| "Iran is a Threat Because It Doesn't Follow Orders" |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 26, 2026 07:19 PM |
|
|
Ghost, the queestion of Russia's NATO membership is a bit more complicated than that. There was the NATO-Russia Council in 2002, that started in 2000 under a different name, but declined from 2005 onwards (with the beginning of Putin's second term as president). When Poland suggested a NATO membership in 2009, it was Putin who declined.
For Putin, the Ukraine is a part of Russia, period.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted March 26, 2026 07:51 PM |
|
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 26, 2026 11:27 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
For Putin, the Ukraine is a part of Russia, period.
Putin wrote various documents and essays, where he always stated the opposite, that Ukraine is sovereign, BUT sharing deep historical and cultural roots with Russia, hence there should be be cooperation and brotherhood. You won't find anywhere him saying otherwise. Not a single word.
Now, Ukraine says that nice dream was broken when Crimea joined Russia because military pressure. Despite multiple overwhelming votes of Crimeans in favor of joining Russia, we in the west continue to pull that it was a military coup. Remember, 70% of Crimeans ARE ethnically Russians. Only 15% are ethnically Ukrainians, so numbers obviously played into.
Putin also says that Ukraine broke that dream when they gave less rights to Russian population living in Ukraine then started slaughtering them, which is true but very little documented in the West.
Add to that the physical presence of Victoria Nuland, assistant Secretary of the US State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the middle of the Maidan coup demonstrators, then the leaked phone call where she is choosing the next Ukraine pro-USA government, and you get why things started to boil.
Both perspectives stand up. We, in Europe, rushed to take a side because our subservience to the USA, without any nuance or trying first to conciliate those perspectives, as there was plenty of ground for. Despite our economical interests, and for that blunder we will have to pay for the coming decades.
And that's why I was so supportive of Donald Trump, when he precisely stated that he will put an end to the constant meddling abroad, as only that can serve peace. Looks like old habits last longer than expected.
____________
You must not OFFEND people - Jolly Joker
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2026 12:07 AM |
|
|
Same old. You believe what you want to believe. But in the end the truth is always what is actually HAPPENING, not in what someone says. And what is happening, has been happening, is proving you wrong. It's just that you want to cling to what you always believed, becaause no one wants to accept he's always believed something that isn't strictly right.
It's not about whether the US is right or Russia or who screwed up with what. You might look at Ukrainian history - how has Ukraine fared as conquered territory, couple huindred years ago and in the USSR. You might point to Russia breaking the treaty that led Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons, Russia being a guarantee power for Ukrainian borders. And you might point to lots of other things.
But in the end that's all meaningless. In the end it comes down not to NATIONS doing this or that, but certain PEOPLE and what they want and desire and believe.
Gorbachev obviously had quite different ideas about the future of the USSR than Putin has about the future of Russia. Trump is handling presidency of the US quite different from Biden.
All those people have something in common: they don't serve their people. They serve their own ideas and agendas. In some cases those align with the good of many, but in most cases they don't.
In the Russo-Ukrainian war - how many Russians have died so far? How many Ukrainians? How much value has been destroyed?
For WHAT?
For the "vision" of one man who threatens to use nuclear weapons if one enemy foot would touch Russian ground? And how would a pro-Western Ukraine change anything about that. Oh, except if Ukraine was considered Russian territory, that is.
So stop reading nonsense. Look at what's happening instead.
For proof? I mean, you was supportive of Trump because he said something. I have been saying that Trump is a narcissistiv liar, and I've been saying that ten years ago. Why? Because that was what was HAPPENING. Trump just has been lying constantly and with everything. How you were actually believing HIM when it was clear that you cannot even trust serious statespersons like Obama to tell the truth is beyond me. Or Putin. Why would you trust Putin to tell the truth? Considering that he's usurping near-dictatorial power?
Doesn't make sense.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 28, 2026 07:59 PM |
|
|
@JJ
So, you think states, and states with the magnitude of Russia and USA determine long term policy according to the whim of individuals? There may be seldom points in history where that kind of “voluntarism” has a butterfly effect. But usually, it is the opposite. Trump didnt convert U.S. foreign policy as much as U.S. foreign policy converted Trump. In the early 2000’s Putin was eager to join EU. But that doesnt sit well with regional interests of the U.S., so it didnt happen. Are all U.S. presidents personally aggressive, do you think that’s why Middle East is a perpetual hornet’s nest?
Some people think Hitler caused WW2 but you have a French general from 1918, famously calling the peace treaty “a 20 year armistice” How do you think he knew that so precisely? Conflicts of interest on a macro level determine much more than individuals ever can. I’m not suggesting that they are completely passive. WW2 would probably be a very different war without a character such as Hitler and Trump’s narcissism indeed has an effect on international relations. But the clogs are too big to be completely run by personal ego. Think of the movie, the Godfather, how the logo contains a puppeteer’s ropes. The Corleone family was going to go into the drug business, no matter what. Even on a level of street gangs, “the trade” determines more than the Dons. That’s why the movie feels so realistic. Individuals dont have the kind of absolute gravity you presume.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2026 09:32 PM |
|
|
You missed the point of my post. The influence of the individual obviously depends on the power a person has - and the power a person has may depend on the individual. Some individuals strive to increase the power of their office - obviously because they want to increase their influence.
Caesar would be an example. Napoleon Bonaparte. Hitler. These people directly changed their role within the constitution or the constitution itself in order to increase their personal power and influence on things and developments To follow THEIR OWN visions and ideas and not SERVE the people.
Putin did that as well.
Trump does it as well.
Netanjahu does it.
Just look at your own country. Erdogan certainly branded your country after his own image. Orban does it in Hungary.
In that sense the individual - SOME individuals - ARE responsible for the course their country is steering. The Russo-Ukrainian war is Putin's doing. Another Russians leader would have done things differently- The current situation in the Middle East is Netanjahu's doing. Trump could act differently, but instead he is constantly trying to increase the presidential power. He's also using that pretty aggressively - as opposed to, say, his predecessor. He simply attacked Iran - he created facts, facts he isn't actually allowed to create by the constitution he's sworn to uphold. The current USA is TRUMP's USA. It's HIS tarriffs, it's his wars.
And another thing. Hitler causing WW II (or not, after the result of WW1)? I don't think, "causing WW2" is the thing to check. Take Italy. Italy was a WINNER of WW1 - they got territory for it from Austria. STILL, they went fascist and entered the war on the German side. The thing to check is, how much of what Germany did as a political entity from 1933 to 1945 was based on what Adolf Hitler wanted and envisioned. That includes WW2, but doesn't stop there. Hitler didn't want to fight Britain (because he considered them natural Arian allies). He didn't have a problem with France either. If Britain and France wouldn't have honoured their commitment to Poland, Germany would simply have continued attacking Russia.
The Hitlers of the world may be convinced doing the best for the people they are supposed to be serving - but it's obvious that, viewing it from the outside - they don't. Putin isn't serving the Russian people's best interests. As isn't Trump when it comes to his voters.
So my point is - you miss the point. The gravitas is intrinsically there. The USA, Russia, China, Israel and so on, their executive leaders wield an immense amount of power and the spirit in which they wield it makes all the difference.
You mention The Godfather. What about The Man in the High Castle? The difference in THAT one is --- Roosevelt. He's killed, US become isolationist instead and voila, the Axis wins. A massive result based on ONE individual being in a place of power or not. And it's the absolutely most believable hypothesis for an Axis WW2 win I've ever encountered.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 28, 2026 11:58 PM |
|
|
It’s very unlikely that US could have kept with the isolationist alternative, no matter who the president was.
Domestic policy can change crucially but I think you greatly overestimate the role of the leader when it comes to international reelpolitik. Especially in this age where modern state and its bureaucracy is a complex machine of its own. I mean, leaders can create waves to a degree but saying it’s all about the individuals seems naive to me. And foreign policy is hardly ever about “serving people or not.” Call me cynical but I think that’s mostly empty rhetoric. But I know it’s very unlikely that you’ll move an inch from your starting position so that’s my last post about this.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 29, 2026 03:07 AM |
|
|
Those opposed to Trump no matter what, will say it is all about him. Like the madness in Middle East started 2 weeks ago. And like in Ukraine, it's his fault that Zelensky didn't receive 795137 nuclear bombs to blow Moscow.
The disappointment is not about him being worse, but acting same as all others. The only difference is that he is happily bragging about blowing countries, while others kept it private when doing same or even worse.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2026 11:49 AM |
|
|
Artu, those "complex machineries" exist only to make the wielding of the power easier. Instead of the executive branch (and we are talking of nominal democracies with a separation of power here; states with less power separation have obviously even more powerful leaders, say, North Korea), let's look at the judges. Usually, in a criminal court, the judge is "framed-in" by the law. If a jury (or a panel of judges) comes to the conclusion "guilty", the judge is bound by the law to hand out a sentence of between a minimum and a maximum, like between 1 to 5 years in prison. The jusge is SUPPOSED to view the case, the perpetrator, the circumstances and so on. The judge will speak his sentence, they will justify it in writing, but in general they can do as they see fit - within their legal bounds.
It's clear that things depend on the individual here. Judges may be biassed, and the sentence one and the same perpetrator gets might be very different, depending on the judge you get in court.
But that's the system working as intended. What if a judge (or any number of them) isn't satisfied with that? What if judges test the limits of the law, what if they leave the bounds the law is drawing them? What about Supreme Courts? Isn't it strange that one Supreme Court may declare abortion constitutionally legal, while another declares the question no constitutional matter and yet another declares it unconstitutional?
What I want to say is this (and I'm repöeating myself here): Even when people are working the way they are supposed to - accept the constitutional boundaries in which they work - a lot depends on the individual (if it would be different, you could just raandomly pick the next guy to do the job and get the same result). An example would be, umm, Obamacare: a president (and their government) put healthcare on their agenda and stitched something together; a different president wouldn't have done that (or differently).
But not everyone IS actually doing that, and I gave a couple of no-brainer names as examples. The main thing to keep in mind is that the power of a person isn't stopping to work automatically when that person is trying to increase their bounds. A Presidential Directive is what it is. A presidential command is what it is.
The point I'm trying to make (not very successfully, it seems) is, that you can easily see whether a person at the executive head of state is trying to serve the people (mostly) or themselves by looking at their active efforts to find ways to increase their personal power. For example, by changing the constitution. Turkey/Erdogan is a good example for that. If I'm not wrong, even now another change is in the works, one, that would allow Erdogan to continue.
Instead of trying to strengthen the executive, attempts to weaken the other two (and you can add the 4th, the pess, as well) are made. We've seen that in Poland recently, for example.
And then there is war, as described above. War automatically increases the executive power. The result is pretty obvious in Israel, where everything I just described is happening - but it also happened and happens in Russia and it happens in the USA.
These things are pretty crucial and they are not working like "machines".
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 29, 2026 02:20 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:23, 29 Mar 2026.
|
Yes, Erdogan serves himself, sure, and to stay in power he keeps changing the Constitution, imprisons opposition he sees as a potential thread with some bogus charges, keeps media in check etc. etc. But one of the things he also does to stay in power is to keep in line with long term state policy on big issues. (Cyprus, Kurdistan, NATO etc.) His coalition partner, the Nationalist Movement Party used to be his biggest opposition but after the Gezi Protests in 2013, he parted ways with the Gulen Cult (which was controlled by the U.S.) and then after the coup attempt in 2016, he was completely in sync with the traditional bureaucracy, “the deep state” as people call it here, a term which made its way into English from Turkish. When it comes to domestic policy, Erdogan is much less secular than the Kemalist regime before him but on matters of foreign policy, he is positions are not that different anymore.
Do you think Trump is any different? How do you think he serves himself in order to stay in power on issues such as the Iran war? What do you think makes him change attitude? He lies, sure. But what motivates him to do so? A personal animosity against Iran? Of course not.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2026 03:59 PM |
|
|
Specifically with regard to Iran, I already said that I think Netanjahu forced his hand. He left Trump just two alternatives, backing him or drop Israel altogether.
Generally speaking, it looked like Trump had been in line with the anti-Chinese faction of US foreign policy makers (I could explain that, but I think, I don't need to), and on first look, Iran delivering a lot of oil to China, it would seem to make sense to view it that way - but China can get oil from Russia and the increasing prices help Russia. Who is supporting Iran. The only real hope of turning Iran would have been a regime change, but that went down the drain when the Iranians prepared to go to the streets committed too early and got killed.
So the Iran business is spinning out of control fast. The moment the US commit troops to fighting in Iran, China might show more of their hand - they might increase pressure on Taiwan and claim more mileage from their neighboring seas and the US couldn't really do anything if the Chinese wouldn't attack Taiwan outright.
Trump's motivation is basically his narcissism and his greed. He abuses his job to make money and he bathes in the glory of him being the god-king of God's own country. I think, it's just his vanity that let's him do things as parading in front of the press and announce stuff like a tariff increase or that someone begs for a "deal" and so on. Of course he's also the axe of a certain groups and think-tanks and whatnot - but he's also the president. The Republicans are no unified front - divide and rule.
No matter who is backing Trump and who is master-minding the general direction of foreign and domestic policy, no matter whether he's attacking Iran or Venezuela or Cuba or Columbia - the thing is, he ATTACKS. He does things he doesn't have the actual authority to do - tariffs, for example, were judged illegal. As was the attack on Iran. The important thing is - he should already be out of office for that. He isn't, though, while the US are at war, and once that's accepted as a fact, he IS at war and then he CAN do a lot of things he cannot do in peace.
What you say about Erdogan - sure, no one is interested in everything. Why would Erdogan change NATO membership or change foreign policy DRAMATICALLY? No reason at all, what would there be to gain? Turkey is no super power, but they play a sizable role, being in a crucial part of the world.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 12:01 PM |
|
|
@Sal
"Putin wrote various documents and essays"..
What about "Mr Nobody against Putin"?, quite Oscar-winning document film has banned in Russia..
Don't trust in people who dictator, for example, when dictator doesn't share another document, view etc
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 02:49 PM |
|
|
|
Putin is not a dictator. Not interested in that movie neither.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 06:03 PM |
|
|
Debatable. The Russian constitution hands the President more or less dictatorial power - they appoint the guys for the important offices, for example.
Only checks are: elections - initially every four years, but from 2012 on every 6 years - and the fact that the constitution said, a person can be Pres only two times in a row. Putin was Pres from 1999 to 2008, then Prime Minister (which is something like a Secretary of Domestic Affairs in Russia), for 4 years, then Pres again 12-18 and again 18-24. In 20 they changed the constitution to drop the "in a row" thing" (so effectively limiting things like the USA), but with the snag of nullifying all presidencies up to that point including the current one, which means, Putin is now in his first term of presidency and canb have a go in 2030 again, when he will be 78 years old and have been the most powerful man in Russia for 30 years (Medwedew was pres from 2008-2012, so basically Putin was).
The definition of dictator doesn't include something like claiming office by force. It's all about power.
Phrased differently - if President Putin wants something or commands something - who can stop him? The people he appointed himself?
|
|
ColonelSanders
Hired Hero
Bouillabaisseholic
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 07:40 PM |
|
|
He is not really a true dictator because the vast majority of Russians are, at minimum, supportive of his administration even if they do not agree on every single issue. It is a pretty authoritarian country but it is not uncommon for authoritarianism to have popular support (which you deny; you attribute it to propaganda).
The common idea is that a lack of strict authority leads to cultural degradation, a lack of a cohesive vision, and overall, a weaker country. A lot of working/middle people actually like kings or kinglike people. The notion that kings/power-heavy statesmen are just propped up by an inner circle or by the upper class is often not the case.
With Venezuela and Iran, you actually do have dictatorships because the interests of the vast majority of people are not being represented, at least not in any meaningful sense.
The American and Russians president have a lot of power (too much for the checks and balances to be very effective) and that is directly correlated to the Cold War days, because many people (including working/middle class people) wanted their head of state the ability to make fast decisions with miminimal interference from the legislature.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 08:01 PM |
|
|
To be a dictator you don't have to be hated by a majority of the population. As I said, the only question is about power.
Speaking of elections as a means of "checking" power ... it doesn't count when critisizing the government isn't allowed and opposition is "discouraged" and/or declared illegal.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 08:15 PM |
|
Edited by Ghost at 20:39, 30 Mar 2026.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 09:04 PM |
|
|
@JJ You’re missing the point. It’s not about what he wants, it’s about what he can want or not. Same with Trump.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 09:18 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:20, 30 Mar 2026.
|
ColonelSanders said:
He is not really a true dictator because the vast majority of Russians are, at minimum, supportive of his administration even if they do not agree on every single issue. It is a pretty authoritarian country but it is not uncommon for authoritarianism to have popular support (which you deny; you attribute it to propaganda).
You are not making any sense, if it is common for authoritarian regimes to have popular support, then dictatorships can also have popular support. Dictatorships are defined by authoritarianism.
And yes, of course, it is not uncommon. Actually functioning democracies usually have election results such as 52/48, 40/60, 40/40/20 etc. It’s almost all the time authoritarian leaders who win by ratios such as 97 percent of the votes. That is indeed the result of one-sided massive propaganda, control of the media, termination of serious opponents, fearmongering and other known tactics. Even someone such as Erdogan cant have more than 60 percent of the votes here with all the crap he’s pulling off. You cant have overwhelmingly extreme support ratios like 95-99 percent unless you completely rig the system.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 30, 2026 09:37 PM |
|
|
What do you mean, what he CAN want? Same with Trump? Everyone CAN want everything and anything. The question is whether you get what you want and whether you can TRY to get everything you want. Whether you get everyything you want, isn't dependent on whether you have a lot of power or not. Power helps, but for many things it's useless.
So I have no idea what point I'm missing.
|
| |
|
|
