T. Belman. No one would accuse Gravitas of being pro-Putin. This report is extremely well researched.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
Here is the reason for the “lingering animosities” which are dating back to way before the Soviet Union fell.
It is very simple and it explains all the Western wars and attacks on Russia in the last 300 years or so.
The West wants its land, preferably, minus the population.
That’s why Russia always has to be hated by the West.
Russia occupies almost the whole continent, however, its population is relatively small (probably in large part because of those wars), and until recently was very rural.
There are about 200 ethnic populations there, each with its own language.
The West, in particular the Great Britain, the US, and Germany want this land very badly.
They think that it is unfair that this continent basically belongs to a bunch of “Untermenschen”, and they know (or they think) that if they took control of, as they call it, Eurasia, they will then rule the world forever.
Therefore, they will not rest until they destroy Russia (now they are especially encouraged by their successfully deceiving the USSR into destroying itself for the sake of “world peace”) and kill off most of its population as per Generalplan OST.
Right now, the US and the EU have decided to destroy the Russian economy, impoverish its people, and drag Russia into another Afghanistan debacle which will destroy it the same way the previous debacle (as they think) destroyed the USSR or helped destroy it.
In my opinion, the Russians are not paranoid enough.
Why some people hate Russia so much that they won’t listen to any argument?
Well, they are easily brainwashed and tend to think with their emotions.
It’s almost funny because if they were in the USSR in the 1930s, they would make the best Stalinists (whom they allegedly hate like poison).
@Ted
It’s hard to say. I could guess, and would be happy for any of them to respond to my guess, that it has to do with the lingering animosities that the West has for the Russians dating back to before the Soviet Union fell, at least to some degree. We likely all suffer from our past animosity for the Soviets, the great boogeyman of the 20th Century (not intending to demean the real Evil that they represented). As the Soviets broke themselves up, albeit that it was the product of Western policies that brought about their collapse, there was never a resolving moment of an enforced victory for the West over the East, just as there was never a resolving moment of subjugation or defeat of the East by the West, something that was quite unlike the end of WWI and WWII. The lack of a definitive coup de gras left the longest conflict of the 20th century to be resolved with a whimper rather than the long expected bang. As fortuitous as this was, it left a great deal of unresolved animosity by many, specifically for the Russians, despite the fact that they conquered themselves for us, so to speak. This also left the lingering institution of NATO without a counterbalance.
I long expected NATO to disband after meeting its successful goal of defeating the Soviets without firing a shot, sort of. Its great success in “defeating” the Soviets seemed, however, to make it an indispensable aspect of modern society, even as it has morphed into a blanket of “protection” by which the US taxpayers and soldiers have disproportionately carried the load. Instead, NATO has found its new niche to be to fuel the policy of regime change from Europe to the Middle East. Even former critics of NATO in my own personal circle of associates who have previously criticized the purpose of NATO over the past years seem, now, to have lost the ability to recall their previous position vis a vis NATO, since Russia has been entered into the equation. Should anyone be in Putin’s position, they would be very wise to be concerned. Let us not forget that NATO should be currently recognized as the play thing of the US which is, itself, being controlled by the product of regime change. This installed junta has returned to power and has set its sights on exploiting the divide between Russia and Ukraine, once again. All of this was done in the open, but the NATO critics seem fully supportive of NATO’s right to antagonize the Russians, despite knowing how seriously the Russians would take these actions. Some have suggested that Putin is simply paranoid for his presumption that NATO is targeting his govt. I would remind people that just because one is paranoid, doesn’t mean that they are necessarily wrong. In the current situation, Putin is not wrong, though he reacted poorly to the situation. I would simply ask, would anyone suspect that the US would allow Russia to create a military alliance, with Cuba, the tiny nation that sits some 90 miles off the US coast, even today? I think not. The rejection of this would be specifically due to both the security concerns of the US and the potential motivations in Russia desiring a military alliance with an neighboring nation, openly antagonistic to the US. The parallels between Cuba and Ukraine are significant, even as Cuba would represent a pale comparison for Ukraine in this metaphor.
It is almost as if many are unable to accept the idea that NATO is capable of any culpability or that Russia has any right to have its security concerns considered – the latest examples of the “White Coat Effect” only now NATO’s motives, which are plainly obvious, are not to be questioned, and Russian security concerns, which have been clearly delineated for 15yrs, are simply to be ignored as paranoia.
I could be wrong about all of this, as it is only a guess, but it would explain the unreasonable decision to balance an argument with invectives and libels and the decision by two very engaging members of our group here on Israpundit to disengage rather than entertain a serious, but civil, conversation.
Is this an attempt to smoke screen Western government involvement in crimes committed against humanity with Covid and vaccines.
They won’t get away with these.
@Ted Belman
The ideological wars against Russia and the American people go unabated..
@Peloni
Why do you think our saying this, has so vexed Bear, Laura and even Adam.
An excellent synopsis of the role played by NATO in provoking Russia. Russia has been consistently vocal in their stark objections to the steps taken by NATO at suggesting extending their Treaty guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia since 2008. These objections actually led to war with Georgia as a direct response to these Russian objections. Despite these facts, Ukraine announced on Dec 9 2021, that they had received assurances of NATO membership. Putin’s only requirement to avoid war was for NATO to certify that Ukraine would not be allowed membership, and the response was to ignore this demand.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has been seeking a purpose for their organization. As they have pursued offensive operations in Yugoslavia, Libya and Iraq, their role is far from that of a defensive shield against the Red Scourge of the Soviet Union. Since the time when NATO lost the opposing purpose for their existence, those who have come to control the levers of power have lost their serious intent to avoid war. As compromised settlements and wise leaders have given way to antagonistic barbs and corrupted shareholders, the world seems to have lost the resolve to avoid the most terrible of outcomes. There was an easy way to avoid this war, a simple statement would have saved the lives currently being lost on both sides. I believe it will be seen as a great mistake for Putin to have entangled himself in this tar-baby operation, but the claims that he was unprovoked is simply not honestly made.