[Discussion] Who is the aggressor NATO/USA or Russia?
- Thread starter Sheinen
- Start date
Narushima
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2016
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 100
I'm not sure why no one posted here (I suspect your thread wasn't posted for a while) but in light of the recent spike in western agitprop against Russia, I find it more convenient to answer this question than post news articles about all of that (e.g. the NATO meeting).
In short - the Ukraine affair is more or less entirely the fault of western political elites, especially the American-British establishment.
See, according to the prevailing media and elite propaganda, the Ukraine affair begins and ends with Russian annexation of Crimea - the treatment of the democratically elected Yanukovych regime is conveniently swept under the carpet - with the motive being to reclaim the lost Eastern European Soviet lands (per the Neocons).
But this issue is impossible to do fairness without a historical backdrop of NATO expansionism in Europe.
When the cold war came to a close, although the Russians agreed to the NATO presence in a reunified Germany, with that exception they made it clear that they would keep the rest of the former Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe under their sphere of influence. But the liberal democracy spreading pinheads of the west ignored Russia's deference and reasonable request and began expanding NATO there, bringing the Czechs, Hungarians, Poles into it and then later expanding to the point where freaking Latvia and Lithuania were dragged into NATO.
The Russians complained and warned of this process potentially ruining its renewed post-USSR relations with the west during almost every single military expansion - e.g. Yeltsin as far back as 1995 literally made a speech to the effect that if NATO came to Russia's neighbourhood they would consider a military response - but western elites, true to their character, paid no heed.
And then in 2008 that king of the pinheads George W. Bush enunciated the plan to annex Georgia and the Ukraine into the Neocon empire known as NATO even as several western European states had by that time realized that going that far would evoke a response (Germany explicitly came out against the idea). So it was decided that they would 'prime' the two first and the NATO summit explicitly declared that it would seek to expand to include Georgia and the Ukraine.
Putin then announced that a NATO move into the two would constitute a "threat" to Russia, and shortly after, Russia invaded Georgia in a move against the pro-NATO Saakashvili on the side of the separatists in their civil war. The geniuses (and in some cases, subversives) behind western foreign policy didn't get the hint and continued NATO expansion into Croatia a year later.
Meanwhile the EU was also expanding into formerly Russian spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. And, as is evident by, for example, western European attempts to bully completely unwilling Eastern European countries like Hungary into their bomb the world and invite the world agenda (especially the sh1tholes of the Islamic world), the EU is a Neocon-leftist version of the USSR utterly incompatible with Russian interests and culture - in fact the EU is a threat to Russians in every way given that it can only mean replicating utopias like Chechnya in Eastern Europe in the long-run.
These two indirect attacks on Russia were, of course, accompanied with liberal democracy and decadent value spreading and social engineering in Eastern Europe in the form of billions of dollars of funding for various western agenda driven causes and organizations. The western media establishment has also spearheaded an accelerating agitprop campaign against Russia in the past decade (for example, hero-ifying Russian culture destroying degenerates like that trash feminist band whatever its name was).
Thus the west has for more than a decade been an aggressor against Russia in three principal ways: territorial expansions via NATO, and economic and cultural warfare against Russia in the form of the EU and media propaganda.
This is the contextual background against which Yanukovych started pushing by moving away from the EU and endeavouring to establish closer ties with Russia which culminated in the rejection of the 2013 EU deal in favour of accepting the Russian offer, sparking those protests that cascaded into the civil war.
Although the US will deny causal involvement in that fiasco - that Neocon b-i-t-c-h Victoria Nuland's leaked telephone recording revealed that the Neocons were interested in regime change in the Ukraine before the ouster.
The rest is what western media reports as the only history we readers all know - Russia 'aggressively' invaded a historically Russian land known as Crimea. Putin also made it clear that he would destroy the now becoming failed state called the Ukraine if it attempted to serve as a US-EU stronghold on its borders.
Russia's actions should be perfectly reasonable to anyone who has any understanding of the rudiments of geopolitics. Consider what the US might do if say China were to start expanding its influence - militarily, economically and socially - in the American continent and eventually reached Mexico. But hey, we're spreading that good old liberal democracy right - and disbelievers in that holiness be damned!
Anyways the problem here is much deeper than just the Ukraine and Georgia.
The problem fundamentally is that the west has increasingly adopted a delusional worldview wherein things like interests (national, ethnic, religious, cultural whatever) no longer exist.
Interests, the fundamental currency of international relations, has been replaced by sanctimonious moral values (liberalism, democracy, gay rights etc) in western foreign policy. The rest of the world, including Russia, does not operate in that manner and there is no reason whatsoever to think that the rest of the world will join the west in this suicidal approach to the rest of the world any time soon, even as we pretend they do only to see things come apart again and again as in all the disasters of the Middle East that the west has played a part in the past two decades.
In short - the Ukraine affair is more or less entirely the fault of western political elites, especially the American-British establishment.
See, according to the prevailing media and elite propaganda, the Ukraine affair begins and ends with Russian annexation of Crimea - the treatment of the democratically elected Yanukovych regime is conveniently swept under the carpet - with the motive being to reclaim the lost Eastern European Soviet lands (per the Neocons).
But this issue is impossible to do fairness without a historical backdrop of NATO expansionism in Europe.
When the cold war came to a close, although the Russians agreed to the NATO presence in a reunified Germany, with that exception they made it clear that they would keep the rest of the former Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe under their sphere of influence. But the liberal democracy spreading pinheads of the west ignored Russia's deference and reasonable request and began expanding NATO there, bringing the Czechs, Hungarians, Poles into it and then later expanding to the point where freaking Latvia and Lithuania were dragged into NATO.
The Russians complained and warned of this process potentially ruining its renewed post-USSR relations with the west during almost every single military expansion - e.g. Yeltsin as far back as 1995 literally made a speech to the effect that if NATO came to Russia's neighbourhood they would consider a military response - but western elites, true to their character, paid no heed.
And then in 2008 that king of the pinheads George W. Bush enunciated the plan to annex Georgia and the Ukraine into the Neocon empire known as NATO even as several western European states had by that time realized that going that far would evoke a response (Germany explicitly came out against the idea). So it was decided that they would 'prime' the two first and the NATO summit explicitly declared that it would seek to expand to include Georgia and the Ukraine.
Putin then announced that a NATO move into the two would constitute a "threat" to Russia, and shortly after, Russia invaded Georgia in a move against the pro-NATO Saakashvili on the side of the separatists in their civil war. The geniuses (and in some cases, subversives) behind western foreign policy didn't get the hint and continued NATO expansion into Croatia a year later.
Meanwhile the EU was also expanding into formerly Russian spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. And, as is evident by, for example, western European attempts to bully completely unwilling Eastern European countries like Hungary into their bomb the world and invite the world agenda (especially the sh1tholes of the Islamic world), the EU is a Neocon-leftist version of the USSR utterly incompatible with Russian interests and culture - in fact the EU is a threat to Russians in every way given that it can only mean replicating utopias like Chechnya in Eastern Europe in the long-run.
These two indirect attacks on Russia were, of course, accompanied with liberal democracy and decadent value spreading and social engineering in Eastern Europe in the form of billions of dollars of funding for various western agenda driven causes and organizations. The western media establishment has also spearheaded an accelerating agitprop campaign against Russia in the past decade (for example, hero-ifying Russian culture destroying degenerates like that trash feminist band whatever its name was).
Thus the west has for more than a decade been an aggressor against Russia in three principal ways: territorial expansions via NATO, and economic and cultural warfare against Russia in the form of the EU and media propaganda.
This is the contextual background against which Yanukovych started pushing by moving away from the EU and endeavouring to establish closer ties with Russia which culminated in the rejection of the 2013 EU deal in favour of accepting the Russian offer, sparking those protests that cascaded into the civil war.
Although the US will deny causal involvement in that fiasco - that Neocon b-i-t-c-h Victoria Nuland's leaked telephone recording revealed that the Neocons were interested in regime change in the Ukraine before the ouster.
The rest is what western media reports as the only history we readers all know - Russia 'aggressively' invaded a historically Russian land known as Crimea. Putin also made it clear that he would destroy the now becoming failed state called the Ukraine if it attempted to serve as a US-EU stronghold on its borders.
Russia's actions should be perfectly reasonable to anyone who has any understanding of the rudiments of geopolitics. Consider what the US might do if say China were to start expanding its influence - militarily, economically and socially - in the American continent and eventually reached Mexico. But hey, we're spreading that good old liberal democracy right - and disbelievers in that holiness be damned!
Anyways the problem here is much deeper than just the Ukraine and Georgia.
The problem fundamentally is that the west has increasingly adopted a delusional worldview wherein things like interests (national, ethnic, religious, cultural whatever) no longer exist.
Interests, the fundamental currency of international relations, has been replaced by sanctimonious moral values (liberalism, democracy, gay rights etc) in western foreign policy. The rest of the world, including Russia, does not operate in that manner and there is no reason whatsoever to think that the rest of the world will join the west in this suicidal approach to the rest of the world any time soon, even as we pretend they do only to see things come apart again and again as in all the disasters of the Middle East that the west has played a part in the past two decades.
Last edited: