Putin on those NATO bases he dislikes so much

a reply to: Azureblue

This has been in the news for several years now and has nothing to do with Trump.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Azureblue

This has been in the news for several years now and has nothing to do with Trump.

Thats correct but the US long range plans have a lot to do with each and every president of the US.

it was Paul Wolfowitz who said “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

Is Wolfowitz referring to any power independent of Washington’s control when referring to “hostile power” ?

i think this explains why Russia, China and other neighboring countries are staking out their territree now in the south china sea and other related areas.

a reply to: Azureblue

How about using his latest quote instead of one from the collapse of the USSR? Just how far back in time will you guys go to justify a point that has no application to the now?

Wiki - Wolfowitz Doctrine

Superpower status

The doctrine announces the U.S’s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source... The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies.

Maybe I missed it.. Point out where the USSR / Russia is mentioned?

oh wait -

Russian threat

The doctrine highlighted the possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia.

We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others... We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.

Here we go -

This was removed from the April 16 release in favour of a more diplomatic approach.

The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union.

Your argument doesnt hold up using Wolfowitz quotes referring to the Soviet Union while ignoring the changes made to it to reflect the now.

To answer your question he is referring to any nation with hostile intent towards the US. Just as you are suggesting that China / Russia are doing with regards to the US.

It's a 2 way street.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Just how far back in time will you guys go to To answer your question he is referring to any nation with hostile intent towards the US.?

Your argument doesnt hold up using Wolfowitz quotes referring to the Soviet Union while ignoring the changes made to it to reflect the now..

thanks
Hes referring to any nation with hostile intent towards the US but at the same time he's only referring to the now ????

So.... if Wolfowitz's point is valid, and I am assuming your an honest person, then I would be correct that you would agree that Russia and China also have the same rights regarding any nation with hostile intent towards them?

cheers

a reply to: Azureblue

Of course and I pointed that out (regards to how Russia / China view the US). Its why I stated its a 2 way street. As for what Wolfowitz stated I provided the updated text where the view on Russia was clarified. That clarification is recent and does not reflect the older text you quoted that was stated at the collapse of the USSR.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: facedye

Your the one who made the false statement about the west and Ukraine. If you cant keep up with your own claims then maybe you should not make them eh?

We are discussing Russians illegal invasion / occupation of Ukraine sovereign territory - Crimea and parts of E. Ukraine. You said -

Fact - Russia and the West are, and have been, responsible for "illegal occupations."

are you sure you looked up the word bias? you're literally the pot calling the kettle black right now.

I hope you realize that this is why your point of view is receiving such staunch and uniform criticism right about now.

I stated

Except for the fact the west did not invade nor occupy ukraine - Russia did.

If the west wanted Ukraine it would have invaded instead of Russia invading. If Russia was truly concerned about Ukraine as a whole they would not have just illegally seized / occupied Crimea.

See thats where the Russian lie falls apart.

You up to speed or do you need more of an education to get you there?

I think you need to re-read my reply to you. my point is going directly over your head, and you're implying that I need to be educated?

looks like I hit a nerve.

protip: "illegal occupations" by both countries are in no way limited to the events in Ukraine.

I'm saying your point is moot because you're essentially accusing a foreign power of being guilty of exactly what your own national powers are guilty of.

I'm saying your bias is showing.

I'm saying your sentiments are one sided.

a reply to: facedye

Not at all as you missed my point which is why I had to explain your own post to you. As for illegal occupations - where?

The Russians invaded Ukraine for territorial conquest.
The US has not.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: facedye

Not at all as you missed my point which is why I had to explain your own post to you. As for illegal occupations - where?

The Russians invaded Ukraine for territorial conquest.
The US has not.

oh i don't know, let's start with the actual united states. how is it again that the americans seized land from the natives?

heated conversations and strong political debates you think? or did it have more to do with small pox blankets and physical force?

what about iraq? what about afghanistan?

see i think i understood your point just fine. it's just that it's a moot point to make.

how can you realistically go on and on about Russia annexing Crimea (when you look like you don't know the first thing about their inter-relational history) and not address our SEVERAL occupations that are clearly taking place at this very moment?

looks like you willingly have your head in the sand.

but please, tell me more about the big bad russians.

so awful! annexing a part of land that was theirs to begin with, right? what a terrible man for taking back land that he believed would have otherwise been infiltrated by western powers. the monster!

do you have any idea how poor Crimea and Ukraine are as a whole? both economically and politically? i'm ukrainian, born there myself. let me know if you'd like me to educate you on a thing or two about your opinions on my homeland.

a reply to: facedye

No your not getting my point and thats obvious by the way you keep coming back at me with info that doesnt come close to my point.

What countries does the US occupy and what countries have the US annexed (in full or partial).

second clue you arent following is your insistence that somehow Russia is entitled to territory that's not theirs based on history and current reality. Using your logic Kaliningrad is by all rights German territory and Russia should return it immediately. Along with the Japanese islands they illegally control.

As for native Americans maybe we should start back where it all began - with Europeans. They started the process yet for some reason people seem to remain woefully ignorant on that topic. Trying to go down the genocide road while defending Russia also is woefully ignorant considering Russias history of forced relocations / genocide of entire peoples from conquered territories.

Its hypocritical to accuse me of bias while remaining willfully ignorant of historical facts for no other reason than to defend putin.

Coming back to the topic Putins actions are the direct cause of NATO's response and putin has no one to blame but himself. He must have an external threat to blame his problems on in order to refocus the russian peoples attention.

Putins invasion / illegal occupation of Ukraine started the ball rolling. NATO forces were not present in the nato countries bordering russia until putin did that. When he came up with the bs the collapse of the soviet union was illegal and questioned the sovereignty of former SSR's, like Ukraine and the Baltic nations, he forced nato to respond.

The days of territorial expansion via force are over with. Something putin doesnt seem to understand. Nor you apparently.

Poland and Romania are risking the security of their state due to ABM deployment.