Could Putin turn into a modern day Hitler?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Are you saying NATO or America destabilized Ukraine?

Absolutely. That is a matter of public record. And I'm speaking of America specifically, but I'm sure other NATO countries have been involved somehow. (That sounds conspiratorial, it's not meant to)

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The problem I have with that is that Russia has a long history of subjugating and colonizing their neighbours long before NATO ever existed. The desire for the Baltic states and Ukrainians to join NATO and become aligned with the West is a reaction to hundreds of years of unprovoked Russian aggression and treachery. Being a Russian satellite is not fun for non-Russians and NATO offers them an escape from that.

Except that it puts NATO at risk of starting World War 3 to protect the Ukraine or the Baltic states. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to do that.

And if you doubt me, look at why World War 1 happens. All these different states have all these different alliances and if you go to war with one of them you go to war with all of them. And the result was the two largest, most deadly conflicts in the 4.54 billion year history of our planet.

This time, both sides have such a vast stockpile of nuclear weapons that the consequences to the planet and our species as a result of a third World War could be irreparable.

When are you willing to start World War 3?

[karl262]

Should Russia feel threatened if Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland joined NATO? Not one bit unless they truely believe NATO is planning a preemptive invasion, which is insane. If those countries wish to seek the security of NATO as sovereign nations then its fairly indicative of Russian expansionist policy.

The alliances pre WW1 were a tangled and complicated mess that made war an eventuality.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by karl262

Should Russia feel threatened if Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland joined NATO? Not one bit unless they truely believe NATO is planning a preemptive invasion, which is insane. If those countries wish to seek the security of NATO as sovereign nations then its fairly indicative of Russian expansionist policy.

The alliances pre WW1 were a tangled and complicated mess that made war an eventuality.

It doesn't matter if they should feel threatened; it matters because a NATO alliance with those countries means that if Russia DOES decide to get handsy with their neighbours, we're now in a position where we have to go to war over it.

At least without formal entry into NATO, we aren't automatically bound by law and honour to get into a conflict with a nuclear superpower.

[sa226]

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are already part of NATO.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Except that it puts NATO at risk of starting World War 3 to protect the Ukraine or the Baltic states. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to do that.

And if you doubt me, look at why World War 1 happens. All these different states have all these different alliances and if you go to war with one of them you go to war with all of them. And the result was the two largest, most deadly conflicts in the 4.54 billion year history of our planet.

This time, both sides have such a vast stockpile of nuclear weapons that the consequences to the planet and our species as a result of a third World War could be irreparable.

When are you willing to start World War 3?

You might recall that the most recent World War was started by a nation annexing portions of other nations for ethnic contiguity... the exact same thing Russia is doing now. I could easily say that this is a greater threat to WW3 since it was only 75 years ago that similar events led to WW2. At the very least, doing nothing is as much of threat to peace.

The supposed threat by NATO is nothing more than a pretext. Russian nationalism is what is driving this thing, and is exactly why other states near Russia want NATO protection.

Honestly, who are Russian allies these days? Belarus, Serbia, Mongolia, Cuba and Venezuela? It's not like pre-WW1 when England and France were allies with them.

Originally Posted by karl262

Should Russia feel threatened if Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland joined NATO? Not one bit unless they truely believe NATO is planning a preemptive invasion, which is insane. If those countries wish to seek the security of NATO as sovereign nations then its fairly indicative of Russian expansionist policy.

The alliances pre WW1 were a tangled and complicated mess that made war an eventuality.

Russians have a pathological cultural belief that they are entitled to control satellite states. They believe they need a buffer to protect the Russian hinterland from outsiders. I believe their fear is real only because of the indoctrination and fishbowl they choose to live in, and not because of anything in reality.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Absolutely. That is a matter of public record. And I'm speaking of America specifically, but I'm sure other NATO countries have been involved somehow. (That sounds conspiratorial, it's not meant to)

Can you please cite some sources for this.


Cheers

[CaptainCrunch]

I think its more complex then that though. Russia has a history of being invaded and conquered and interfered with. This has lead to an institution paranoia based around their for lack of better term defense.

A Russian General once said that war is immoral but defense is moral.

So when Russia looks at NATO who they still view as a enemy alliance at their door step, its entirely understandable that their state based paranoia comes to the forefront.

On top of that Putin on a personal level also probably views the Western powers and especially the Western powers as being at their weakest and most indecisive state in the last 75 years and he's pushing the boundaries and getting away with it.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think its more complex then that though. Russia has a history of being invaded and conquered and interfered with. This has lead to an institution paranoia based around their for lack of better term defense.

A Russian General once said that war is immoral but defense is moral.

So when Russia looks at NATO who they still view as a enemy alliance at their door step, its entirely understandable that their state based paranoia comes to the forefront.

On top of that Putin on a personal level also probably views the Western powers and especially the Western powers as being at their weakest and most indecisive state in the last 75 years and he's pushing the boundaries and getting away with it.

Do you think perhaps the addition of US backed missile defense through NATO along Russia's borders plays into this?

I know Russia has always valued their "buffer zone" of satellite states, and perhaps paranoia plays a role with their current decisions but I also wonder if lessons from history play a larger role. Well, that and the establishment of BRICS.

Also read a article on how NATO plans to supersede the UN now that they are on every continent. I'll try and find it.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Can you please cite some sources for this.


Cheers

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...e-ukraine-west

http://fpif.org/straight-talk-u-s-ukraine/

http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2014...izing-ukraine/

I admit it's very difficult to find articles that deal with this that don't sound like Alex Jones nonsense. But looking at America's history of overthrowing democratically elected governments that don't cow to the will of the red white and blue, do you really think they'd let a chance to stick a knife in Putin's back pass them by?

None of this is meant to make Putin seem like a good guy, but for the love of god, everyone needs to push back from the table. Nobody wants to go to war, so stop creating a climate that makes it more and more likely.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Do you think perhaps the addition of US backed missile defense through NATO along Russia's borders plays into this?

I know Russia has always valued their "buffer zone" of satellite states, and perhaps paranoia plays a role with their current decisions but I also wonder if lessons from history play a larger role. Well, that and the establishment of BRICS.

Also read a article on how NATO plans to supersede the UN now that they are on every continent. I'll try and find it.

I can see it, frankly the warsaw pact was different then NATO because the Warsaw pact nations were there to blunt a NATO attack so the wars wouldn't be fought on Russian soil.

This whole thing to me does go to Russian Paranoia, Putin's desire to be seen as a strong leader, fixing historic wrongs, and decreasing the threat to Russia proper.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

You do understand that more NATO countries along the border of Russia is an absolute disaster waiting to happen? Like the OP said, he's got 8000 nukes at his disposal. Maybe some less antagonistic policies would be the right decision here. I don't want to go to war with Russia.

I certainly don't want to go to war with Russia because America subverted a democratically elected government that happened to not align with their way of thinking, and deliberately antagonized Russia in the process.

If Putin attempted to destablise mexico and then endorsed whatever puppet regime ascended to power next, America would be reacting the exact same way.

Russia is a nuclear superpower. That has certain privileges. Everyone needs to back away and call it a win. We're all still here.

You don't think Putin is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon do you? that is a war he knows he can't win.

[Shnabdabber]

Most of the nuclear states have changed their deployment policies, so I dont think poking the bear is the best idea anyways, regardless of what the outcome may be.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think its more complex then that though. Russia has a history of being invaded and conquered and interfered with. This has lead to an institution paranoia based around their for lack of better term defense.

A Russian General once said that war is immoral but defense is moral.

So when Russia looks at NATO who they still view as a enemy alliance at their door step, its entirely understandable that their state based paranoia comes to the forefront.

On top of that Putin on a personal level also probably views the Western powers and especially the Western powers as being at their weakest and most indecisive state in the last 75 years and he's pushing the boundaries and getting away with it.

But Russia is as guilty as anyone for being the invaders. It's not like Latvians, Estonians, Finns, Hungarians, Slovakians, Czechs, Georgians (just to name a few of the peoples invaded by Russians in the past 100 years) have antagonized Russia. Let's not forget that most of "Russia" isn't even Russia.

They make themselves more secure by exerting power over those weaker instead of addressing their enemies directly. It's cowardly.

In other news, they are flexing their nuclear muscles:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/putin-u...sted-1.2761771

I thought we all knew these things go boom?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...e-ukraine-west

http://fpif.org/straight-talk-u-s-ukraine/

http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2014...izing-ukraine/

I admit it's very difficult to find articles that deal with this that don't sound like Alex Jones nonsense. But looking at America's history of overthrowing democratically elected governments that don't cow to the will of the red white and blue, do you really think they'd let a chance to stick a knife in Putin's back pass them by?

None of this is meant to make Putin seem like a good guy, but for the love of god, everyone needs to push back from the table. Nobody wants to go to war, so stop creating a climate that makes it more and more likely.

Do you have any real sources?

Seriously? Sergey Lavrov is your source?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by T@T

You don't think Putin is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon do you? that is a war he knows he can't win.

I think counting on Vladimir Putin to be reasonable is not how we want to be ensuring the security of our planet.

It's a war he can't win, yes. It's also a war we can't win.

[Pointman]

It is about mutual fear. West watch Putin grabbing Crimea and going into east Ukraine and wondering who is next. Russians watch US toppling legal leaders left and right, most recently in Ukraine and wondering who is next.

The main reason why Putin is so popular now is the general sense of danger that comes from the west. The only "lie" that Russians buy in - and so do I, so I don't consider it as lie, is that US was heavily behind overthrowing Yanukovich. Aside from that, most Russians seems to realize, that out troops are in Ukraine. Most of us (not me) however, have no problem with it. The general feeling is that it is West, not Russia that needs to be stopped.

Russians do have access to western media, but it has limited effect, because the question is not so much about what is going on the ground, but rather what is going on behind the scenes. For example, people here seems to realize, that the jet was most likely was shot down by rebels from the weapon that came from Russia. Still, given that it was most likely an accident, people are wondering, why Russia should be punished. US unintentionally shot down a plane 20 years ago, it was shot by US missile and US crew, and US got no punishment. Ukraine accidentally shot down Russian jet in 2001. It was killed by Ukrainians weapon and Ukrainian triggerman, of course. Ukraine got nothing. Now a plane is shot probably by Russian missile and maybe by Russian soldier. Somehow it is a bloody crime, that is directly on Putin's hands. Is it fair? Or are western media a bit biased?

Problem is, nobody, including Russians, know what is Putin's plan. Nobody, including westerners, knows, what is NATO's plan about Russia. It is an aura of fear and how we need to "stop" each other.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Do you have any real sources?

Seriously? Sergey Lavrov is your source?

USA were quick to recognize new government and offer them a package of 15 billions to help them. I thought, the basic principle of democracy is that you can not take power by the force. However, those people took power by the force and got instant open support from US. Which makes it a pretty legit guess that they had this support from the start.

http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.576290

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Pointman

USA were quick to recognize new government and offer them a package of 15 billions to help them. I thought, the basic principle of democracy is that you can not take power by the force. However, those people took power by the force and got instant open support from US. Which makes it a pretty legit guess that they had this support from the start.

So, again, no one provides proof. All you have provided is your own interpretation of events, some flawed logic, and a guess as the conclusion.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Pointman

It is about mutual fear. West watch Putin grabbing Crimea and going into east Ukraine and wondering who is next. Russians watch US toppling legal leaders left and right, most recently in Ukraine and wondering who is next.

The main reason why Putin is so popular now is the general sense of danger that comes from the west. The only "lie" that Russians buy in - and so do I, so I don't consider it as lie, is that US was heavily behind overthrowing Yanukovich. Aside from that, most Russians seems to realize, that out troops are in Ukraine. Most of us (not me) however, have no problem with it. The general feeling is that it is West, not Russia that needs to be stopped.

Russians do have access to western media, but it has limited effect, because the question is not so much about what is going on the ground, but rather what is going on behind the scenes. For example, people here seems to realize, that the jet was most likely was shot down by rebels from the weapon that came from Russia. Still, given that it was most likely an accident, people are wondering, why Russia should be punished. US unintentionally shot down a plane 20 years ago, it was shot by US missile and US crew, and US got no punishment. Ukraine accidentally shot down Russian jet in 2001. It was killed by Ukrainians weapon and Ukrainian triggerman, of course. Ukraine got nothing. Now a plane is shot probably by Russian missile and maybe by Russian soldier. Somehow it is a bloody crime, that is directly on Putin's hands. Is it fair? Or are western media a bit biased?

Problem is, nobody, including Russians, know what is Putin's plan. Nobody, including westerners, knows, what is NATO's plan about Russia. It is an aura of fear and how we need to "stop" each other.

I like your posts and agree with 95% of them, but I can't get past this bolded part. I know there is the story that the West had something to do with the protests and subsequent ousting of the former Ukrainian leader, but I just don't see it or buy it.

The moves he was making were unpopular and the public told him so. When he decided not to back down from them, they took to the street, and when he started killing them they really got mad. I don't see how that has ANYTHING to do with the US. Actually it's the best of democracy. Nine times out of ten, yes, the public waits for an election to show displeasure. But in extreme circumstances, it's the public's right and duty to demonstrate and oust leaders, even democratically elected ones.

I wish the same had been done in the States with Bush.