elections in October 2014, the new government made joining NATO a priority. — Wiki

Point well taken, I was not aware of that. Note that it happened after the first Russian invasion though. That a country being invaded would seek alliances is somewhat natural.

Point well taken, I was not aware of that. Note that it happened after the first Russian invasion though. That a country being invaded would seek alliances is somewhat natural. — Olivier5

Ah. So I did know Zelensky had tried to emergently join, and I thought it was obvious why.

He's since let that go.

Zelensky just made clear yesterday that the constitutional questions would need to be done through the constitutional process ... with a referendum.

So what Zelensky says as a soundbite is entirely meaningless.

Of course, NATO, been made up of sovereign nations, could have easily signed a treaty with Russia that Ukraine would not join NATO, regardless of what Ukrainian constitution said.

However, that idea was rejected by all parties, including Zelensky saying things "nothing decided about Ukraine without Ukraine", because it was important to uphold and also fight (except for NATO who wouldn't be doing any of the actual fighting) for the "right" to join NATO.

NATO was pretty clear that it stood by Ukraine's right to join NATO ... even if it couldn't actually join NATO.

"Solidarity brother, I mean sister" was I believe an exact paraphrase of the NATO position.

So what Zelensky says as a soundbite is entirely meaningless. — boethius

Not entirely. But kudos for noticing the constitutional situation. Very reasonable of you.

Point well taken, I was not aware of that. Note that it happened after the first Russian invasion though. That a country being invaded would seek alliances is somewhat natural. — Olivier5

No one criticizes Ukraine for wanting to join NATO and seeking to join NATO.

The problem is they aren't actually in NATO ... and maybe should have negotiated actually getting into NATO before "flexing" about it.