https://twitter.com/Okapuer/status/1016948925939400704
I love him. I really do.
Printable View
https://twitter.com/Okapuer/status/1016948925939400704
I love him. I really do.
What's he saying there?
Corbz was right when he said we should hire Trump for the Brexit negotiations. Actually I said it myself the day before he did, so I expect he reads AWIMB. :nod:
Ok, he didn't exactly say that before some pedant points it out but not far off.
:hehe: There's a whole generation of politicians and technocrats around the world who simply don't know what's hit them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
He's pointing out that Germany is supposed to be defending NATO from Russia, but is in its pocket due to energy deals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Pffft. He's saying that for the jackals at home. Russia is not attacking NATO and has no intention of doing so. NATO is encircling Russia though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Umm, Boris said that, not Corbz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Encircling Russia? :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Can you think of a single reason why the former countires of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic States might be nervous enough of the cuddly Russian bear to wish to join a strong military alliance? Just one reason?
I'll give you a clue. 45 years of brutal Russian occupation. Howzat?
The entire history of Russia since Peter The Great has been about Russia attempting to expand its territories, a. NATO wasn't developed for a laugh. It was developed as a westward check to that historical reality. It still exists for that purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
And if you look at the world from above, you understand why fear of encirclement has been engrained in the Russian psyche since the Tsars.
It gets repetitive. You must see that. We're on the cusp of getting bored with him over Stateside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Yes, but the problem is that Russia's response to that threat has tended to be aggression rather than effective long-term alliances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
It's not really true. You see, we've learned the trick, and you Non-USers will eventually too. It's just to complain about everything, and then to take credit for some sh*t you didn't do if that sh*t seems to be working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
NATO did its job during the cold war. It helped keep the main peace in a multi-polar world, and perhaps should have disbanded with the USSR. Since then NATO has been an aggressive tool of the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Russia doesn't need more territory, it needs peace and good relations. You mentioned allies - it now has a strong alliance with China and is a key player in the BRI and SCO projects, and is the only power with good relations with all the countries in the middle east - including Israel, KSA, Syria and Iran.
Trump is portrayed as a lunatic but might yet be a peacemaker. He wants to get on with Russia and China, and wants peace in Korea. The place he might not want peace though is Iran.
To go back to the original point - he also wants to sell his more expensive LNG to Germany, who would prefer to buy cheaper energy from Russia.
I think it's a trifle disingenuous of you to ignore the fact that Putin's popularity has to no small extent lain in his revival of Russian nationalism and that that has entailed a highly aggressive and domineering approach over those former Russian states that became independent at the end of the Cold War. Russia may not 'need' more territory, but it does regard its former republics as effectively satellite states that it is entitled to control and bully. When it becomes clear that the states themselves have other ideas, Putin has never been slow to threaten and/or use his military to force them into obeisance. Given that (and Russia's history of aggression to - for instance - Poland and Ukraine), is it really a surprise that Russia's neighbours should seek security in an alliance with NATO?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
History makes it clear that the notion of Russia being an innocent victim encroached upon by the West is nonsense. A large part of Russia's history is one of aggression towards and colonisation of its immediate western neighbours and that history is inevitably going to inform modern attitudes.
If Russia needs peace and good relations; why does the mouthpiece of the Putin state (RT) continually bombard the Russian people with anti-Russian, western conspiracy theories which seem to have little truth behind them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
And even if you do believe that there is truth behind them, if you really want peace and good relations why tell everyone in Russia about them thereby tainting their view of the people that want good relations with?
What Russia wants or needs means nothing. What Putin wants or needs means everything. And peace and good relations do him little good as what he really wants is an enemy against whom he can protect the Russian people. Whether it exists or not.
THey tried effective long term alliances but the likes of you said it was brutal communist occupation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
The poor old Russians just cant win.
It's not funny. You normalise acceptance of communist propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
You're dangerous people. Apologists for torture and oppression. It's not cool at all.
Which part of 'alliances' involves sending in tanks when the people you are allied to take a decision you don't like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
THat would come under 'effective'......Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
Tanks are frequently very effective.
Everyone apologise for torture and oppression under the right circumstances. Consider the immediate post war period from Russia's point of view. The war was no picnic for them.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
**** the Germans and **** leaving a bloody great big gap of **** all between you and them.
Admittedly, you would think they might cool off over the next 20-30 years but then the Cold War was in full swing until Rocky IV came along and solved it.
You people will never understand Russia.
You think that the events behind the iron curtain between 1945 and 1989 were in some way understandable because... Germany?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Madness.
Well clearly you only understand Russia as far back as 1918 and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Prior to that (including in 1914), the traffic was very much more frequently from East to West than vice versa. Russia is the historical aggressor in Eastern Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Really? THis coming from a country whose population, even today, are unable to celebrate a football win without singing songs about German bombers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Soviet Union deaths from WW2- 20 million plus
British deaths from WW2- circa 450,000
We like to parade ourselves as the sole defenders against Hitler's aggression when most of the war was fought elsewhere at far greater cost to others.
I did accept they could have calmed down earlier but madness? If so, largely justifiable madness.
Clearly I am only referring to Russia as far back as 1918. Dont assume my understanding is limited to the point I am currently making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I mean, it may well be, but it is rather rude to assume it.....
Justify the madness from 1917 - 1939 please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I think we tend to parade ourselves as the sole defenders against Hitler' aggression because for the crucial year between June 1940 and June 1941 (during which your Russki chums were engaged in a badly misjudged and morally indefensible non-aggression pact with Germany) we and our Commonwealth and Empire were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Hope this helps.
That limp dick Tusk has tried to have a pop back at the D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
:hehe:
Oh, God! Has he really tried to make out that the US needs its European allies more than they need him? Oooooooh, I'm actually embarrassed for him. :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
That was tactical, anything but misjudged and no more morally indefensible than our attempts to appease the lunatic for the three years before he unleashed hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
You are also conveniently ignoring the Soviet Union's repeated attempts to communicate with Britain in the months leading up to that pact and Britain's reluctance to enter into conversation (let alone alliance) with a bunch of commies. One could describe that as pretty ill judged but wepresent it as our own period of particular heroism. what we actually did was sit defending our island while our commonwealth and empire forces crumbled, including losing Singapore andaround 80,000 troops to about 300 Japanese soldiers on bicycles.
They set up home ion Raffles, b. In ****ing Raffles!
You think the pact wasn't misjudged on Russia's part? Despite the fact that it resulted in Germany damn near taking Moscow and killing 20 million Russians? Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
And I hardly think Britain's attempt to avoid war - morally dubious as it was - can be compared with Russia's cynical and murderous carving up of Poland.
And yes, we did have some issues with the idea of entering into any sort of alliance with a murderous and demonstrably untrustworthy regime that was busy slaughtering its citizens and was clearly ideologically opposed to everything we stood for.
Meanwhile, your representation of the war in the Far East is pretty ludicrous given that the 14th Army under Slim repeatedly battered and ultimately defeated the Japanese subsequent to the Fall of Singapore, including handing their army their first major defeats of the war at Kohima and Imphal.
Stalin delayed awar he wasn't prepared for in order to fight onetwo years later that he was barely prepared for. Did we not carve up Czechoslovakia to avoid war with Germany? Why is it ok for us to do so despite it affecting millions of people somewhere else but morally reprehensible when Stalin does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
As far as the Far East is concerned, yes, the tide eventually turned. But not in the period you were talking about. Following US involvement, of course.
As for refusing to ally ourselves with untrustworthy commies....errrr, isnt that exactly what we ended up doing anyway, as Stalin dealt Hitler a fatal wound on the Eastern front. The initial refusal to talk to them might appear slightly misjudged given that victory ultimately relied on striking Germany from both sides simultaneously.
Is this version of history being taught in schools nowadays? :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I knew Tony fúcking Benn and his KGB masters would win in the end.
Certainly Stalin knew there would eventually be war with Germany. However, he was totally unprepared and in denial in 1941 - so much so that he refused to believe his own intelligence services when they told him Germany was going to attack - even after they'd actually invaded, in fact. He had lost six million troops by early 1942 - that is not my idea of 'barely prepared' and, if it was as a result of calculation, I'd say those calculations had been pretty flawed, wouldn't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
The tide turned in the Far East in part because we were out there rather than 'sitting, defending our island' as you suggested.
We didn't occupy Czechoslovakia and start murdering people as far as I'm aware, p, so that comparison doesn't work.
We allied with Russia because we had a common enemy - no other reason. And of course, as soon as the common enemy disappeared, Stalin showed that we had been right not to trust him before the war by immediately reverting to type, grabbing the whole of Eastern Europe and trying to seize Berlin.
Peter went to Kiev Comprehensive
:-(
I think the point is that we had a common enemy in 1939. Stalin saw it, we didnt. We thought the Yanks would be on their way soon (two and a half ****ing years!) and so told Joe to sling his hook. On reflection, probably not a great move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
It is hardly an earth shattering discovery to suggest that the war may have been going rather well for Germanyand Japan for the first couple of years, is it? Or that the entry of the Soviet Union and USA played some part in turning the tide?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Yeah, its all Tony Benn's fault :)