The Constitution wouldn't be followed of the United States no longer existed, no.

Also, this is Russian propaganda, pure and simple.

 

You're simply not willing to accept that Europe and NATO are the aggressors here and Russia is trying to protect land that is flat and VERY EASY to roll European ground troops through to Russia. If one stops looking at the Soviet Union/Russia through western propoganda, one would realize that the western world has been the aggressor during the Cold War through today. Soviet/Russian moves have been defensive.
For example, placing missiles in Cuba was a response to US missiles placed in Turkey.

As far as the agreement being 80 years ago, that's COMPLETELY immaterial. 80 years ago in the rest of the world is like last week in a US timeline. And just because the Soviet Union changed its name to Russia, that does not mean that the population there doesn't continue to have great concern over European aggression. Europe has historically been the ones to invade Russia. For the last several hundred years - but I guess that history is lost on you since you consider it to be so long ago. George Santanaya had a quote about history ... Those that cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

I'm no Russophile and I'm definitely not a Putin fan, but pretending like NATO is a benign defensive alliance is beyond the pale.

BS. You've been brainwashed and fail to look at things through the eyes of others.


Does no one in this forum understand the writings of Sun Tzu?
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

 

The only one falling for propaganda here is you. There is and has been zero risk of a European invasion into Russia for decades and Russia knows this. NATO had never been weaker, financially and militarily, and strategically until Russia invaded Ukraine. This isn't and never has been about NATO. That's just a convenient excuse to sucker apologetic westerners.

 

Interesting spin. Completely brainwashed like most westerners but interesting.
Is NATO expanding the amount of land they have control over? Yes.
Could NATO expansion be considered a modern invasion or colonization? Yes. The US responded to European colonization of the western hemisphere with the Monroe Doctrine. The Soviet Union negotiated at Yalta to control eastern European countries as a buffer against European invasion. Now NATO is sniping that buffer one by one with economic bribery to get them to join NATO.
Is NATO weak? No; they are much stronger than Russia.

You are obviously not a student of history, much less military history, and even less military tactics.

Using your logic, the Native Americans were the aggessors because they slowed down the settlers of the west. After all, it was our Manifest Destiny. Not much different than what is happening across Europe.

 

1) No. NATO doesn't hold land. NATO isn't an economic partnership. It is purely a defense agreement which cannot, by definition, be offensive. NATO has no real power or governing authority and is basically the 20th century version of a pinky promise.

2) again. NATO can't invade.

3) I'm not arguing that Russia is strong, especially after their inability to beat a bunch of unorganized commoners in Ukraine. After the previous administration assault on NATO, it had never been closer to dissolving or becoming completely irrelevant. It wasn't until the invasion of a sovereign nation bordering NATO states that NATO unity solidified. And honestly, it wasn't really until the full scale invasion. Western governments appeared to be disinterested in getting involved in the initial invasion into Eastern Ukraine. Oh, and the war crimes..lots and lots of war crimes.

Native American analogy is a giant logical fallacy. A more appropriate analogy would be if the Native Americans were a nation state and the French signed a treaty to provide collective defense for the state. Then the English, mad at the agreement, invaded Canada and blew up schools and apartment buildings to show how tough they were.

 

You are completely ignoring all of the NATO encroachment into the Russian buffer zone over the last decade. You can state whatever you want about NATO, but they act as a semi-sovereign military. NATO openly provoked Russia for many years. But how convenient that your timeline started the day that Russia opted to protect itself by attacking Ukraine in order to control land that exposes Russia to another European invasion.

NATO can't invade? LOL! They just 'intervene' in conflicts. Like when I was in the mix during the Bosnian war. Not an invasion, an 'intervention'. Same stuff, different verbage.

As for the 'giant logical fallacy', you obviously don't know the history of Europe and Russia. European powers have invaded Russia multiple times over the centuries. But it all happened 'so long ago' that you choose to ignore European aggression.

I spent way too long with access to very sensitive information and high diplomatic channels, watching some of the crap that the US and our allies pulled. As a pilot, I've even flown more than a few missions that were designed to provoke 'bad' countries. And yes, I was once brainwashed, much like you and most westerners are with respect to US/ally provocations and aggression.

 

Are you really this dumb? A preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation is an act of defense? Sure. Okay, buddy. If Ukraine falls, I'm sure you'd be okay with Russia taking half of Poland too, because Russia deserves "buffer zones" according to you.

And the "buffer zones" you speak of are sovereign nations that can choose to align themselves with the West if they so choose. The Soviet Union is no more, and former Soviet states are sovereign nations (except for maybe Belarus), but your facile reading of "history" somehow overlooks this fact.

Occam's razor would explain Russia's invasion as an imperialistic land/power grab, but I can tell you're well-practiced in mental gymnastics, and you've made some impressive contortions to arrive at your conclusions.



Pretty funny you talk about "European aggression" towards Russia. Are you really suggesting the invasion of Russia by Napoleon in the 19th century justifies Russian behavior in the 21st?

And what of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? The Winter War? Was that a justifiable act of Russian "defense"? Or did you conveniently ignore these examples because it doesn't jive with your narrative of Russian victimhood?

Or maybe you actually don't know history as well as you think you do.

Someone fell for the ruski propaganda hook, line, and sinker. You're the one who has been brainwashed.

 

If you can't see things from your enemy's point of view, then you are severely handicapped regarding strategy and combat.

 

Tell us ,what airline do you work for?

You know this is an AIRLINE PILOT forum, not your personal political news channel... right?

 

Yep, this guy gets it!

Yeah Putin sucks, but all governments do. One has to be able to understand a the opposition's reasoning and motivations.