Yes. I'm aware of the agreement Bush Sr.(???) made after the fall of the Berlin wall to not expand NATO "one inch farther" to the east. Then, during the Clinton administration(I think???) that promise/agreement was broken.
— creativesoul

Correct. — Apollodorus

This seems to be the basis of Putin's talk about the west, particularly regarding whether or not the west could be trusted to keep their word. I'm saddened to say that I find the claim that US foreign policies are suspect to be a generally well founded one. However, that fact(and claims about the fact) could also be used as a means to attempt to justify unacceptable aggression for less than honorable aims, and that is what I believe is currently happening.

...it can easily become largely self-sufficient (which is actually a good thing for its economy)... — Apollodorus

Self-sufficiency is a good thing for any and all sovereign nations. Of course, very few have the natural resources necessary to be so, and this has been highlighted and increased by the global economy. The issue of lacking natural resources supports nations working together to their mutual benefit. Unfortunately, this international codependency was fostered and implemented mainly by greed for profit as opposed to mutual benefit of the countries' citizens, and is a large part of the reasons why and how the wealth gap has increased over the last forty years.

You and I clearly have very very different standards for how to treat others, enemies notwithstanding. As I said earlier, your position is based upon an emaciated set of morals. Specifically, how to treat others. — creativesoul

Because believing that one should not approach others in bad faith is ... just egregious!!!!!! Emaciated!!!!

I semi-seriously wonder if the soul of Putin died some decades ago and his body taken over by the malevolent spirit which also animated Josef Stalin, which lurks around the Kremlin waiting for some potential body to inhabit. After all, Putin's high- school teacher couldn't remember Vlad, he was such a colorless and unexceptional pupil. So now he's just become a carrier for that same industrial-scale cruelty and malevolence that his predecessor exhibited. — Wayfarer

And this coming from a Buddhist.

...the West must acknowledge its share of responsibility for the conflict and work toward ending the conflict as soon as possible and in a way that takes Russia’s interests and concerns into consideration. In fact, IMO, it has a moral obligation to do so. — Apollodorus

I'm curious...

What would you suggest be necessarily included for a long lasting treaty between Ukraine and Russia?

You and I clearly have very very different standards for how to treat others, enemies notwithstanding. As I said earlier, your position is based upon an emaciated set of morals. Specifically, how to treat others.
— creativesoul

Because believing that one should not approach others in bad faith is ... just egregious!!!!!! Emaciated!!!! — baker

No. I agree with that.

It's emaciated to believe that one cannot peacefully coexist with their enemies.

It's emaciated to believe that one cannot peacefully coexist with their enemies. — creativesoul

It's narcissistic to unilaterally declare someone one's enemy. It's an act of bad faith. Someone isn't your enemy just because you call them that.

"Peacefully coexisting with your enemies" is narcissistic, patronizing, Western Christian nonsense.

give Tibet back to the Tibetans, Cyprus back to the Cypriots, and Kurdistan back to the Kurds, — Apollodorus

I agree with that. And I would add give back Palestine to the Palestinians, Russia to the Russians, and Ukraine to the Ukrainians.

'm saddened to say that I find the claim that US foreign policies are suspect to be a generally well founded one. However, that fact(and claims about the fact) could also be used as a means to attempt to justify unacceptable aggression for less than honorable aims, and that is what I believe is currently happening. — creativesoul

:up:

Do you think the invasion of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was legitimate too?

And this coming from a Buddhist. — baker

I don't think I've declared myself a Buddhist on this forum, although I have a strong interest in Buddhism, and would appreciate not being stereotyped.

----

Anyway - Putin himself invoked the spirit of the tsar Peter to rationalise his invasion. His actions and murderous disregard for human life are in keeping with the spirit of Josef Stalin also.

I rewatched Ivan the Terrible recently. The language is closer to Putin's than even Stalin's.

With Eisenstein, of course, it is all mixed up with each other.

Do you trust that Putin is an honest goodwilled actor in all this? Does the assassination of his political enemies influence your view? — creativesoul

That's just rhetorical nonsense, isn't it? Presumably, by "goodwilled actor" you mean someone that sucks up to Washington and Wall Street?!

And, of course, you just "happen" to be totally unaware of the numerous US assassination attempts against foreign leaders!

List of assassinations by the United States - Wikipedia

What would you suggest be necessarily included for a long lasting treaty between Ukraine and Russia? — creativesoul

Nothing more than what has already been suggested by experienced and knowledgeable diplomats and analysts: (1) give Crimea and ethnic-Russian parts of Ukraine to Russia and (2) keep Ukraine out of NATO. Unfortunately, this isn't possible unless and until America gets kicked out of Europe, by Europeans.

I agree with that. And I would add give back Palestine to the Palestinians, Russia to the Russians, and Ukraine to the Ukrainians. — Olivier5

1. You may "agree" with that for rhetorical purposes. But you aren't doing it!!! :grin:

2. By all means, give Ukraine to the Ukrainians. But not to NATO and America. And not Crimea and the ethnic-Russian areas.

Do you think the invasion of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was legitimate too? — Olivier5

Again, you're exposing your duplicity and ignorance of history.

The Germans were encircled on all sides by France, Russia, and the British Empire. Stalin had started war preparations against Germany back in 1926, long before Hitler came to power. Stalin's Communist International (COMINTERN) aimed to create a Soviet-controlled United States of Europe. Invading Poland was the logical step toward invading Russia in a defensive war.

And you conveniently forget Poland’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine in 1569:

A major rebellion of self-governed Ukrainian Cossacks inhabiting south-eastern borderlands of the [Polish-Lithuanian] Commonwealth rioted against Polish and Catholic oppression of Orthodox Ukraine in 1648, in what came to be known as the Khmelnytsky Uprising. It resulted in a Ukrainian request, under the terms of the Treaty of Pereyaslav, for protection by the Russian Tsar. In 1651, in the face of a growing threat from Poland, [Ukrainian military commander] Khmelnytsky asked the Tsar to incorporate Ukraine as an autonomous duchy under Russian protection. – Wikipedia

In other words, you haven’t got a clue. Alternatively, you’ve got zero interest in facts, which IMO is even worse ….

It's narcissistic to unilaterally declare someone one's enemy. It's an act of bad faith. Someone isn't your enemy just because you call them that.

"Peacefully coexisting with your enemies" is narcissistic, patronizing, Western Christian nonsense. — baker

You seem to think making shit up and acting as if someone else has said it counts as an appropriate reply, and that name calling counts.

You're arguing with your own imaginary opponent. I've got better things to do. Have fun.

Do you trust that Putin is an honest goodwilled actor in all this? Does the assassination of his political enemies influence your view?
— creativesoul

That's just rhetorical nonsense, isn't it? Presumably, by "goodwilled actor" you mean someone that sucks up to Washington and Wall Street?! — Apollodorus

No, that's not just "rhetorical nonsense", and that is not what I mean by "goodwilled actor".

That's a very disappointing response. I would expect someone so consistently condemning ulterior motives for action as you've been doing when it comes to the US to be someone who also ought be touting the benefits of honest communication about what's happened and/or is happening.

So, what you're saying is that it's OK for America to pursue a policy of assassination of political opponents, but not for Russia!

Anyway, if you find other people's reply to your rhetorical questions "disappointing", then don't bother asking rhetorical questions! :grin:

Not what I'm saying, nor was that a rhetorical question.

Does the assassination of Putin's political opponents(who were Russian citizens) influence your view?

Do you trust that Putin is an honest goodwilled actor in all this?

So, what you're saying is that it's OK for America to pursue a policy of assassination of political opponents, but not for Russia! — Apollodorus

This could be a textbook case of projecting one's beliefs onto others. Given that you have not condemned the behaviours in question when talking about Putin's, it may be highly likely.

Does the assassination of Putin's political opponents(who are Russian citizens) influence your view? — creativesoul

1. You mean "alleged assassination"!

2. Does an alleged "assassination" influence my view on NATO's stated aim of "keeping America in Europe, Russia out, and Germany down"? Of course not. Why on earth should it?

3. NATO was created in 1949. Putin was born in 1952. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Putin isn't responsible for NATO or its constant expansion .... :grin:

1. You may "agree" with that for rhetorical purposes. But you aren't doing it!!! — Apollodorus

You and you love Putin aren't doing it either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. By all means, give Ukraine to the Ukrainians. But not to NATO and America. And not Crimea and the ethnic-Russian areas.

The 'ethnic Russians' are just invaders from previous periods, and Putin is killing a great deal of them anyway. They don't deserve him nor his terror anymore than other Russians do, and would be better off in democratic Ukraine. But you don't give a shit about them. You'd rather have your idol kill more and more of them.

And then you and others whine forever about 'NATO caca'. :vomit:

Again, you're exposing your duplicity and ignorance of history. — Apollodorus

Na, that's what you do. I was just asking a question which you failed to answer. So let me ask again:

Do you think the invasion of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was legitimate too?

A 'yes' or 'no' should suffice.

:)

Again the NATO and Nazi things show to be partial rationales (at best), excuses.

Have to wonder if or to what degree the Russian parliament is on-board with this stuff.

Europe has a Hitler-Nazi fetish!

Have to wonder if or to what degree the Russian parliament is on-board with this stuff. — jorndoe

Does this look like someone who will give a f*** what his 'parliament' thinks? Anyone begs to differ, they'll be demoted or exiled before you can say 'rasputin'.

Ex-PM says Putin 'out of it', Ukraine war could last two years
Issued on: 13/06/2022

Paris (AFP) – He was Vladimir Putin's first prime minister but Mikhail Kasyanov never in his worst nightmares imagined that his former boss would unleash a full-scale war on Ukraine.

Speaking to AFP in a video interview, Kasyanov, Russia's prime minister from 2000 to 2004, said he expected the war could last up to two years but he was convinced Russia could return to a democratic path.

The 64-year-old, who championed close ties with the West as prime minister, said that, like many other Russians, he did not believe in the weeks ahead of the war that it would actually happen.

Kasyanov only understood that Putin was not bluffing when he saw him summon the country's top leadership for a theatrical meeting of the security council three days before the invasion on February 24.

"When I saw the meeting of Russia's Security Council I realised, yes, there will be a war," Kasyanov said.

He added that he felt that Putin was already not thinking properly.

"I just know these people and by looking at them I saw that Putin is already out of it. Not in a medical sense but in political terms," he said.

"I knew a different Putin."

After being sacked by Putin, Kasyanov joined Russia's opposition and became one of the Kremlin's most vocal critics.

He is now the leader of the opposition People's Freedom party, or Parnas.

- 'Complete lawlessness' -

Kasyanov said Putin, a former KGB agent who turns 70 in October, has managed over the past 20 years to build a system based on impunity and fear.

"These are the achievements of a system that, with the encouragement of Putin as head of state, has started operating even in a more cynical, cruel manner than in the final stages of the Soviet Union," he said.

"Essentially, this is a KGB system based on complete lawlessness. It is clear that they do not expect any punishment."

Kasyanov said he had left Russia because of the war and was living in Europe but he declined to disclose his location out of concern for his safety.

His close ally and fellow opposition politician Boris Nemtsov was gunned down near the Kremlin in 2015.

Putin's best-known critic Alexei Navalny, 46, was poisoned with a nerve agent in 2020 and is now in prison.

Kasyanov predicted the war could last for up to two years and said it is imperative that Ukraine win.

"If Ukraine falls, the Baltic states will be next," he said.

The outcome of the war will also determine Russia's future, he said.

Kasyanov said he "categorically" disagreed with French President Emmanuel Macron's suggestion that Putin should not be humiliated.

He also rebuffed calls for Ukraine to cede territory to end the war.

"What has Putin done to deserve this?" he said. "This is an overly pragmatic position.

"I believe this is wrong and hope that the West won't go down that path."

- 'Enormous tasks' -

Kasyanov believes Putin will eventually be replaced by a "quasi-successor" controlled by the security services.

But a successor would not be able to control the system for long and eventually Russia will stage free and fair elections, the former prime minister said.

"I am certain that Russia will return to the path of building a democratic state," he said.

He estimated it would take about a decade to conduct "de-Communisation" and "de-Putinisation" of the country.

"This will be difficult, especially after this criminal war."

He said trust would have to be re-established with European countries, which he called Russia's "natural partners".

Critics have in the past accused the Russian opposition of being hopelessly divided but Kasyanov said he was confident things would now be different.

"I have no doubt that now, after the tragedy that we are all witnessing, the opposition will unite."

Russians will face a huge task rebuilding their country, he said.

"Everything will have to be rebuilt anew. Essentially, an entire set of economic and social reforms should be started all over again.

"These are enormous and difficult tasks and they will have to be done."

Have to wonder if or to what degree the Russian parliament is on-board with this stuff. — jorndoe

Absolutely. With a super majority in the Duma, Putin has total control. United Russia is Putin's party, even if he doesn't have a prominent official role in the party.

Again the NATO and Nazi things show to be partial rationales (at best), excuses. — jorndoe

Yes. The idea that Putin might have invaded Ukraine as a strategic move against a growing anti-Russian right-wing element or an expanding Western military influence is obviously insufficient...shaky grounds. What's clearly needed is the much more firm, down-to-earth explanation that he's been possessed by the ghost of a long dead dictator. Much more reasonable.

Can't you read or something? I said very clearly:

The Germans were encircled on all sides by France, Russia, and the British Empire. Stalin had started war preparations against Germany back in 1926, long before Hitler came to power. Stalin's Communist International (COMINTERN) aimed to create a Soviet-controlled United States of Europe. Invading Poland was the logical step toward invading Russia in a defensive war. — Apollodorus

You keep forgetting that it was Britain that declared war on Germany in 1914. So, arguably, Germany fought a defensive war that started with WW1.

In any case, the fact is that NATO was created in 1949 for the express purpose of keeping Communist Russia out of Western Europe. For exactly the same reason, Germany invaded Russia in 1941!

What makes you think it’s OK for Western Europe and America to see Communist Russia as an enemy in 1949, but not for Germany to do the same eight years earlier?

Are you saying that an independent Germany can’t see Communist Russia as an enemy in 1941, but an US-occupied Germany must do so in 1949??? :rofl:

If ethnic Russians in Ukraine are "invaders from previous periods" as you claim, then so are ethnic Poles, Lithuanians, Tatars, Austrians, Jews, and many others.

Under Polish-Lithuanian occupation, Ukraine was heavily colonized with Poles. That was exactly why the eastern half of Ukraine asked to be incorporated into Russia in the 1600's. The western half was taken by Russia from the Poles in the following century. Without Russia, Ukraine wouldn't even exist today. It would be divided between Poland-Lithuania, Austria, and Turkey.

So, obviously, you have no knowledge of the geography, history, or politics of the region. Are you sure your comments aren't written by @ssu? :rofl:

Anyway, as I said, read what proper analysts have to say and educate yourself.

This is from the Daily Beast (which I don't think is a “Putinist” publication!):

A Judgment Day Is Coming for Zelensky – Daily Beast

From what I see, Zelensky definitely seems to be either a liar or simply delusional or deranged. Before the war started, he told the world to calm down as there wasn’t going to be any invasion. When the invasion did start, he said that “the end of the world has come”. Now he’s trying to deny that he ever said anything and he’s accusing Biden of lying.

Ukraine hits back at Biden’s ‘absurd’ remark that Zelensky ‘didn’t want to hear’ US intel on Russia – The Independent

Here’s Zelensky’s statement of February 22, 2022:

“With regards to being on a military footing, we understand there will be no war. There will not be an all-out war against Ukraine, and there will not be a broad escalation from Russia. If there is, then we will put Ukraine on a war footing.”

Ukraine's President says he believes there will be no war with Russia - CNN

Even more bizarrely, Zelensky said he received a request from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry to consider breaking diplomatic relations with Russia. His reply was “I will be considering this, and not only this, but also the effective actions we can take with regards to the escalation by Russia”.

In other words, (1) he denied the possibility of an invasion and (2) he failed to order any military preparations.

His main concern at the time was that talking about the possibility of an invasion would be detrimental to Ukraine’s economy! So, clearly, something is wrong with Zelensky and his government, and the matter needs to be investigated: who exactly is Zelensky, who are the people behind him, his advisers, his collaborators, the foreign interests involved???

Note how he speaks of his own foreign ministry almost as if it was some foreign power. Who exactly controls Ukraine's foreign ministry?

What's clearly needed is the much more firm, down-to-earth explanation that he's been possessed by the ghost of a long dead dictator. Much more reasonable. — Isaac

You mustn't forget that @Wayfarer is an old hippie from Aussieland. Some take belief in "malevolent spirits" very seriously in that part of the world ..... :smile: