7 ms·

Unfortunately Dutch MP Geert Wilders from PVV and German AfD are acting like Putin's puppet. Both are still defending the action of Russia and blaming the EU a

Unfortunately Dutch MP Geert Wilders from PVV and German AfD are acting like Putin's puppet. Both are still defending the action of Russia and blaming the EU and NATO for the Russian aggression.

sam_lowry_ 10mo ago
Even after Malaysia_Airlines Flight 17 [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
- tgv 10mo ago
  Wilders received a Russia-Netherlands friendship pin, and posted the picture of him posing with it (in the Duma, IIRC) on this twitter account on Mar 1, 2018.
littlecranky67 10mo ago
It is at least 50% NATOs fault. Mexico and Canada are democratic and sovereign nations, but if either would decide to allow chinese or russian military bases to be built in their country, you can safely asume the US would not hesitate to brake international laws and take military actions on those sovereign countries. NATO expanded closer and closer to russias border, and you can't just expect for Russia to be okay with that, just as the US wouldn't be okay with that.
- juliusceasar 10mo ago
  NATO didn't expand, those countries DECIDED to join. Why? Because they have lived under the cruelty of Russian aggression. Just like countries DECIDE to join the EU and not the Warshaw pact. But, I see that Russian propaganda is doing its job.
  - littlecranky67 10mo ago
    My point is, Mexico and Canada could DECIDE to become allies of China and Russia. And then you would see the very same, how the US doesn't give a s** about their free decisions and invades.
    - codedokode 10mo ago
      Cuba once wanted to partner with USSR in hosting nuclear missiles (purely for defense purposes; you cannot invade with a missile) and US cared very much about it.
      - mopsi 10mo ago
        ... cared only about the nukes. Conventional weapons remained in Cuba, and the USSR continued supplying them until the end in 1991. In 1978, for example, the USSR gave Cuba the newest MIG-27 fighter jets, and the United States did nothing about it, which proves the opposite of what Kremlin trolls are trying to argue. The USSR's support for Cuba went far beyond anything any NATO member has seen since the end of the Cold War, yet there was no war against Cuba.
        littlecranky67 10mo ago
        At that time the US hat nukes that could be shot at Cuba, too. Hipocracy again...
        mopsi 10mo ago
        Yes, but nukes were removed from Cuba and that was the end of the military confrontation. Conventional weapons like fighter jets, air defense missiles, tanks, etc still remained and were upgraded over time. Meanwhile, Central and Eastern Europe has seen no deployment of even conventional weapons beyond purely symbolic gestures like a few thousand lightly armed soldiers scattered across a region of more than 100 million people. If Cuba is the blueprint, then NATO allies could arm Eastern Europe to the teeth.
        D_Alex 10mo ago
- skrebbel 10mo ago
  For decades the West, and Germany in particular, tried to turn Russia from an enemy into a trading partner and eventually an ally. Naive, in hindsight? Sure thing. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s absolutely no reason for Russia to be enemies with the West other than Putin’s imperialist ambitions.
  - CapricornNoble 10mo ago
    US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (The Guardian, Nov2004) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa Do you think fomenting revolution in Russia's near-abroad sphere of influence was helpful or harmful for turning Russia into an ally?
    - af78 10mo ago
      The linked article is long on opinion, short on facts. The content does not support the headline. This is likely part of a Russian influence campaign (they did not start yesterday), aimed at de-legitimizing the protest movement and denying that Ukrainian citizens had any agency. Besides, did you know that the Kuchma government sent Ukrainian soldiers to Afghanistan and Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_involvement_in_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_involvement_in_the_I...)? Why would the US government want to overthrow a sympathetic regime?
      - CapricornNoble 10mo ago
        Are you suggesting that the Russians were using __ The Guardian __ as part of an influence campaign....in 2004? That's an extraordinary claim, for which you present no supporting evidence while blasting the article for being "short on facts". Pot, kettle, black. Here's Radio Free Europe on the subject: https://www.rferl.org/a/1058543.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1058543.html it specifically calls out amounts paid to organizations in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine via the National Endowment for Democracy, which is funded via Congress and the State Department. >Besides, did you know that the Kuchma government sent Ukrainian soldiers to Afghanistan and Iraq Yes, I know that. I bring it up anytime somebody says "Ukraine never invaded anybody!" > Why would the US government want to overthrow a sympathetic regime? To replace a sympathetic leader they DON'T control with an even more sympathetic leader they DO control. Wresting control of the political apparatus in a state often outlasts any singular "elected" Executive.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- discreteevent 10mo ago
  And yet when Finland actually joined NATO, Russia said they had no problem with that. Something doesn't add up in your story - and it happens to be the same story told by Russian trolls and useful idiots.
- asimpletune 10mo ago
  So what? Everyone acts in to further their interests. NATO expands because it's in NATO's interest to do so. Russia says that this expansion is not in Russia's interest. Why only say the Russian part and leave out the NATO part? Furthermore, if having an interest in something gives the right to use military power to achieve that interest then the argument applies to everyone. The point about foreign bases in Canada or Mexico gets repeated a lot online, but what is the ultimate point? The USA would not like it, but it's also not a political reality. On the other hand a NATO build out IS a political reality. So I think rather than focusing purely on what one country wishes it's better to analyze things in terms of what the political realities are and which is better. In that sense NATO is meant to be a deterrence. Russia doesn't like that. If you ask yourself whose vision of the future is better then the answer is clear. A world of where rule of law is the norm and invasions are deterred is preferable. There has been tremendous peace and prosperity in the EU because of NATO and people have just gotten used to it. They have taken for granted the cost and sacrifice that this peace came from. However, simply saying that Russia has an interest in not having NATO on their border is almost tautological. Of course they don't want that, but so what. Peace only works if it's enforceable.
  - CapricornNoble 10mo ago
    >NATO expands because it's in NATO's interest to do so. I highly recommend reading the 1997 US Senate debate about NATO expansion. There were a number of experienced statesmen who vehemently disagreed that NATO expansion was in NATO's interest. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/C... > A world of where rule of law is the norm and invasions are deterred is preferable. Except we don't have that world. From Iraq in 2003 to especially the NATO air campaign in Libya in 2011, we've long since demonstrated that there are no rules, and invasions have no consequences.
    - asimpletune 10mo ago
      > There were a number of experienced statesmen who vehemently disagreed that NATO expansion was in NATO's interest. That's fine and they're lucky to live in a country where they can express any new they wish. Maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong, who knows?! > From Iraq in 2003 to especially the NATO air campaign in Libya in 2011... The west is still the preferable choice to support despite these mistakes.
- tim333 10mo ago
  I'd go 25% NATOs fault. You'll note Ukraine didn't apply to join NATO, was not invited to join NATO so Russia saw it as easy game and invaded. A problem with the west is they persuaded Ukraine to give up its nukes in return for a bit of paper saying the west would help protect it and then when push came to shove they were wimpy about it.
  - juliusceasar 10mo ago
    Russia made that promise as well. Not just the west.
- _DeadFred_ 10mo ago
  Russia's war and invasion of Ukraine have brought NATO along more Russian border with new voluntary NATO members. And Russia claims it doesn't care about that/it isn't an issue. You're argument is just a way to work backwards from the outcome Russia wants, not a reality. Russia has said it is about Russian speakers. Russia has said it is about nazis. Russia will say anything to try to validate their war.

Unfortunately Dutch MP Geert Wilders from PVV and German AfD are acting like Putin's puppet. Both are still defending the action of Russia and blaming the EU and NATO for the Russian aggression.

sam_lowry_ 10mo ago

Even after Malaysia_Airlines Flight 17 [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

tgv 10mo ago
Wilders received a Russia-Netherlands friendship pin, and posted the picture of him posing with it (in the Duma, IIRC) on this twitter account on Mar 1, 2018.

littlecranky67 10mo ago

It is at least 50% NATOs fault. Mexico and Canada are democratic and sovereign nations, but if either would decide to allow chinese or russian military bases to be built in their country, you can safely asume the US would not hesitate to brake international laws and take military actions on those sovereign countries. NATO expanded closer and closer to russias border, and you can't just expect for Russia to be okay with that, just as the US wouldn't be okay with that.

juliusceasar 10mo ago
NATO didn't expand, those countries DECIDED to join. Why? Because they have lived under the cruelty of Russian aggression. Just like countries DECIDE to join the EU and not the Warshaw pact. But, I see that Russian propaganda is doing its job.
- littlecranky67 10mo ago
  My point is, Mexico and Canada could DECIDE to become allies of China and Russia. And then you would see the very same, how the US doesn't give a s** about their free decisions and invades.
  - codedokode 10mo ago
    Cuba once wanted to partner with USSR in hosting nuclear missiles (purely for defense purposes; you cannot invade with a missile) and US cared very much about it.
    - mopsi 10mo ago
      ... cared only about the nukes. Conventional weapons remained in Cuba, and the USSR continued supplying them until the end in 1991. In 1978, for example, the USSR gave Cuba the newest MIG-27 fighter jets, and the United States did nothing about it, which proves the opposite of what Kremlin trolls are trying to argue. The USSR's support for Cuba went far beyond anything any NATO member has seen since the end of the Cold War, yet there was no war against Cuba.
      - littlecranky67 10mo ago
        At that time the US hat nukes that could be shot at Cuba, too. Hipocracy again...
        mopsi 10mo ago
        Yes, but nukes were removed from Cuba and that was the end of the military confrontation. Conventional weapons like fighter jets, air defense missiles, tanks, etc still remained and were upgraded over time. Meanwhile, Central and Eastern Europe has seen no deployment of even conventional weapons beyond purely symbolic gestures like a few thousand lightly armed soldiers scattered across a region of more than 100 million people. If Cuba is the blueprint, then NATO allies could arm Eastern Europe to the teeth.
      - D_Alex 10mo ago
skrebbel 10mo ago
For decades the West, and Germany in particular, tried to turn Russia from an enemy into a trading partner and eventually an ally. Naive, in hindsight? Sure thing. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s absolutely no reason for Russia to be enemies with the West other than Putin’s imperialist ambitions.
- CapricornNoble 10mo ago
  US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (The Guardian, Nov2004) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa Do you think fomenting revolution in Russia's near-abroad sphere of influence was helpful or harmful for turning Russia into an ally?
  - af78 10mo ago
    The linked article is long on opinion, short on facts. The content does not support the headline. This is likely part of a Russian influence campaign (they did not start yesterday), aimed at de-legitimizing the protest movement and denying that Ukrainian citizens had any agency. Besides, did you know that the Kuchma government sent Ukrainian soldiers to Afghanistan and Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_involvement_in_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_involvement_in_the_I...)? Why would the US government want to overthrow a sympathetic regime?
    - CapricornNoble 10mo ago
      Are you suggesting that the Russians were using __ The Guardian __ as part of an influence campaign....in 2004? That's an extraordinary claim, for which you present no supporting evidence while blasting the article for being "short on facts". Pot, kettle, black. Here's Radio Free Europe on the subject: https://www.rferl.org/a/1058543.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1058543.html it specifically calls out amounts paid to organizations in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine via the National Endowment for Democracy, which is funded via Congress and the State Department. >Besides, did you know that the Kuchma government sent Ukrainian soldiers to Afghanistan and Iraq Yes, I know that. I bring it up anytime somebody says "Ukraine never invaded anybody!" > Why would the US government want to overthrow a sympathetic regime? To replace a sympathetic leader they DON'T control with an even more sympathetic leader they DO control. Wresting control of the political apparatus in a state often outlasts any singular "elected" Executive.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
discreteevent 10mo ago
And yet when Finland actually joined NATO, Russia said they had no problem with that. Something doesn't add up in your story - and it happens to be the same story told by Russian trolls and useful idiots.
asimpletune 10mo ago
So what? Everyone acts in to further their interests. NATO expands because it's in NATO's interest to do so. Russia says that this expansion is not in Russia's interest. Why only say the Russian part and leave out the NATO part? Furthermore, if having an interest in something gives the right to use military power to achieve that interest then the argument applies to everyone. The point about foreign bases in Canada or Mexico gets repeated a lot online, but what is the ultimate point? The USA would not like it, but it's also not a political reality. On the other hand a NATO build out IS a political reality. So I think rather than focusing purely on what one country wishes it's better to analyze things in terms of what the political realities are and which is better. In that sense NATO is meant to be a deterrence. Russia doesn't like that. If you ask yourself whose vision of the future is better then the answer is clear. A world of where rule of law is the norm and invasions are deterred is preferable. There has been tremendous peace and prosperity in the EU because of NATO and people have just gotten used to it. They have taken for granted the cost and sacrifice that this peace came from. However, simply saying that Russia has an interest in not having NATO on their border is almost tautological. Of course they don't want that, but so what. Peace only works if it's enforceable.
- CapricornNoble 10mo ago
  >NATO expands because it's in NATO's interest to do so. I highly recommend reading the 1997 US Senate debate about NATO expansion. There were a number of experienced statesmen who vehemently disagreed that NATO expansion was in NATO's interest. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/C... > A world of where rule of law is the norm and invasions are deterred is preferable. Except we don't have that world. From Iraq in 2003 to especially the NATO air campaign in Libya in 2011, we've long since demonstrated that there are no rules, and invasions have no consequences.
  - asimpletune 10mo ago
    > There were a number of experienced statesmen who vehemently disagreed that NATO expansion was in NATO's interest. That's fine and they're lucky to live in a country where they can express any new they wish. Maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong, who knows?! > From Iraq in 2003 to especially the NATO air campaign in Libya in 2011... The west is still the preferable choice to support despite these mistakes.
tim333 10mo ago
I'd go 25% NATOs fault. You'll note Ukraine didn't apply to join NATO, was not invited to join NATO so Russia saw it as easy game and invaded. A problem with the west is they persuaded Ukraine to give up its nukes in return for a bit of paper saying the west would help protect it and then when push came to shove they were wimpy about it.
- juliusceasar 10mo ago
  Russia made that promise as well. Not just the west.
_DeadFred_ 10mo ago
Russia's war and invasion of Ukraine have brought NATO along more Russian border with new voluntary NATO members. And Russia claims it doesn't care about that/it isn't an issue. You're argument is just a way to work backwards from the outcome Russia wants, not a reality. Russia has said it is about Russian speakers. Russia has said it is about nazis. Russia will say anything to try to validate their war.