Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 12:11 pm Let me just open this can of multi-quote:

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am At the time NATO was expanding and bringing former Warsaw Pact countries under its influence...

Or; "At the time former Warsaw Pact countries were freely choosing to join NATO..."

You could see it like that but it's a bit one sided. Like you say below the West would have being dangling big economic carrots in front of these countries with the quid pro quo being to sign up to NATO.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am ...Russia was not a military threat.

Russia was an unstable nuclear-armed state right on their borders. It had a history of aggressive expansion and Eastern Europeans would have been stupid to not foresee a time when a threat would re-emerge. It turns out that they were not stupid after all, and seeking collective security was an entirely sensible policy.

Except Ukraine, that is. Ukraine trusted Russia to respect its borders in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. That's a lesson learned, and in particular by the other eastern Europeans.

I repeat it was not a credible military threat in the time period we are talking about. Yes it had nuclear capability but like most of its military materiel it was in a sorry state.

Ukraine also gave up its neutrality. Silly move. The behaviour of small states is conditioned by their larger more powerful neighbours. Ukraine somehow forgot that important rule. They are not "free" actors on the world stage.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am Its military was starved of resources and cash because the state was being stripped of its assets by the West and kleptocrats...

I'm going to suggest that the sneaky evil West wasn't really the baddie in all this, however this is irrelevant because...

This assumption that the West wasn't asset stripping Russia and the Ukraine is the weakest part of your argument. Dismissing the underlying economic argument in favour of a fantasy world where states are able to make free choices is fancifully utopian.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am ...and was unable to maintain a viable military threat.

I must be imaging the 190,000 troops currently plundering into Ukraine then. It may not have been a viable threat within a very limited window of time, but that was never going to remain the case.

Straw Man alert! I was talking about a place in time when opportunities existed to demilitarise the earth not about a rebuilt Russian army with enhanced but still limited capability in comparison to the Western allies.

I think you're imagining a reality whereby Russia developing into a modern, open, liberal democracy was ever a realistic outcome. Perhaps most of us did at the time. It would have been great, sure, but I think that greater experts than you or I, and others with more at stake, calculated that it was never going to happen.

Under Yeltsin there were moves toward democratising Russia (political parties,elections, parliament, free press etc) but Putin ended that to pursue his state building dictatorship.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am The geopolitical move should have been to disband NATO,

I've already commented on this when I tore your Chomsky article to shreds. Delusional

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am have the forner Warsaw Pact countries as neutral,

Now who has the imperialist mind-set? How about we let the former Warsaw Pact countries decide for themselves?

See above. It would be nice if they were able to decide for themselves but in the real world they can only act within certain paramaters when it comes to military alliances against neighbours

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am promoted democracy and growth in the former USSR and stop the theiving of the states assets.

Yeah. Just like that. Flippant - no reply required.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am I can understand why the Eastern European countries sought protection from Russia...

Good. We're making progress. I was already there you are the blinkered one being swayed by propaganda.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am but the historical context is of the West pushing home economic and military advantage just because they could.

The West promoted the benefits of its way of life. But why not? Why is that always framed as a bad thing? There will always be competing views for how to organise and run a territory. Based on all the viable options being implemented in the world today, for all its faults, I'd still choose our way of life over just about any other.

We didn't put a gun to anyone's head and force them to join in. They asked to. They weighed up their options and decided that what we have is pretty damn good.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 12:55 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 12:11 pm Let me just open this can of multi-quote:

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am At the time NATO was expanding and bringing former Warsaw Pact countries under its influence...

Or; "At the time former Warsaw Pact countries were freely choosing to join NATO..."

You could see it like that but it's a bit one sided. Like you say below the West would have being dangling big economic carrots in front of these countries with the quid pro quo being to sign up to NATO.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am ...Russia was not a military threat.

Russia was an unstable nuclear-armed state right on their borders. It had a history of aggressive expansion and Eastern Europeans would have been stupid to not foresee a time when a threat would re-emerge. It turns out that they were not stupid after all, and seeking collective security was an entirely sensible policy.

Except Ukraine, that is. Ukraine trusted Russia to respect its borders in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. That's a lesson learned, and in particular by the other eastern Europeans.

I repeat it was not a credible military threat in the time period we are talking about. Yes it had nuclear capability but like most of its military materiel it was in a sorry state.

Ukraine also gave up its neutrality. Silly move. The behaviour of small states is conditioned by their larger more powerful neighbours. Ukraine somehow forgot that important rule. They are not "free" actors on the world stage.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am Its military was starved of resources and cash because the state was being stripped of its assets by the West and kleptocrats...

I'm going to suggest that the sneaky evil West wasn't really the baddie in all this, however this is irrelevant because...

This assumption that the West wasn't asset stripping Russia and the Ukraine is the weakest part of your argument. Dismissing the underlying economic argument in favour of a fantasy world where states are able to make free choices is fancifully utopian.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am ...and was unable to maintain a viable military threat.

I must be imaging the 190,000 troops currently plundering into Ukraine then. It may not have been a viable threat within a very limited window of time, but that was never going to remain the case.

Straw Man alert! I was talking about a place in time when opportunities existed to demilitarise the earth not about a rebuilt Russian army with enhanced but still limited capability in comparison to the Western allies.

I think you're imagining a reality whereby Russia developing into a modern, open, liberal democracy was ever a realistic outcome. Perhaps most of us did at the time. It would have been great, sure, but I think that greater experts than you or I, and others with more at stake, calculated that it was never going to happen.

Under Yeltsin there were moves toward democratising Russia (political parties,elections, parliament, free press etc) but Putin ended that to pursue his state building dictatorship.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am The geopolitical move should have been to disband NATO,

I've already commented on this when I tore your Chomsky article to shreds. Delusional

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am have the forner Warsaw Pact countries as neutral,

Now who has the imperialist mind-set? How about we let the former Warsaw Pact countries decide for themselves?

See above. It would be nice if they were able to decide for themselves but in the real world they can only act within certain paramaters when it comes to military alliances against neighbours

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am promoted democracy and growth in the former USSR and stop the theiving of the states assets.

Yeah. Just like that. Flippant - no reply required.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am I can understand why the Eastern European countries sought protection from Russia...

Good. We're making progress. I was already there you are the blinkered one being swayed by propaganda.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:57 am but the historical context is of the West pushing home economic and military advantage just because they could.

The West promoted the benefits of its way of life. But why not? Why is that always framed as a bad thing? There will always be competing views for how to organise and run a territory. Based on all the viable options being implemented in the world today, for all its faults, I'd still choose our way of life over just about any other.

We didn't put a gun to anyone's head and force them to join in. They asked to. They weighed up their options and decided that what we have is pretty damn good.

The West were selling a life style promise it knew it couldn't deliver because its financial instituitions and corporates were bleeding the country dry along with their Russian accomplices.
You don't always need a gun to force people to decide what to do.

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:10 pm Didn't the former Warsaw Pact countries largely join NATO whilst the Russian army was shelling the sh*t out of Chechnya?

Ukraine 'gave up it's neutrality' when Putin's own puppet president made overtures towards a closer relationship with the EU and was quickly told by his master's in Moscow to drop that idea. That was the trigger for everything that has happened since. Putin made clear that whatever democratic will the Ukrainian people expressed was of secondary importance to some revanchist ethno nationalist vision of his.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:29 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 12:55 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 12:11 pm Let me just open this can of multi-quote:



Or; "At the time former Warsaw Pact countries were freely choosing to join NATO..."

You could see it like that but it's a bit one sided. Like you say below the West would have being dangling big economic carrots in front of these countries with the quid pro quo being to sign up to NATO.



Russia was an unstable nuclear-armed state right on their borders. It had a history of aggressive expansion and Eastern Europeans would have been stupid to not foresee a time when a threat would re-emerge. It turns out that they were not stupid after all, and seeking collective security was an entirely sensible policy.

Except Ukraine, that is. Ukraine trusted Russia to respect its borders in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. That's a lesson learned, and in particular by the other eastern Europeans.

I repeat it was not a credible military threat in the time period we are talking about. Yes it had nuclear capability but like most of its military materiel it was in a sorry state.

Ukraine also gave up its neutrality. Silly move. The behaviour of small states is conditioned by their larger more powerful neighbours. Ukraine somehow forgot that important rule. They are not "free" actors on the world stage.



I'm going to suggest that the sneaky evil West wasn't really the baddie in all this, however this is irrelevant because...

This assumption that the West wasn't asset stripping Russia and the Ukraine is the weakest part of your argument. Dismissing the underlying economic argument in favour of a fantasy world where states are able to make free choices is fancifully utopian.



I must be imaging the 190,000 troops currently plundering into Ukraine then. It may not have been a viable threat within a very limited window of time, but that was never going to remain the case.

Straw Man alert! I was talking about a place in time when opportunities existed to demilitarise the earth not about a rebuilt Russian army with enhanced but still limited capability in comparison to the Western allies.

I think you're imagining a reality whereby Russia developing into a modern, open, liberal democracy was ever a realistic outcome. Perhaps most of us did at the time. It would have been great, sure, but I think that greater experts than you or I, and others with more at stake, calculated that it was never going to happen.

Under Yeltsin there were moves toward democratising Russia (political parties,elections, parliament, free press etc) but Putin ended that to pursue his state building dictatorship.



I've already commented on this when I tore your Chomsky article to shreds. Delusional



Now who has the imperialist mind-set? How about we let the former Warsaw Pact countries decide for themselves?

See above. It would be nice if they were able to decide for themselves but in the real world they can only act within certain paramaters when it comes to military alliances against neighbours



Yeah. Just like that. Flippant - no reply required.



Good. We're making progress. I was already there you are the blinkered one being swayed by propaganda.



The West promoted the benefits of its way of life. But why not? Why is that always framed as a bad thing? There will always be competing views for how to organise and run a territory. Based on all the viable options being implemented in the world today, for all its faults, I'd still choose our way of life over just about any other.

We didn't put a gun to anyone's head and force them to join in. They asked to. They weighed up their options and decided that what we have is pretty damn good.

The West were selling a life style promise it knew it couldn't deliver because its financial instituitions and corporates were bleeding the country dry along with their Russian accomplices.
You don't always need a gun to force people to decide what to do.

Interesting that you reply in red font. Says it all really.

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:44 pm I just wish I was eloquent enough to join max in taking dunnem down. Who would have thought an alchy cabbie had so much about him? Outstanding boarding.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:41 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:29 pm
Interesting that you reply in red font. Says it all really.

You could make it a colour war by responding in half yellow, half blue.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 2:04 pm

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:44 pm I just wish I was eloquent enough to join max in taking dunnem down. Who would have thought an alchy cabbie had so much about him? Outstanding boarding.

It's a shame you have to watch us heavyweights going at it, whilst remaining on the unused subs bench along with Comeupyourarse. Still, at least you can reminisce about when you were a good at boardin'.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 2:04 pm

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:44 pm I just wish I was eloquent enough to join max in taking dunnem down. Who would have thought an alchy cabbie had so much about him? Outstanding boarding.

It's a shame you have to watch us heavyweights going at it, whilst remaining on the unused subs bench along with Comeupyourarse. Still, at least you can reminisce about when you were a good at boardin'.

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 2:15 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 2:04 pm

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:44 pm I just wish I was eloquent enough to join max in taking dunnem down. Who would have thought an alchy cabbie had so much about him? Outstanding boarding.

It's a shame you have to watch us heavyweights going at it, whilst remaining on the unused subs bench along with Comeupyourarse. Still, at least you can reminisce about when you were a good at boardin'.

Even in my prime, I wouldn’t have been able to engage in such debate.

I could have sniped from the sidelines much more efficiently, however.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 2:43 pm Hmmm.

www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/0 ... ng-ukraine

"Sainsbury’s is renaming its chicken kiev to chicken kyiv and pulling a Russian-made vodka from its shelves"

Look, I'm all for solidarity and everything. And changing the spelling of the food stuff is fine. But when you start pulling booze off the shelves then that's when I start to get a little bit concerned.

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 3:02 pm "Our generation's Orwell" - Russel Brand

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 2:10 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:41 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:29 pm
Interesting that you reply in red font. Says it all really.

You could make it a colour war by responding in half yellow, half blue.

Sure.

StockholmO wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 4:10 pm Really weird for Putin to be blaming NATO being a threat to Russia when he wanted to join himself.

‘I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world’.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... n-his-rule

StockholmO wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 4:10 pm Really weird for Putin to be blaming NATO being a threat to Russia when he wanted to join himself.

‘I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world’.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... n-his-rule

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 4:36 pm Wasn't Putin still undecided back in those days? I thought he only went full-on anti-West about 2007.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 4:51 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 4:36 pm Wasn't Putin still undecided back in those days? I thought he only went full-on anti-West about 2007.

Is this some sort of guessing game now?

He's always been anti West all year way back to his days in the KGB/Station in East Germany in the 80s.