‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes

Well, your quote was "Democrats believe in law and order, as much as Republicans." That last phrase is important. I assume you'll accept any poll that shows Democrats are, on average, less opposed to violent rioting than Republicans as satisfactory evidence, right?

So ... here it is: topline_reuters_george_floyd_protests_06_02_2020_0.pdf (ipsos.com)

That's a Reuters/Ipsos poll from June 2020. A couple of the questions they asked are relevant to our discussion here:

"Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
...
More violent protests and unrest are an appropriate response to the killing of an unarmed man by police"
32% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans agreed with that statement. While a whopping 75% of Republicans strongly disagreed with that statement, only 45% of Democrats felt similarly. And that's because Democrats don't believe in law and order as much as Republicans. Democrats tell pollsters that they are ok with "violent protests and unrest" (like lighting buildings on fire, breaking windows, looting, and so forth) in greater numbers than Republicans.

 

As far as I know, I'm the only person on this forum who posted an alternative to the war that's currently raging. I don't like it, but I'm in no way in "despair." I just recognize that Russia is more than likely going to win this conflict and get their way.

 

I have in the past posted I was for oil independence and I stood with Trump that Europeans should never become dependent on Russian oil and gas. Others did the same.....so you are NOT the only one. So where do we go from here? Why do you think Russia will win this conflict? It is one thing to bomb a country, it is another to get them to soley submit. Do you realize foreign fighters are flooding into the country? I know of at least one ammo manufacturer who is sending millions of rounds of rifle ammo. How many Russian troops are in despair when they finally realize what their bloody mission is? How many more thousands of protesters can Putin jail? They all have relatives. I know he is ruthless, but comes to a point others realize they have to be ruthless as well. I believe Putin's days are numbered. He is the underdog. Russia will reform to get the sanctions lifted. China will lose an ally. A very important one. My chin is up. Yours should be too! I see this akin to a modern American Revolution. Show your spunk and other nations will support you!
When this American Administration is finally neutered in November, we all should have a brighter outlook!

 

No reason for your assumption. I am well aware of the call for a no-fly zone; are you unaware of the U.S. administration, repeatedly stressing that this is a non- starter, because it so greatly risks the starting of a war between Russia & NATO?

The Biden admin. did not "reject," any negotiations. Your misstatement of fact, will force me to assume, here, that what you really mean, is NATO's rejection of the pre-condition, stipulated by Putin, that Ukraine be barred from NATO. Allowing nations to dictate the associations of other countries is clearly a poor precedent, to set, and not our view of the "sovereignty," of nations. If, instead, Putin would have been amenable to an agreement with NATO, to never put nuclear missiles in Ukraine, should they ever join NATO, that is an agreement that I see as one that would have been eminently doable.

Your mistakes, then, are two. First, you are faulting Biden for not being disposed to appeasement, which time has shown is not an effective strategy for "avoiding war."
Secondly, you trust that there was an ounce of sincerity in Putin's words, all evidence, to the contrary.

There were never more than two possibilities, for the way this would play out. Either there would be a coup, & Zelenskyy would be replaced by a Ukranian bootlick to Putin, or Russia would invade. Anything else, is just your wishful imagination.

 

This is what I have expected. I find it encouraging!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...n-sanctions-report-says/ar-AAUBwY2?li=BBnb7Kz

 

The combined power of Russia/China will bring them to your doorstep. But before that the 'fallout' from what's happening in the East will visit you at home.

 

That's not what I was getting at if you read the whole post. I will predict after this bout is over.....Putin will be non-existing.

 

Possibly ... but it won't matter. Russia needs the tempering effects of a south-western seaboard to secure their food bowl. They need to feed their citizens, and that's a tough job in their climate. To survive, they need access to the more fertile Eastern European territory. China needs Taiwan for other reasons, but access to sub-tropical land is still part of that equation. They will keep moving beyond Taiwan, too. In the meantime, the world has become dependent on what both nations sell.

 

Putin's days are numbered because he is old and sick.

OK so if I understand you correctly, you think the Ukrainians can beat back the Russians and win the war. Given the amount of military resources Putin has to pour in this conflict, I still think he will win it, but time will tell on this.

 

In reference to what you refer to as my two "mistakes."

Could you quote were I faulted Biden for appeasement? I honestly can't recall that comment and you didn't quote it here. What exactly did I say?

Also, were did I mention Putin's "sincerity?" I'm not even sure why that would be an issue? Again, you didn't supply that quote.

As far as your claim that the administration didn't reject any negotiations, you have the opportunity to correct me then: Did the administration reach out to the Russians to negotiate on this, and if so, what was the Russian response?

 

You are, inexplicably misreading; OR, if you are reading correctly-- you must be miswriting. I never said that you "faulted Biden for appeasement." Look at my words, one more time:

Your mistakes, then, are two. First, you are faulting Biden for not being disposed to appeasement, which time has shown is not an effective strategy for "avoiding war."
Secondly, you trust that there was an ounce of sincerity in Putin's words, all evidence, to the contrary.

Do you see the difference? I am actually saying the exact opposite: you wanted him to give Putin what he demanded, to (in your view) not get us into a war; if you find our current path, of just sanctions against Russia, & supplying weapons for Ukraine, as "wanting war (you remember saying that, right?)," then you must have wanted Biden to be willing to appease Putin, which Joe- President, would not do.

So tell me, you feel that we should have-- though it would have required all of NATO to sign off, so even this is not fair, to blame on Biden-- guaranteed Putin, that Ukraine would never be allowed in NATO? And, with that, you don't believe that he would have ever invaded Ukraine? Because his only concern was NATO's nuclear missiles (which they no longer use) on his doorstep, like Putin had said? Then why would he not settle, for the guarantee of no NATO nukes, if Ukraine was ever admitted? Being in NATO, does not automatically mean one gets U.S. nukes; in fact, we only share our nuclear weapons with 5 of our NATO allies (approximately 20 each), and those 5 do not include Poland, or the Russia-- bordering Baltic states, according to my 2022 source.

https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-u-s-nuclear-weapons-in-europe/

[SNIP]

Though NATO officially declares itself a “nuclear alliance,” it does not own any nuclear weapons. Instead, a small number of bombs are reportedly kept under U.S. Air Force guard at six airbases in five European countries, ready to be delivered by respective national fighter planes.

Historically, the United States has deployed both nuclear bombs and nuclear-armed missiles to allied European states...since the end of the Cold War the total arsenal has been reduced to air-launched tactical, or nonstrategic nuclear bombs... Alongside NATO member the United Kingdom’s arsenal, U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe are consistent with Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty. Fellow member France, who re-joined the alliance in 2009, does not commit its own nuclear arsenal to the alliance’s extended deterrent.

Beyond the alliance’s three nuclear powers, five others participate in U.S. nuclear sharing: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey...

[End SNIP]


The next thing I would ask, is why you give any credibility, to Putin's assurances? (This was the meaning of my saying that you put stock in Putin's "sincerity"-- if you believe that caving to his demands would have been a safer way to avoid conflict, you must assume that the demand was made in earnest, that he was being honest about it). So, then what about his claims of a genocide of ethnic Russians? He would've just forgotten about that, had we given him just the one thing, he said he wanted? Or should we give him everything he demands, no matter how unreasonable, from this point out, just to avoid war?

And if we had let him dictate that Ukraine could never join NATO, I suppose Putin would no longer care that Ukraine was run by NAZIs? Of course, because all his claims were B.S. He purposely demanded what he knew was off the table, just to insert a pretext, into his narrative, to make it seem like he had a real grievance & was willing to negotiate, but that NATO took a hard line, forcing his hand. Pshaw!

Oh, yes, Mike, Secretary of State Blinken & the whole administration were very actively, & vocally, promoting negotiations, to look for solutions. Blinken said publicly, he was willing to meet with the Russians anytime, anywhere. Mostly the Russians just made plans for future talks, which didn't come to be, because the invasion had begun. There was one meeting in Geneva, which basically was a stalemate, because of Russia's insistence on the no admittance for Ukraine to NATO. Here is an article written prior to that meeting:


https://warsawinstitute.org/usa-negotiations-russia-geneva/


That's all for this part of my argument, but I thought you might be interested in a little more, about the NATO nukes, from my 1st link.

[SNIP]
The weapons are not armed or deployed on aircraft; they are instead kept in WS3 underground vaults in national airbases, and the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes used to arm them remain in American hands. To be used, the bombs would be loaded onto dual-capable NATO-designated fighters. Each country is in the process of modernizing its nuclear-capable fighters to either the F-35A, the F-18 Super Hornet, or the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The total number of nuclear weapons based in Europe reached an all-time peak of 7,300 during the height of Cold War tensions in 1971. The 98% reduction to today’s stockpile reflects the end of Cold War hostilities as well as shifting American defense priorities. The weapons are an important symbol of the U.S.’ longstanding security commitments to Europe, but questions have been raised about the desire of European countries to continue hosting WMDs.

 

Well clearly those talks went swimmingly!

Because as you said, " There was one meeting in Geneva, which basically was a stalemate, because of Russia's insistence on the no admittance for Ukraine to NATO."

So the administration had no intention of negotiating. It was simply a show.

So since that was THE main Russian demand, the talks were never going to go anywhere. Now I personally think giving away a thing that is worthless to us to prevent a war that has killed and will kill, thousands of people, isn't a bad thing, but that's because I think trying to hold the Ukraine NATO chip over Russia's head is worthless unless you cash it in. All member states have to agree to let a new one in and that wasn't going to happen. So the US does have the power to prevent it. Here is the solution I proposed on FEB 11:

Now, is Russia a trustworthy partner? No. Do they eventually break all of their agreements? Yes. But we have continued to enter into agreements with Russia, and before that the Soviet Union, because they provided space and time to stabilize situations. If I am reading your posts correctly on this, you would have opposed every arms control agreement we've ever made with the Soviet Union, and Russia, because Russians lie. Is that correct? If not, then I don't see why you can't see the logic of making a deal on an issue that we were never going to do anyway. We were never going to admit Ukraine into NATO, so why not sell it for things that we really want? Sure, in the long run, the Russians would break the deal, but that only resets the board and gives us back the Ukraine-NATO chip.

And in the meantime? We could have avoided the war you are currently cheerleading.

 

Stands for what? An example of incivility? Sure, okay, I'll buy that.

 

Why would you jump to the unsupported conclusion, that it was the U.S. administration, who had "no intention of negotiating?" You even posted my explanation of the reason that talks went nowhere:

If you are blaming Biden for that, it means two things:
1) You MUST consider Russia's request reasonable; and
2) It seems assumable that you trust Putin's sincerity; i.e., that this was truly his prime concern.

Well I have given arguments against both of those positions.
1) We don't support the idea of one nation invading another (obviously seems a bit hypocritical, but theoretically, only in cases of blatant human rights violation-- as a genocide-- or if responding to an initial attack from the other nation); we don't believe any country has the right to pick the leaders of another country (at least not any more, I guess); and we don't believe any country can dictate anything about another nation's alliances. All are an affront to National Sovereignty. Once that precedent is set, and accepted by the world, what's to stop Russia or any nation with nukes, from demanding specifics about a neighbor's trade practices, for example (like they cannot trade with certain other nations, or must get all of their natural gas from Russia)? It is an unreasonable request, and Putin knew it was unreasonable and would not be agreed to-- because HE/RUSSIA, "had no intention of negotiating." But that is part of #2:

2) Putin threw a bunch of stuff at the wall, not just the prohibition against Ukraine joining NATO. So IMO it is incredibly naive of you to believe that he would drop his other, weighty grievances, if we had knelt to this dictum. He claimed that Nazis ran Ukraine (Zelensky is the only Jewish head of state, outside of Israel), & that there was a genocide of ethnic Russians, going on in the Donbas region.

He also claimed that "Ukraine" was not a real country, that it RIGHTFULLY BELONGED TO & WAS PART OF RUSSIA.

You ignore all these things, in your argument. The facts suggest, certainly to anyone with a smidge of common sense, that no matter what demand was conceded to Putin, there would be another, until he was effectively in charge of Ukraine. I also showed that, if it was the proximity of nuclear arms that really was the issue, that did not require barring Ukraine from NATO, to have been dealt with.

The principle of national sovereignty is not "worthless." NATOs right to admit any nations it chooses, is not worthless. But giving up these things, would not have prevented a war.

Only when it comes up for membership. Whatever administration is in office, at that time, is the one that will make that decision. Biden cannot make it in advance, for them.


Your own, inter-quote:
[SNIP]
"Biden should propose to Putin that we would grant a conditional promise not to induct Ukraine into NATO as long as he sticks to the deal. And what would the deal be? I don’t have a full list of everything we might want from the Russians, but we should ask for everything on that list. A couple of things do come to mind however, such as vow to stop all hacking of US institutions from Russian territory, and re-introduce the US dollar to its national wealth fund and stop promoting policies to replace the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Maybe some arms control concessions? Basically, we should ask for everything. Each side gets to walk away with a success and it deescalates a military confrontation. It’s a win/win."
[end Snip]


I'm sorry, I almost never use this, but-- wait, what's up with that? I was going to insert that annoyingly rolling on its back, with laughter, yellow- headed figure, but he's not one of the choices, in this rare instance when I would have used him.

Anyway, you are really dreaming, to think that-- even if it wasn't already a fantasy, that Biden could dictate what some future administration was going to do-- Putin would give you things, for giving in to him. Putin wasn't "asking" for these things: he felt entitled to them. He would not give Jack Schitt, in return. As I had said, to the contrary, there would only be MORE demands; Ukraine is "rightfully part of Russia," remember?

In short, these demands were just the blowing of so much smoke. As you, yourself admitted, there was no imminent threat, of Ukraine joining NATO. There are conditions which a democracy must meet, to qualify, the fulfilling of which, Ukraine was not close to satisfying. Ukraine had not applied for membership. Out of a required 30 "yes" votes, there were a grand total of zero nations which had advocated for inclusion of Ukraine, at that point. People who knew of such matters, were saying that Ukraine NATO membership was not years, but decades, away. So Russia's invading them, NOW, is in your mind, the act of a rational leader, who could have been trusted, if Biden had merely been willing to compromise on a foundational principle behind the world order that the U.S. has been working to build, really since the First World War?

No, Mike, that is not a correct reading, for a couple of pretty simple reasons. First, is that those other agreements were of ongoing bases. Therefore we could break our own side of the agreement, if we had seen Russia, breaking its own. Secondly, Russia actually wanted those agreements; they had value to them, so the Soviets/Russians would not be easily inclined towards breaking agreements which benefitted themselves.

On the other hand, once Russia has taken over Ukraine, our promise not to let them in NATO, is of little value, so not a worry of Putin's, that we might revoke it. It was plainly clear that control of Ukraine was Vlad's goal; it is willful blindness to think otherwise. If you think not, explain his claims that Ukraine was not a real country, that it was, in fact, part of Russia (& that Ukranians were the same as Russians). If you have time, you could address the genocide allegation, vis a vis my-- and many others'-- contention, that these demands of Putin were fabricated, disingenuous, and would have continued until he couldn't get one of them, which would, that one, become his excuse for this war.




P.S.-- Your assumption that "we were never going to admit Ukraine to NATO," falls into the disreputable part the, "assumption " tradition. It is a completely baseless belief; odds were, at some point, Ukraine would join NATO but, as I've said, that point was many years in the future. I say was, not in assumption of Ukraine's ceasing to exist, but because after Russia's aggression, should Ukraine survive, they would likely have the conditions that had been holding back their membership, waived.

 

You said it. Russia wanted one thing, and the answer was no from the start. So the "negotiations" were just a show. They were never going to negotiate.

Reading this, it's safe to assume you never read my post, the one you are allegedly commenting on.

 

Nope, stands as the truth.

 

The U.S.-- and NATO-- rejected this "ask," immediately, long before the official "talks."
1) Yours is a ridiculous position that, because they rejected an unprecedented demand, that they are to blame to the failure of the talks. I pointed out that dictating another country's alliances, is a violation of that nation's sovereignty, at least the conventional view of it. Do you disagree?

Say you are selling your house. Someone offers your asking price, but says that in addition to the house, at no extra cost, you must stand on the lawn, motionless, in a position of the buyer's choosing, like one of those lawn figurines (hey, you do go by Lil Mike) during all daylight hours, in perpetuity. If you reject the offer, how would you feel about your agent characterizing your overall motivation to sell, as "just a show?" NATO & the U.S. were very willing to negotiate, based on good-faith offers, provided that they weren't absurdly unreasonable.


At any rate, you answer the question: you believe this is a reasonable thing to ask; just as, for example, if one, or many, of the former Soviet Republics made a demand that, because of their past history with Russia, it not being permitted to enter into any unions with the petitioning countries' neighbors, would be a reasonable request?

2) And you have already answered the other, central question: you believe that catering to a dictator's demands, is a good thing.

So, were we to continue our debate, it would be over those two questions, above, namely:
#1) Can appeasement ever be a more advantageous technique of dealing with an autocrat-- who has shown a pattern of moving its troops into neighboring countries, and leaving them there-- than resisting the demands, by any nation or alliance which has the ability to mount an effective opposition?

#2) If so, is our current situation, one of those instances that argue for appeasement? For this argument, one would need believe that this demand was ALL that Putin really wanted, and so giving it to him, would actually have the intended, ameliorating effect. History would argue against the first part of that sentence (which is why it also says that "no," is the answer to question #1), and our experience with Putin, even just in this one circumstance, shouts a clear "no," to the second part.

LOL. That weak assertion is supposed to replace your answering the questions I have repeatedly asked, and you have never addressed? If you really believe what you think it is "safe to assume," I am at a complete loss as to why you would assume this, much less, feel it was safe for you to do so when, in this conversation, every time you have made an assumption about me-- as improbable as assuming that I "have limited access to PF"-- you have been utterly wrong.

But, if you want, "you never read my post," to stand as your half of the argument, to all of my points, left unanswered by you, I doubt you would have been able to do much better, anyway.

The only unfortunate part is that, though I could see we would reach no common understandings, I had planned on congratulating you, for at least participating with me in actual debate, rather than mindless, partisan name- calling. Your flying the coop, with your non- answer, however, requires no assumption, to see as your retreat from the field of debate.

 

@Lil Mike

You screwed up your formatting, so that your final comments were included at the bottom, but within the green bubble, of my quotes, so I did not notice them. Now that I have, I want to show you that you have NO right, to criticize another's argument from your "assumptions," because even your straight reading of ideas, is inept. But I will let the readership decide.

Here is what you'd surmised about my argument:

[Mike snip]
"I think the thinking behind your, and virtually every foreign ministry on the globe, was that Putin was bluffing for concessions. Except he wasn't bluffing and he's invaded. So you can pat yourself on the back for that; you stood up to Putin!"
[end Snip]

I know that you complained about the font changes, but when someone is repeatedly unable to follow a thought, that leads to my using these aids. What you should have gathered, from your own post, above, was that from all of my posts, you'd concluded that I thought, "Putin was bluffing for concessions."

Now let's see who is to blame, for your erroneous idea:

Did you see, among the "only 2 possibilities," one that talks about Putin's playing for "concessions?" Because, to my reading, that plainly says that what Putin has always wanted, one way or another, was control of Ukraine.

I also show that I believe that his words are insincere; but I remember you had difficulty with that word. And, I guess the word "control," looks a bit like the word, "concessions," (even though I'd only spoken of the idea of control, not used the word), so let's continue looking.

What part of: all his claims were B.S....just to insert a pretext (for invasion),
did you read as: Putin is pretending to invade, in order to get the concessions for which he asks?

Because, I know this is gonna throw you for a loop, but those two ideas, are actually opposites. So your idea of what I was saying, was off by 180 degrees (of a circle, to be clear).

So it's hard to not see you as an ass, when you direct this, to me:
[Mike Snip]
"On points of content, you don't seem to have added anything new. You've repeated the same talking points over and over. You also have incoherent arguments which seem pointless to reply to..."
[End]


Lastly, from my last post, the one that gave you your, could not be further off, impression of my argument, that I thought Putin was negotiating for concessions:

Did I stutter?

 

Sovereignty. You claim it's a violation of Ukraine's rights as sovereign nation to constrain their ability to join NATO. The problem is, Ukraine has no right, either as a sovereign nation or under any other category, to join NATO. I passed over this argument in your previous post because I thought it was dumb and not reflective of much of your reasoning, but apparently it is. So to be clear, Ukraine doesn't have that right. It takes a unanimous agreement among every NATO member to induct another one. Their sovereignty counts for something too I would think. Ukraine's NATO membership wasn't around the corner, it wasn't on the table. So we could have given away things we don't have for things we wanted.

Appeasement. Negotiating with a tyrant is to your mind, simply Chamberlain-esque giving in to a dictator. I thought I had already dealt with this issue previously (we had agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control ect...) which is why I was dismissive of your rehashing this. But since it's now clear you really didn't understand my previous comments on this issue and have no intention of doing so, I'm at a loss on how to continue on this. Tyrants, dictators, and madmen are the very people you need to negotiate with. The results of NOT doing that are...well cut on the TV news.

Now are there any other issues that you think I have not addressed from your posts? Since I obviously did address one of them, I've probably addressed the others already too, but go ahead.

 

Besides the formatting comments (which you apparently took great offense to) the gist of this is that you claimed there were always only "two possibilities, for the way this would play out. Either there would be a coup, & Zelenskyy would be replaced by a Ukranian bootlick to Putin, or Russia would invade. Anything else, is just your wishful imagination."

Now was this your prediction before the invasion or after? It's important, but I think the gist of this is that you were always opposed to any negotiations with Putin and were fully expecting and wanting war. And I suppose you are in a lot of company. I think I'm the only one on this forum who wanted to negotiate to prevent a war and it's obvious that suggestion was not at all popular on this forum.

 

Talk about "dumb" reasoning. You are wrong, because of your wholely unjustified attitude of hubris, assuming that I must be seeing a thing the same way as yourself & merely coming to the wrong conclusion, rather than that we have different interpretations. Here is my view (and the view of NATO, and of most of the rest of the world, besides); read it all the way to the end, before you jump to another assumption, OK?:
Ukraine has a right to join NATO, IF
NATO invites it to.


Do you disagree? So, since it is NATO countries, who have the right of approving new members, which wish to join,
and because Russia (fyi) is not a NATO nation,
it has no right to dictate to NATO, who they or may not consider/admit; further, since it is NATO's policy to allow all nations to apply, Putin has no business prohibiting that, either.

On the one hand, you're granting that it's solely NATOs decision, who they admit as members (of countries, obviously, which want to join), yet you are unfazed at the idea of Putin's being involved in something which, is none of his rightful business. This is a matter of PRINCIPLE, and PRECEDENT.

As I'd explained, no one (not even you) was going to get a damn thing from Putin. He was not playing Let's Make A Deal. He wanted to control Ukraine-- preferably, I would submit, through a proxy, Ukrainian usurper but-- by military means, if necessary.

All his protestations about NATO (and about Genocide, and about Nazis, etc.) were just the pretext, the excuse, to muddy up the water, so it would not be as naked an aggression; all he wanted was plausible deniability, as to whether he chose to invade, merely for his own benefit. You can disagree with my interpretation, if you like, but please, at least, finally, understand it.

This is specifically why Putin asked for such an unacceptable thing: if he was given what he'd asked for, he would lose the pretext, which he was after. This line of logic, should not be so incomprehensible as you'd found it, and my description here, I assure you, is not "incoherent."

.

See, to me, you are making a tremendous oversight; if I were to take your own, arrogant attitude of exasperation at your co- conversant's slowness of perception, I could, here, return it to you, in spades.

But I will try to be the bigger debater, and simply explain that the concept of "appeasement," does NOT mean that countries do no business with dictators (I would have thought, obviously). It specifically refers to the kind of tyrant-- or any leader, for that matter-- who is intent upon expansion through conquest.

Any more questions?

One thing I have asked, multiple times, is how does your mind brush away the ideas other than the NATO complaint, which Putin rose, in your assumption that he would have contentedly accepted the agreement of NATO, to bar Ukraine from membership, and would not have asked for anything more, or not have had some additional issues or concerns? PUTIN never said that this assurance from NATO was the Only thing he wanted, as far as I am aware; please provide me your source, if I am incorrect, about that. This is a very important fact, in your grand assumption.

Again, the claims Putin made, were:
1) Ukraine is, historically, not a real country, but has actually always been a part of RUSSIA.

2) The Ukranians are in the middle of perpetrating a genocide of ethnic Russians, in Ukraine.

3) The Ukranian government, is led by NAZIs.


While I will accept your assertion that, if Putin got this NATO assurance, which you see as the key, here, he might be able to just forget about having a NAZI nation next door, but the genocide &, even more so, Putin's claim that Ukraine rightfully belongs to Russia, is a highly- problematic one, for your argument.


The TOTALITY of Putin's litany of charges, however, strongly supports, it seems to me, my own thesis.

That's plenty, I think, for now.

 

When you wrote, "read it all the way to the end, before you jump to another assumption, OK?" I thought you were going to bring up some new angle I had not previously considered. Alas I was once again disappointed. Your argument is

"Ukraine has a right to join NATO, IF
NATO invites it to."

Wow.

Mind blown!



So this again puts us back to square one. NATO membership isn't anything that Ukraine owns by virtue of it's sovereignty, it doesn't own it at all, NATO does, or more specifically, each individual member who has veto power.

I hope the Ukrainian civilians are enjoying your principle.

This is the at least the third iteration of "you can't make deals with dictators" argument. I get it, you are opposed to deals with dictators. Except of course for all of the deals we have made with dictators except for this one. Although this version is actually more incoherent than your previous versions since you are now arguing that if we had given in to Putler, he would have lost the pretext for invading, which you think...is a bad thing? The more you rehash this argument, the worse it sounds to me, although I think if your position is no deals with dictators, then you don't need to rehash it again; I get it, I just don't agree with it.

I agree that's plenty. Putin did make a lot of demands besides no Ukraine in NATO, but you have to figure which ones he was willing to ignore to get what he really wanted, which is (in my opinion) no Ukraine in NATO. But the way to find that out is by a series of talks, negotiations one might say, which you've already put off the table. So we'll never know.

Just curious, but if during the Cold War era, Mexico had a communist revolution and wanted to join the Warsaw Pact, would you agree that as a fact of sovereignty, Mexico had that right?

 

I have held an extremely consistent position, on the matter. In fact, when I searched my name, for the word, "Ukraine," I came up with this post, from March of last year (when Putin first gathered troops at Ukraine's border):

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...er-into-ukraine.586213/page-2#post-1072521461

A couple of SNIPS from it:

There are a bunch more posts I have throughout that time and in the initial buildup of this one, before their pause, but jumping ahead, to closer to the actual invasion, here is a snip & link for the first post I saw, (Feb. 22) about the most recent stage of this narrative:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-does-putin-want.597233/page-4#post-1073273558

______________________________
Feb. 23:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ine-for-fear-of-china.597259/#post-1073274033

___________________________________
Feb. 22:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...eastern-ukraine.597246/page-4#post-1073273779

This is an unwarranted, and unsupportable assumption-- what did we learn about those?-- on your part. First off, I was not "opposed to any negotiations." Where did you get that idea? Unless, that is, you are considering my unwillingness to give in to Putin's specific demand about dictating Ukraine's international relationships-- something which is unprecedented in the modern world, and flies in the face of the concept of national sovereignty-- as meaning that I was opposed to any negotiations. If that is the case, however, then I would be debating with a specious propagandist, because being against one specific, outlandish ask of Putin's, is not at all the same thing as being against negotiating. You understand, in negotiations, neither side gets everything it wants? Well this is one point that, as Biden, the EU, and any Western diplomat saw was patently true, was ridiculous for Putin to expect and so one, against which, the West should hold fast.

Then, comes your second great jump, from being unwilling to cave on this one demand, with good reason, to therefore not just expecting, but wanting, war. That is a non sequitur assumption. Not that it wasn't a possibility, but it was not the only possibility. I mean, really. Do your presumptions know any bounds?


That is most of your argument that I can see, that I haven't already addressed, except your question about Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact, during the Cold War era. I would first remind you that Cuba WAS a Russian ally, in those long- ago days (and still is) Secondly, it is not an even analogy, because NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and almost all of its members, are in Europe-- FYI, as is Ukraine. The Warsaw Pact, on the other hand, was all in Eastern Europe or Central Asia. So, if this isn't abundantly obvious to you, Ukraine much more naturally fits within NATO's existing structure, than Mexico would have fit in the Warsaw Pact's. Thirdly, it is not a fair to compare the atmosphere of the Cold War, with the world of today.

Yet, with all the warpage of your analogy, the answer is, of course, had Mexico wanted to join the Warsaw Pact, we would not have invaded Mexico, to stop that from happening. We would certainly have done everything possible to keep nuclear missiles out of Mexico, but I have already stipulated this as a compromise that not only I, but NATO itself, would have been willing to make to Putin-- no nukes in Ukraine, even if it joins NATO-- because that is a reasonable demand.

 

@Lil Mike
Here are two more posts, that didn't fit into my reply, above.

February 21st:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...obilization-in-donbas.597172/#post-1073270473

________________________________
Feb.23rd:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ine-for-fear-of-china.597259/#post-1073273865

With all that material, now, to which you may refer, I hope there will be no further need for me to correct the false assumptions, with which your understandings of my perspective, thus far, have been rife.

 

Do you mean to tell me that you are finally responding to posts I made a week ago to demonstrate that you do support negotiations with Russia? In that case, I posted what I had hoped the Biden administration would have done (pre invasion) in a reply to you, on post #287. So are you agreeing with my negotiation proposals? Because if so I'm at a loss at what you are on about.