|
|
Post by fergiegiveusawave on Nov 25, 2024 15:59:21 GMT
The petition means absolutely nothing. Most probably never even voted for Labour in the last election and it’s fairly easy to manipulate anyway. Which has no doubt happened with that cunt, Musk sticking his nose in.
Also says a lot about this country that folk couldn’t be arsed doing this for that utter shambles of a Tory government that just left but will for a Labour one not even 5 months into the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by king nothing on Nov 25, 2024 18:13:38 GMT
I have to say, deleting my Twitter account has been absolutely brilliant for my mental health, particularly in light of events covered in here! limiting my social media in general and specifically Twitter has done the same.... The only social media I use is this place and Reddit. I've never really been a fan of Facebook. I was on it briefly about 8 years ago. Some of the mindless shite people were posting put me off big time. |
|
|
|
Post by unitedsotex on Nov 25, 2024 19:55:48 GMT
limiting my social media in general and specifically Twitter has done the same.... The only social media I use is this place and Reddit. I've never really been a fan of Facebook. I was on it briefly about 8 years ago. Some of the mindless shite people were posting put me off big time. Reddit can be a cesspool as well but you aren't as exposed to every idiot known to man like twitter though lol I use reddit for PC and gaming stuff. It's a great place to get direct information though. |
|
|
|
Post by Jayrannasaurus on Nov 26, 2024 6:44:00 GMT
I keep seeing NATO moved their border closer to Russia going against an agreement after WW2 ? Is this not the case ? NATO has always been an open doors organisation. There was never any agreement between NATO and Russia that they wouldn't add members as time progressed, in spite of what Russian bots would lead you to believe. They add in new members if they meet certain criteria and that has always been the case. Long, but worth a read. nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early" The documents show (...) that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels." Can't recommend the Untold History of the United States (by Oliver Stone) ( see here) more highly. Watched all the episodes on Dailymotion. It delves into the relationship between FDR, Stalin and Churchill, and how assurances and understandings that existed post-WWII deteriorated sharply with Truman taking office and FDR's rapid decline in health. FDR was the one who convinced Stalin to have the Soviet Union join the UN as a founding member. Harry Truman's early approval at the 1944 DNC was at 2%, whist the union-friendly + progressive Henry Wallace (per Gallup) had the support of approximately 57% of Democratic Party voters to succeed FDR. Interesting (and sad) to see what eventually unfolded, and the adversarial road that the US and Russia subsequently embarked on. It wasn't long until Russia was seen as the de facto new enemy of the US, and the Cold War etc. unfolded. Puts a lot of things into perspective, especially (inter alia) Baker & Dumas' assurances to Russia on limiting Eastward NATO expansion. |
|
|
|
Post by redcase on Nov 26, 2024 7:32:54 GMT
NATO has always been an open doors organisation. There was never any agreement between NATO and Russia that they wouldn't add members as time progressed, in spite of what Russian bots would lead you to believe. They add in new members if they meet certain criteria and that has always been the case. Long, but worth a read. nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early" The documents show (...) that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels." Can't recommend the Untold History of the United States (by Oliver Stone) ( see here) more highly. Watched all the episodes on Dailymotion. It delves into the relationship between FDR, Stalin and Churchill, and how assurances and understandings that existed post-WWII deteriorated sharply with Truman taking office and FDR's rapid decline in health. FDR was the one who convinced Stalin to have the Soviet Union join the UN as a founding member. Harry Truman's early approval at the 1944 DNC was at 2%, whist the union-friendly + progressive Henry Wallace (per Gallup) had the support of approximately 57% of Democratic Party voters to succeed FDR. Interesting (and sad) to see what eventually unfolded, and the adversarial road that the US and Russia subsequently embarked on. It wasn't long until Russia was seen as the de facto new enemy of the US, and the Cold War etc. unfolded. Puts a lot of things into perspective, especially (inter alia) Baker & Dumas' assurances to Russia on limiting Eastward NATO expansion. Oral agreements mean nothing. There may have been several discussions between American and Soviet counterparts in 1990, but there was nothing recorded in any treaty or document as far as I can see. That's what Caino was asking originally, if there were any agreements in place to prevent the expansion of NATO eastward - that's a no. Not to mention the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. What discussions took place in 1990 meant little considering the landscape is now reformed anew a year later. |
|
|
|
Post by Jayrannasaurus on Nov 26, 2024 7:39:06 GMT
An agreement can be oral or written, and revolves around a meeting of the minds. This is the basic premise of contract law.
Whether said agreement is enforceable later in time is, as you rightfully pointed out, something that really only attaches to international law instruments like treaties.
All I'm highlighting is that this impression wasn't totally made up / without any basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by redcase on Nov 26, 2024 7:47:58 GMT
That's fine, people can have any impression they wish to based on any oral meeting. How serious either party was re expansion eastward is total conjecture at this point.
Unless some of the outcomes of that meeting goes into a written contract, those impressions are vastly meaningless and unenforceable. It's a bit pointless to delve into those verbal agreements pre-Soviet downfall, seeing as the entire region ceased to exist within a year as did the architect of the discussions.
Whatever basis there was ended with the end of the Soviet Union. Russia does not get to now invade annex sovereign nations in an effort to go back to 1990 because of some discussions that took place but weren't enshrined in written document.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayrannasaurus on Nov 26, 2024 8:12:56 GMT
You're not wrong, but I'd probably add that Ukraine isn't a random sovereign nation - the historic ties between Russia and Ukraine are old, and complex.
Recently re-watched World War II in Colour (produced in 2009), and the narrator literally says the Nazis were welcomed in many areas of Ukraine that they invaded. This totally blew my mind, as the presence/otherwise of Nazi sympathizers and groups (e.g. Azov) in Ukraine was almost classified as missinfo these days.
The Donbas has up to 74.9% Russian speakers, i.e. it's the predominant language in much of these areas.
Don't want to derail the conversation, just trying to point out that the issues between Ukraine and Russia go very deep on an ethnic and cultural level (similar to many of these conflicts post-USSR dissolution, where masses of people ended up living within the national boundaries of new nations where their ethnicity was in the minority - with disastrous consequences, saw this first hand when I travelled through Croatia and parts of Montenegro years back).
Personally, I genuinely don't think Putin has any "imperial" intentions take over all the neighbouring countries and sweep across Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by redcase on Nov 26, 2024 9:05:26 GMT
Ukraine is an independent nation since 1991. So I'm really not sure what significance you're attaching to anything pre-1991. Their past and their issues are meaningless, because they've been an independent nation for 31 years.
Google - Russian is the official language of Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. Russian is the unofficial lingua franca in Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
So according to you Putin should be fine annexing all these countries again I guess. Let's re-start the British Empire as well while we're at it. Maybe Pakistan can invade Kashmir and take it over too? For linguistic and shared culture reasons.
I don't even know what I'm reading here anymore or what is the point of this conversation. If this is your attempt to justify an invasion into another sovereign country then its a piss poor one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayrannasaurus on Nov 26, 2024 10:19:46 GMT
"So according to you Putin should be fine annexing all these countries again" - I think you've totally missed my points, and not for the first time. The fact you reference 31 years of independence as some sort of golden thread to inform the entire contemporary understanding of this/any region on Earth is pretty hillarious - "their past and their issues are meaningless" - listen to yourself, man! Let's rather leave it here, I don't see a constructive conversation happening as you seem hellbent on trying to argue with almost every post I make or enforcing some absolutist worldview without any nuance. That's simply not how history works. Waiting patiently for your first allegation that I'm a Putin stan, a war-monger (or a racist/something)  |
|
|
|
Post by Jayrannasaurus on Nov 26, 2024 11:26:43 GMT
The petition means absolutely nothing. Most probably never even voted for Labour in the last election and it’s fairly easy to manipulate anyway. Which has no doubt happened with that cunt, Musk sticking his nose in. Also says a lot about this country that folk couldn’t be arsed doing this for that utter shambles of a Tory government that just left but will for a Labour one not even 5 months into the job. Thought this was a good point, and there should be guardrails in place to stop people from simply petitioning for another election if their party loses. I can imagine that's a large part of what's driving this. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by redcase on Nov 26, 2024 11:33:56 GMT
Caino asked a very simple question on the thread, which I answered both simply, and accurately. Why did you feel the need to provide me with an unnecessary, pointless and most importantly, unsolicited history lesson? A history lesson which didn't bother precisely answering the initial question? A history lesson which quite clearly seems to lend credence to the motives of a despot? Why do I need to know that history to say that the actions of an invading country are wrong? Like who the fuck cares about nuance when the subject matter is hostile invasion into another sovereign nation? What's nuanced about that? You seem to care more about history than what's unfolding in front of us and all the lives currently at stake. That's just, sad.
Very honestly I don't know what you are. You are very careful to say you aren't a Putin stan, but the first real ire you've placed on this conflict (at least recently), is towards NATO for allowing Ukraine to strike Russia with better weaponry. You talk a lot, without really telling us what you think or where you stand re any subject - I suspect most of that is by design. Rather than parrot what you've seen in a documentary or a book, tell us what you think of what's happening? You don't need to read history to opine whether Russia invading Ukraine is ok or not. That might be a bit more interesting than the whole philosopher/historian shtick you're peddling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayrannasaurus on Nov 26, 2024 11:51:15 GMT
I was providing context, and further reading, not a history lesson.
Red, for some reason I always thought you were older than I am - not totally sure why. I actually see you're only my senior by one year (you're 36, I'm 35).
I'm of the view that it's possible to discuss facts and events without needing to attach my opinion / weight behind something for the sake of it (especially where this is outside of my area of expertise or knowledge).
I absolutely adore history, and I feel like there's always an opportunity to learn new things. Particularly from people who are well / better informed/read than I am.
There also seems to be an inherent divide in worldviews/perspectives between people from previously colonized + previously colonizing countries. The idea that history is irrelevant, and people should move on/”forget about it” often attaches to the latter. Not always, but often.
I spent close to 15 years of my life in academia, much of it post-grad, so understandably I really do enjoy simply discussing things without needing to reach conclusions based on my own over-simplified understandings (on topics that are many years older and more complex than I can comprehend).
My personal belief is that all knowledge is cumulative, and even if I disagree with you I’ll likely still pick up interesting things along the way. For that I thank you.
Don't enjoy the animosity though, it's so needlessly combative!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayrannasaurus on Nov 26, 2024 12:15:30 GMT
You asked me to tell you what I really think of what's happening there:
I think the war needs to end as soon as possible, and that Ukraine and Russia should seek a sustainable ceasefire agreement; Russia was categorically in the wrong (morally + under international law) for invading Ukraine's sovereign (modern) territory, but it wasn't surprising given the preceding years of NATO expansion + warnings from Putin in the other direction; I think Ukraine is currently serving as a location for what would become a massive proxy war between NATO (of which it isn't even a member) and Russia (potentially nuclear, to the detriment of all of us - incl. those who seek to escalate this conflict) - the major winners will be the multinational arms corporations and building contractors that will flatten and rebuild, and the losers would be the everyman of the warring nations. I think most people in the UK + US aren't super keen to go and fight in this corner of Eastern Europe. I think the idea that Putin seeks to "invade" and expand across europe in some nouveaux pursuit of a large Russian empire (see latest Politco cover) is wide of the mark (happy to be proven wrong if you're all speaking Russian in 50 years!), and has been weaponized to justify the escalation of the conflict by the US, then the UK and then France. The rest of the world looks on, as our fates are all inextricably tied to the decisions of the big boys (with all of their weapons and arms).
|
|
|
|
Post by Stew on Nov 26, 2024 13:02:04 GMT
2.2m signatories for the general election petition now, jeepers. If it does happen, which sounds unlikely, it seems like Farage is probably the most popular candidate - or is that wide of the mark? Would be a pretty ground-breaking moment for the UK if/when an election isn't won by the two major parties. Feels intuitively too soon for that, but you just never know in politics! Not a hope on hell. |
|
