Why Russia feels surrounded

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

Sigi, no one is making any countries in NATO adopt American style capitalism.

You can't even say comparing NATO to capitalism is like comparing apples to oranges. Two totally different concept and events. It would be like trying to compare the game of checkers to an orange. There just isn't one...

a reply to: Brotherman

IDK about all that, but I do remember Boris yeltsin and that ridiculous hematoma on his head 🧐

That was Gorbachev , Yeltsin was the permanently drunk one.

At least Gorbachev gave us all a little hope that Russia had come out of the cold and become a more open and friendly country.

Those hopes were soon crushed.

a reply to: Xtrozero


Putin sees assimilation of his country into this western WEF dystopia as the death of his country, their identity destroyed and scattered in the winds, which it will be.


You can bet your bottom dollar he sends us all to hell before he lets that happen.


Whether that's right or wrong in your eyes, you cannot deny that for him this is as real as it will ever get.

But let's keep an eye on the news tonight to see if western politicians, celebrities and the msm itself have thought of new and creative ways to poke the bear shall we?

originally posted by: gortex

Thing is with NATO is that countries have to apply to be a member , the slide of Russia into totalitarianism is a better recruiting Sargent for NATO than if NATO sought out members.

The Russian government (Putin) is to blame for the expansion of NATO because of its own actions over the last 2 decades.

NATO cost 2% yearly I think of your GNP and so no one wants to do that unless they have a good reason.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Wait till Finland and Sweden join NATO and thats the Russian border pretty doubled in size.

And guess who drove them in to the arms of NATO?

Well done Putin ya thud.

If his antics were not so bloody tragic this would be hilarious.

And thats Russia all back of the bus for at least the next century.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: Xtrozero


Putin sees assimilation of his country into this western WEF dystopia as the death of his country, their identity destroyed and scattered in the winds, which it will be.


You can bet your bottom dollar he sends us all to hell before he lets that happen.


Whether that's right or wrong in your eyes, you cannot deny that for him this is as real as it will ever get.

But let's keep an eye on the news tonight to see if western politicians, celebrities and the msm itself have thought of new and creative ways to poke the bear shall we?

You talking about that country called Russia with a largest landmass of any other by almost double the no 2 on the list? That country in the top 10 as per population? That country with massive natural resources? So on and so forth...

For Putin it is all about getting the old band back together more than anything else, and about a dozen or so countries just do not want to play with him anymore as the band sucked for them back when they were in it.

Putin said that the greatest disaster in the last 100 years wasn't WW2 it was 1991 with the fall of the USSR. His life's mission is to fix that, so should we just step aside?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: 19Bones79

Wait till Finland and Sweden join NATO and thats the Russian border pretty doubled in size.

And guess who drove them in to the arms of NATO?

Well done Putin ya thud.

If his antics were not so bloody tragic this would be hilarious.

And thats Russia all back of the bus for at least the next century.

Its funny that he threaten them and so they are like wow maybe we actually need backup on this...geez Putin you dummy, you don't need to big stick everything. Putin said he wants NATO to roll back to pre 1990 so the 13 former slave countries of the USSR would need to drop NATO. geez Putin you dummy, why do you think they joined in the first place? You have demonstrated it in Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine.

a reply to: alldaylong

One of Putin's first initutives was to join NATO...NATO said no.

a reply to: RickyD

Because NATO didn't how to do that without making NATO completely ineffective. It didn't help Russia's case that they had an ex-KGB officer in charge; not an aspect that built confidence.

That said. Russian liaison personnel were at NATO headquarters for years after the Wall fell.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Doesn't change the fact that he extended the olive branch as one of his first initutives. That's exactly what it was meant as too...an offer to put the past behind...actually pretty well documented too. As was previously mentioned...how would NATO recruit or even have a purpose of they lost the boogie man? So they chose the keep russia as an adversary as it benefited those who didn't want to lose the political clout and international influence NATO has...namely the US which tends to weild that influence offensively as much if not more than defensively.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It's not even the "big stick" that's Putin's problem per-say, rather how he chooses to wield it.

Certainly has not mastered walking softly, else he and his nation would not be in this mess.

Far as i can establish, all Putin's wet dream in Ukraine has served to achieve is to dig an even bigger hole for his beloved Russia.

The old saying "you catch more flies with honey rather the vinegar springs to mind".

The former satellite slave nations that comprised the ole USSR don't wish to return to the former times because at the end of the day USSR = Potato.

a reply to: RickyD

Yes they did, and for good reason, because Russia wanted to rule NATO.

Where as NATO very existence came about, aka "The North Atlantic Treaty" in 1949 as a direct response against the Soviet Union.

a reply to: RickyD

Was it an olive branch? How can any of us know that? Only Putin knows what he intended.

NATO's experience in the Cold War with the KGB was that they were a dangerous opponent. They successfully penetrated multiple Western agencies and militaries.

So then Russia wants into NATO with an ex-KGB guy in charge.

It would have been a farce; a NATO that could never agree on anything because Russia would have played an obstructionist role.

An when their liaison people did show up at NATO HQ, there were spying scandals because that was the reason they were there. That part was predictable and I don't blame the Russians for trying to exploit their access.

But what you miss is that confidence building exercises and partnerships require effort from both parties.

Putin wanted to grab the golden ring without having proved one bit he would operate in good faith. After decades of Cold War, that wasn't enough. Not nearly enough. And soon enough, he had Russia involved in border wars with neighboring countries.

Yeah. I think NATO made the right call on that. Russia has built its own problems in how it is perceived by other countries. That part is NOT because of NATO's existence.

Cheers

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: RickyD

Was it an olive branch? How can any of us know that? Only Putin knows what he intended.

I caught that.

Putin and olive branch -- just don't seem to go together.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

You say no one can know if its peace or a trick...then proceed to speculation on things which we cannot know because Russia was never given the chance to show us her intentions. We don't know if they would have obstructed or infiltrated. Not to mention we do the very same stuff to them which we didn't like done back to us...so very tit for tat. I think the right call for the people of the world is peace and accepting them seems a much better path to peace than shunning them.

Either way you are saying we cant speculate on if it was a genuine request to join and be a constructive member. Then proceed to do a lot of speculation about russia and putin.

a reply to: andy06shake

Firstly how would they rule NATO? What exactly would they do to "rule"?

If I am not mistaken there was no Soviet Union in 2008 when putin requested membership. It had been almost 30 years since a Soviet Union existed. If the west had burried the hatchet with Russia would you even need a NATO? And if we didn't need NATO for lack of threat to defend from isn't that a good thing?

a reply to: RickyD

Have you read a biography of Putin?

Have you followed how he's basically turned Russian into a dictatorship?

I'm not giving the guy a pass.

a reply to: RickyD

Putin claimed ""military exercises"" repeatedly i may add.

And then went on to invade Ukraine.

I think his ""intentions"" are rather plain.

What not so clear is his goals in the area, because those seem to change like the wind, depending on how badly his invasion goes as the days grow longer.

a reply to: Annee

If Russians really didn't like the guy I am pretty sure they could get rid of him...I mean the czars could tell you all about it.

You seem to want to make assumptions about him in one direction but say we can't assume the offer was genuine on the other. That's pretty hypocritical and a pretty big double standard. If someone treated you like that would you be their friend or their enemy?

a reply to: andy06shake

What are you even responding to...that has nothing to do with my reply to you...I never asked about how you felt about him?