Pyrpolizer wrote:repulsewarrior wrote:...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)
Well it proved that people did not count in these power games, so the assumption was correct.
The "we" vs "them" started from 2014, and there's no chance after this war to ever become a WE.
Lastly, I can't consider your last question seriously....
I don't think you get the gist of my argument, the people who do not count are the "We", the "We" is the Human race, its needs in effect; it is not the "West" (if you will) or the "Russians" (in this war) that suffer the consequence of their Ignorance, they will be the last: such powers have made it obvious that "We" are not represented by "Them".
...the Ukraine has opened a whole can of worms; with the shit turned, let us hope this time something good may grow from it.
(the Problem solved as a BBF would be a good thing; if not in Cyprus (first) in the Ukraine)
...and what about Article 5, it provides great comfort to the membership which for this reason grows; isn't it exactly the same security that Russians could find comfort in (if "terrorists" continues as common ground)?
Being non-aligned takes on a greater context too as a position, if attacked, it would not be NATO one could assume the aggressor, but they may help in their capacity facing the people who pose a similar existential threat.
...pirates would be NATO's biggest focus with Russia as a member, the sea and the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS for example), its supremacy could be enforced militarily when meeting an infraction of like kind.
It is times like these where i am most hopeful; anything may happen.