by repulsewarrior » Sun Apr 17, 2022 9:10 pm
...this man makes the assumption that the people themselves do not count in these power games their Leaders play.
It is the same mistake we make when speaking International Politics, in such a construct of "Us" and "Them", the "We" we are is ignored.
Despite the expansionism the EU, NATO, and Russia practice, the consequence has been Russian leadership demonstrating its brutality, and its adversary(ies) as a result, for the brutalised, become the better choice.
Indeed there are "Ukrainians" and there are "Russians" too, this is the point he is missing; picking "sides" does nothing to end the Problem.
...he speaks of the Munroe doctrine, and in that sense he speaks of a balance in international politics; but he does not suggest anything to stop the cycle of violence, from this evolution of people's wants and needs.
He does suggest a neutral Ukraine and a plan for its rehabilitation, and he demonstrates how such a policy would mitigate the threat of Russia being driven into the CCP's sphere of influence; Asia should not be ignored.
...indeed the Problem we were blind to in Cyprus, letting it grow, will tear Ukraine into pieces too; he alludes to this in answering a question.
...indeed, America (as NATO) has played a big part in the deaths we see as a consequence of the Bucharest Conference's final declaration; he makes that clear (fighting "Ukrainians" as much as "Russians", i note, is not).
...he speaks of Merkel, and "conventional wisdom", a Media which parrots their support for this thinking and Obama's choices,
...his final answer of the question period speaks of "Ukrainians", not as a threat to all of us, but how Russians perceive them, and how "Russians" would react.
...it is an interesting perspective, coming from America; he admits he represents a minority, and while that may be so it is still worth watching.
...i ask, should Russia join NATO? (seriously)
I also bet that you also follow religiously the mythological bullshit that he does
