You seriously believe that?

Because if you say yes I'm going to expect you to defend this position against the rather obvious realities against it.

Also, I get the impression that you don't actually know what was in that peace deal.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Feb 2024 9.01am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Tis sadly true in the modern world.

We are fed black and white narratives by our media and government.

Love or hate.

Social pressure to conform or fear being seen as 'hating' or being a bad person.

It's almost child like in a way.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Feb 2024 9.47am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

In pain can't get your teeth fixed in tory soviet Britain?

Ukrainian dentistry is excellent, the refugees who have come here are dismayed at our tory dental shambles.

I read a guy from Cambridge who, unable to get treatment, actually went to Ukraine to get his 'hampstead heath' fixed.

If you sign up for their war you can probably get them done for nothing!

Why are you still here, why aren't you fleeing from this hell hole to Ukraine or one of the few surviving communist countries, or of course to the EU that you seem to regard as some sort of utopia? My private dentist is great and not outrageously expensive.

Edited by georgenorman (10 Feb 2024 10.03pm)

Meanwhile figures show Russia is doing quite well , financially.

And prisoner numbers in Russia are dropping too

Attachment: G7 economies 2023.pdf (258.08Kb)

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

So 'this guy' in question is a comedian called Dave Smith. Though looking at his career history he kind of much prefers a good political podcast these days.

[Link]

In the original X video Dave talks about three notable US defence secretarys who all oposed NATO expansion in the 90s. What Dave is referring to is a letter in 1997 written by 50 former ambassadors, senators and memebers of the government to the US government called 'Nato Expansion - a policy error of historic importance'. I've linked it below:

[Link]

Moving aside from the technical aspect that Dave is wrong about these people 'being within the government' at that time as the three he mentions had long since been retired (McNamara), had not entered government yet (Gates) or have had their opinions cropped to fit a narrative (Perry). Dave cites the reason for opposition was becuase the 50 signatories felt it would provoke a war with Russia against Nato when in reality, no where on the letter does it state this. Indeed the mains concerns where that the (later cancelled by the US) START II treaty would be jeapordised, it would diminish the sense of security which non nato members might want to hold (at this point the US and UK had promised to guarantee Ukrainian independence in a seperate treaty) and that NATO might not be able to defend it self with so many new members.

Dave goes on to talk about the George Kennan Interview in 1998 with Thomas Friedman. Here it is, good read actually!

[Link]

Its definitely true that he is harshly critical of expansion in 1997, if you read the interview he sees it as the US propping up some very undemocratic states in the form of the Czech Reublic, Hungary and Poland vs a Russia which at that time was the most democratic it had ever been. While some might argue this was a sound opinion at the time, it ignores the fact that subsequently, these countries have become significantly more democratic while Russia has significantly regressed. It also misses a key point about the rights of a country to decide its own politics and alliances vs Russia's hurt feelings espiecally when Russia continually commited to upholding the former for years evening during the so called 'poking of the bear'. Its like a perverse form of political correctness where certain countries have to forgo basic human rights in case Russia gets offended.

On the second video Dave takes aim at NATO itself. Dave concedes that Russia should not feel threated by a defensive alliance and then tries to dig at NATO for actually being the opposite. Citing three examples of alledged agression.

Afganistan - which is odd because its actually the first time the defensive alliance was ever used via the triggering of article 5 (by the US incidently) after 9/11. For reference it's worth mentioning lots of NATO member citizens were murdered that day including 67 Brits, but remember, its a war of agression towards the good people of the Taliban...

Serbia - Dave may finally have a point here if only the reason for NATO's intervention wasnt to stop a literal genocide in Europe.

[Link]

Libya - NATO answered the call of the UN security council to enact resolution 1973 which Russia of all countries had veto power over.

[Link]

So Dave's case about NATO's agression rests on two things, that stopping a genocide is bad and that Russia could end up voting in favour of a war against itself via UN security resolution. Genius level intellect there!

Dave goes on to say that actually none of this matters because its all about Putins perspective, forget annoying things like reality.

Building on Putin's safe space being violated we arrive at the NATO missle sheild which gets conviently rotated from Russia's objections that the US could undermine its nuclear arsenal on missiles fired from Russia at the west to a total falsehood that the US wanted to put offensive nuclear missles in Poland to fire at Russia. something it has never done or said it would do.

[Link]

I've tried to avoid posting videos where is basically a person voicing their opinion in podcast format, seeing as that seems to be acceptable and count as irrefutable fact. I'd like to make a rare exception and shout out this youtuber particularly on this topic given the semi decent level of research and analysis provided. Do be warned he is probably an elite / neo con so please do take it with a pinch of salt.

[Link]

Edited by snytaxx (11 Feb 2024 9.48pm)