Best get back to posting up Twitter links then.Don't come the fucking innocent.
Best get back to posting up Twitter links then.Don't come the fucking innocent.
What about the day before yesterday and maybe even stretching it to a few months before ?It’s just been done to death and is a circular argument that pretty much everyone has an entrenched position on.
There’s even a specific thread for it, this one is about what is happening now and yesterday. Not what happened in the 90s.
Yeah but not everyone who reads the thread wants the taste of vinegar when they leave it. Give them some honey.
FTR I don't agree with that it's "all nato's fault" which is why it would be nice to hear why you also don't think that's the case.
The period i'd look at is GWBush, post 9/11. Putin was in power . Bush was trying to build consensus about Islamic terrorism. Russia was reasonably sympathetic but voicing concerns about US getting involved with Ukraine and Georgia was talk of roping Russia in on air defense iirc....20 years on and Putin s talking holy war and buying drones off the Iranians. funny old worldI don't see the problem with revisiting old ground in a thread.
This thread is neigh 640 pages long now and folk will dip in and out and it is a discussion that some may come to later in the development of the war.
I've followed the thread from day one but having only recently read some of the the historical stuff on NATO, and the fall of the former soviet union I have actually found it really interesting. I also value the knowledge and insight that a number of posters on this thread have so much so that would like to engage with their thoughts about what their views are about some of what I've read, but to be honest the willy waving that goes on here just puts you off.
I don't have a massively informed opinion on some of these things but I know that in order to bolster my opinion it would help me from engaging in discussion with people who's views I'd benefit from engaging with IYSWIM.
If people can't ask questions that revisit previously discussed areas on a 600 page thread without being shouted down then it's not a discussion its just a "We did this 6 months ago" closed shop.
Where's the scope for advance dialogue and creating a shared consensus in that? Where's the actual 'Ongoing' discussion?
It seems it's OK to have a few pages of calling each other dickwads and wankstains but it's verboten to revisit themes and concepts that have previously been discussed by the main contributors of the discussion.
Wasn't this why a lot of board members historically said they stopped contributing to P&P and something we've said we'd sort out numerous times over the years?
Just asking like
Anyway, I found this an interesting read.
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive
Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documentsnsarchive.gwu.edu
If anyone can recommend anything else without sending me that old Google meme I'd appreciate it.
Cheers.tbf fella that a fair point but this thread evolved from just a standard PNP Thread
lots of people had the fear when this started and a lot of discussion has gone into taking down that fear
*fear being nuclear Armageddon
people of nice people to offer advise and understanding
all it takes is someone to engage like you have![]()
Yup thanks, been reading/podcasting a little on that sort of period too. It beats watching television.The period i'd look at is GWBush, post 9/11. Putin was in power . Bush was trying to build consensus about Islamic terrorism. Russia was reasonably sympathetic but voicing concerns about US getting involved with Ukraine and Georgia was talk of roping Russia in on air defence
I never post Twitter links.Best get back to posting up Twitter links then.
CFYBest get back to posting up Twitter links then.
please give me attention
What's wrong with just saying why you don't think it is NATO's fault and explaining why? Shirley that's more of a discussion. I know there's personality issues and beef drippin attached but it would be so much more interesting to read to a layperson if people just engaged with the posters position.
What about the day before yesterday and maybe even stretching it to a few months before ?
Yes, it was totally me who started this branch of discussion.
Could be argued that if Nato hadn't expanded eastwards Russia wouldn't have started the war.
Are you believing some alternate reality where NATO expansion played no role whatsoever?
Fucking hell. Tell me what the last 600 pages decided then.
What can I say chappers, some days I just awake from my dream where I'm a karma loving hippy and think we could all get along a lot more easierAre you... new to these boards by any chance?
![]()
Actually if you cast your eyes back, Frieda started this discussion about that discussion. Not me.aye , sure you did not have a hand in anything
personally i blame nato
Let me know when it's passed by enough that it's the 90's again. I wasn't paying much attention to this sort of stuff then...
View attachment 351880
The smokey eyes and the red lipstick mate. I had a big thing for glitter and pop socks in those daysWhich one is you?
Let me know when it's passed by enough that it's the 90's again. I wasn't paying much attention to this sort of stuff then...
View attachment 351880
I bet it'll be all KAYTO's fault by thenI’ll give you a shout in 2049.![]()
if only we'd give putin all the wantedI bet it'll be all KAYTO's fault by then![]()
In view of the latest protracted arguments on here, and against my better judgment:![]()
conflict
1. an active disagreement between people with opposing opinions or principles…dictionary.cambridge.org
I used it as a synonym of war. You’d argue black was white and sugar was shite.In view of the latest protracted arguments on here, and against my better judgment:
The word 'conflict' you used to describe the war suggests a symmetry of claims etc, seriously at odds with the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine and is still seeking to destroy it.
That dictionary definition you posted does absolutely nothing to counter that.
It's a morally vacuous position that draws no distinction between the claims of Ukraine to national integrity and of Russia to a belligerent imperial landgrab.
It's a perfectly reasonable synonym of war and I can't find any evidence that it has any of the connotations claimed. But if you argue for anything less than throwing every last Ukrainian life after every last inch of Ukrainian soil on this thread then you'll be accused of wanting to suck Putin's cock.I used it as a synonym of war. You’d argue black was white and sugar was shite.
Motivations are embedded into questions. They always exist, and if you think there isn’t one, that just means you’re blind to your own motivation.What is irritating and happens frequently, including this recent example, and maomao is quite right on, is that folk are eager to pounce on what they perceive as your motivations. If you’re not singing perfectly from the hymn sheet then you must secretly support Russia really.
Those are pretty important framing questions for a discussion about causes of things.… So let me ask: what is the purpose in asking about Putin’s “true” perception of NATO? What comes next in this series of questions? If we were to conclude that Putin was, in fact, terrified of NATO’s shadow, what does that change? Does it matter how NATO actually acts or what its intentions are, or does it only matter how Putin perceives them?
In short, where is this going?
Well then counter that by spelling out your motivation. What is your purpose — what do you want to do with these answers? Why these questions at this time? Why should this be the focus of inquiry?I didn’t say there wasn’t one. I said people make it about what they perceive it to be. It’s tedious.
Fuck me, why not just deal with the substantive content instead of demanding a psychoanalytical shakedown?Well then counter that by spelling out your motivation. What is your purpose — what do you want to do with these answers? Why these questions at this time? Why should this be the focus of inquiry?
If we're to apply these rules to all questions asked on Urban75 (even just the 'serious' threads) most of the answers are going to be 'cause I was bored/curious/drunk/fancied a chat/fight etc.' It's a very high standard to hold us to and not one that has been evenly applied.Well then counter that by spelling out your motivation. What is your purpose — what do you want to do with these answers? Why these questions at this time? Why should this be the focus of inquiry?