> Trying to join NATO doesn't make Russia any better or more reliable.
Well, the point, according to Putin, was that he wanted to demonstrate that NATO is an anti-Russian alliance, which NATO officially denies after the fall of the USSR. Russia's application was ignored with no explanation given.
But that's merely a public excuse. Of course Russia knew NATO would say "no". They just wanted to play that game.
If you allow me one more example: at the end of the "negotiations", Russia request for Nato to guarantee the safety of Russia, but the US declined. Negotiations over, 2 months later invasion.
That's one of these games again. Of course the US isn't going to say "yes". It would imply freedom of "movement" for Russia in the Ukraine. No can do.
@FreedoingVlad@p@11112011@Grandtheftautism@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@icedquinn > Of course Russia knew NATO would say "no". They just wanted to play that game. You think too highly of Russian higher-ups. They’re truly lazy people and all they wanted since Putin came to power was to “get into the club” with first-world capitalists. They were buying entire buildings across Europe and France just for themselves (for the government on paper) to rest, to eat and whatever else the rich do when they don’t do their job. But that’s only the foreword, the tale is in 2008 Russia–NATO summit in Bucharest Putin proposed a coalition to Bush & co. to fight world terrorism. He thought that the world terrorism wasn’t instigated by U.S. and its fellows, he thought that there can be a “superhero club” where Russia could be a member with those Western countries. He seriously believed that. GIRLS' FRONTLINE HEALING CHAPTER SEASON 2 - Episode 9 00:03:55.167-1.png
For 2088, in fact, only Putin said he applied for membership, but none of this happened in 2008 at all. It was all about Ukraine and Georgia applying (and being denied MAP, membership). Secondly Russia chose to avoid sensitive subjects such as Kosovo in favor of cooperating with NATO on terrain where their interests align such as Afghanistan and security.
However, you are on to something; Mr Robertson, secretary general of the transatlantic alliance between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe
He said: “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time."
Thank you for sharpening my vision on historical events. But please don't let me work this hard next time. Provide such important sources with your explanation lol.
I just did a serious fact checking. It turns out you @p and @eisai were kinda correct after all. But we needed to go deeper into history, up to 2003. Then the context becomes far more clear.
@FreedoingVlad@11112011@Grandtheftautism@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@eisai@icedquinn The big mystery, I think, is why these people constantly antagonize Russia. Like Clinton during the 90s, then the "reset button thing". Then Victoria Nuland says the quiet part out loud, "We want to give Russia an Afghanistan" and things like that, the entire 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns here focused an inordinate amount on Russia, "Russian disinformation campaigns" and "Russian pee tapes", list goes on. When the Hunter Biden laptop contents got leaked, MSNBC declared it was definitely some kind of elaborate Russian fake.
Like, is Russia a challenge to something they're doing? It doesn't seem that way, it seems like Russia hasn't had a large amount of success targeting the US with espionage or public opinion campaigns. China's had more success with both; Russia doesn't seem like a threat to any US interests.
@cvnt@p@11112011@FreedoingVlad@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@icedquinn they sell these churros out of carts at the swap meet for $2 each and they are hideous. You can tell by the taste that they're made out of pancake mix and they're tough, dry, chewy, and usually taste stale. I'd rather have the $15 churros than eat one of those abominations again. The little paisa kids seem to like them, but then again they like their candy rolled in chili powder so what do they know. IMG_6712-1024x768.jpg
@FreedoingVlad@11112011@Grandtheftautism@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@icedquinn@p Eh. Yes, I was mistaken about the source. I remember it was something from the time there was war in Ossetia, but this and the summit was only tangentially related. The real source was a news article citing W. J. Burns’s book “The Back Channel” (2019). (Burns was the ambassador to Russia in 2005–2008, then assistant secretary of state, and several years later appointed as the head of CIA, – which event the article was highliting.)
And by the way, if you don’t want to work hard, just ask for the source right away. I’ve long stopped to write longposts with references, because no one seems to need them here. 99% of people read 600×400 screencaps with news headlines, without date or URL on them and are happy with that. But true, this time the blame’s on me. The relevant excerpt from the book is below:
> Putin's view of relations with the United States was infused with suspicion, but early on he tested with President Bush a form of partnership suited to his view of Russia's interests. He was the first foreign leader to call Bush after 9/11, and saw an opening through which Russia could become a partner in the Global War on Terrorism. He thought the war on terror would give Russia a better frame in which to operate than the "new world order" that had dominated U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War. The implicit terms of the deal Putin sought included a common front against terrorism, with Russia backing the United States against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Washington backing Moscow's tough tactics against Chechen rebels. Moreover, the United States would grant Russia special influence in the former Soviet Union, with no encroachment by NATO beyond the Baltics, and no interference in Russia's domestic politics. Putin quickly set out to show that he could deliver on his end of the presumed bargain. In the face of considerable misgivings from his own military and security services, he facilitated U.S. military access and transit to Afghanistan through the Central Asian states. As Putin quickly learned, however, this kind of transaction was never in the cards. GIRLS' FRONTLINE HEALING CHAPTER SEASON 2 - Episode 11 00:03:01.125.jpg
I am from Los Angeles and I can say with complete certainty that the combination of chili with fried druit is awful; I will add that tamarind is unfit for human consumption.
@eisai@FreedoingVlad@11112011@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@icedquinn@p people don't use links here because getting someone to search up and post a whole bunch of links and then replying to that effort laden post with a short dismissal, usually by criticizing the sources rather than discussing the topic at hand, is a form of trolling.
Also, a lot of the topics we discuss here are subject to memory-holing or google-spamming. You'll read an article, then two days later, it's either completely gone from the internet, or it's buried under three pages of Google links about an unrelated topic. For instance, you'll google for an Alex Jones quote, and underneath your search, it will say "Did you mean the Jonas Brothers?" followed by four pages of robo-pasted articles about the latest Jonas Bros. divorce news. Or today, if you did the same search, it would be ten robo-pasted pages of the same two people griping about how awful it is that Elon Musk let Alex Jones back on X. This is not only limited to Google search either btw. Pretty much any search engine will give you the same results.
So anyway, it's perfectly all right to ask for a link, or have someone ask you for a link for more information, provided you and they are willing to continue discussing the subject at hand. If you find yourself providing long links and getting short answers though, don't play into it.
> people don't use links here because getting someone to search up and post a whole bunch of links and then replying to that effort laden post with a short dismissal, usually by criticizing the sources rather than discussing the topic at hand, is a form of trolling.
Nah, people don't do that here because they just downloaded the screenshot from Twitter: it's because of how Twitter works that the stupid "screenshot a headline" thing took off anyway. So because they got the screenshot themselves, they don't have the source link. They wouldn't read it if they did have it, so they have no idea if what they are saying is total bullshit or not, just "Here is a screenshot that I hope is real because it allows me to talk about how $ingroup good or $outgroup bad". It's not like this is unique to fedi or to the internet, people just don't pay attention to anything and they do not think carefully; even a conscientious person will spend most of their time phoning it in because they are paying less attention to people talking about the news than they spend on. The other motivation is someone capitalizing on that tendency.
So if I am talking to someone, I go look things up, even stuff I know, the research is the fun part anyway. @eisai and @FreedoingVlad look things up, apropos and laurel aren't in this thread but also do. It makes their posts enjoyable to read. I fucking hate Twitter, this is one of the few places where people actually do research or they've got broad knowledge and they have insight.
> If you find yourself providing long links and getting short answers though, don't play into it.
I'm not responsible for someone else's terrible posts, only my own terrible posts. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to really piece something together and then posting your results. If you're trying to win an argument, sure, don't expend more energy than the other guy if he is doing that, but internet arguments are a waste of time anyway.
@MisterRogersSnapped@p@11112011@FreedoingVlad@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@cvnt@dicey@icedquinn here you can buy a cup of fresh sliced mangos with chili powder for $5 or so. But I hate mangos so so i never buy them. There's also a new thing where people are setting up carts in residential neighborhoods selling fruit cups, tacos, whatever, or pushcarts with ice cream and various gross Mexican snacks, and I wonder where those people go to the bathroom or wash their hands (because if they leave the cart it will get stolen), so I tend to not patronize those carts. At least the swap meet has health and safety standards and bathrooms.
You can see videos on YouTube of people doing similar things on Santa Monica Pier. If the cops or health and safety come, they just run like a bastard pushing their carts. Sometimes they'll elect one person to hold up the cops by arguing while the others farther down the pier get out of there. They have walkie-talkies and spotters everywhere, very organized. Those guys mostly sell corn, fruit, and hot dogs. They use butane stoves to heat the food, which is strictly prohibited on the pier because the pier is made of wood and its a fire hazard. Anyway I hate those fucking guys. c01.jpg
@p@11112011@FreedoingVlad@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@eisai@icedquinn that's a very good point, perhaps it would have been better to say, that's why I don't post links. I do often look things up before I post, because so much of my pre-internet knowledge turned out to be garbage and wives tales. For example, lampshades and bars of soap, plague blankets, black moths in England, and the Tasaday tribe. I'll remember some factoid and I'll look it up to make sure it didn't get deboonked since I heard it.
> so much of my pre-internet knowledge turned out to be garbage and wives tales.
Ha, yeah, or you get these massive knowledge gaps because the State education system is a propaganda machine and the curriculum is borderline abusive. "What happened in Europe after WW2?" "Nothing, Europe was fine, total peace and no conflicts after Hitler was defeated. If someone mentions a wall in Berlin, it was a wall of friendship and then they took it down because of friendship." "Why is Sarajevo in the news now if Europe was fine this whole time?"
> For example, lampshades and bars of soap, plague blankets,
Well, to be fair, the historians often got got with this shit. Badly sourced nonsense persists a while, like the smallpox blanket thing. Stuff gets carefully omitted to paint a picture, things like that.
@p@11112011@FreedoingVlad@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@eisai@icedquinn I honestly don't remember being taught any European history at all, something about the Magna Carta, Sir Francis Drake, and Columbus, but if it didn't relate to US History in some way, they didn't bother to tell us. Didn't get geography until I was in college and I had to pay for it. I'm glad I did, though, because now I can find most countries on a globe. So it was worth the money.
Anyway, I don't know the curriculum when you were in school or what they're doing now, but high school had a year of what they referred to as "World History" (knights, Charlemagne, Christopher Columbus, some mention that Asia existed, a brief bit on WW1, then several months of Hitler; no mention of the raj, the Dutch East India Company, any of this; no mention of the Dutch East India Company in American History, either, which there probably should have been). My grandfather, out in the countryside, learned Latin in high school.
First of all I share the (functional) frustration with short posts. I do things my way and accept a kick in the balls from disappointing respondents. It's my way usually - but I have no answers.
Secondly you didn't have to apologize for referring to 2008 as the source of events. Most think that and I even I did, which resulted in my erroneous analysis of Putin's motives. Apologies accepted.
Now the strategic gamble by Putin you addressed, citing aforementioned book by Burns, is mighty interesting.
If I understood you correctly, Russia provided a corridor via central Asia for the US/NATO despite internal opposition. US didn't accept that as a payment and rejected the desired (by Russia) cooperation nevertheless.
Putin also hoped for the stoppage of NATO expansion to the Baltic. Upon further research Putin also hoped to find the NATO as an ally against the Chechens back in the day. This explains it.
Illuminating feedback from your end once again.
When it comes to sources (I'd rather end this long post now), I adopted a style where I cite the crucial sentences, and then post the link so they can find out I didn't make it up. But true, most don't give a damn for some reason.
@p@11112011@Grandtheftautism@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@eisai@icedquinn A gigaton of resources though. Also - merely speculating - nobody like the USA bombing half of the world. Putin managed to gain a moral high-ground. Expanding his influence would be more simple and cheap, becoming a far more serious competitor to the US.
Again, merely speculation. All roads (analysis) must lead to either power or money.
From my convo with @eisai it appears there's less motivation to post links mainly because too often it doesn't end up in good hands. They dismiss it or "troll" (like @p) mentioned I believe.
> If they don't want to return the favor then I abandon thread. What's the point.
It's nice to read up on topics of interest, maybe the other person isn't really engaged, what's that matter, really? Either they wanna talk about something interesting or something boring, they keep hammering on something boring, that's not worth it but all this focus on adversarial interactions and it's like, the person you're talking to doesn't decide what you get out of the conversation, and if they're clearly being assholes, what's it matter what they're trying to get out of the conversation? They want a fight, this means they've opted out of doing the conversation in a cooperative manner.
@p@11112011@FreedoingVlad@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@eisai@icedquinn yeah I vaguely remember a semester of "World History", but most of what I know about World History, I learned on my own. And like most self-taught people, my knowledge is spotty, because I study the stuff that interests me and skip the stuff that bores me.
I have the most trouble with the countries that keep changing their names and borders. For instance, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia used to be "Yugoslavia". And I looked up Eritrea the other day, to answer the question "Where are all these niggers coming from?" Turns out it used to be part of Ghana, who can keep track of all this stuff.
We used to try to make computers useful for this kind of thing. There was a nice period, maybe five or ten years, when a networked computer was a good way for most people to find out this information.
> Posting the link that other side simply cannot read is simply futile.
It's easier to let them decide they don't have a use for it than to decide it ahead of time; someone asks me about something and whether or not they can read code (perhaps the better way to put it is "whether or not I *think* they can read code"), I link to the code. They might not be the only people that end up reading it anyway.
> Add to this, that the English speaking folks tend to think that every piece that is worth reading should already be present in their language is sometimes infuriating.
My view is that I can't help it if other people are idiots; I just bash out my idiot thoughts and rely on the other person to tell me if I have failed to make sense.
Because there’s that thing called LANGUAGE BARRIER. Posting the link that other side simply cannot read is simply futile. Add to this, that the English speaking folks tend to think that every piece that is worth reading should already be present in their language is sometimes infuriating. No guys, there’s a fence, and you need to find loose bars in it, if you want fruits from that garden.
I think what Burns meant is just “incapability” of the RuAF, its lacking in comparison to USAF. The book is filled to the brim with snark. I wouldn’t say that military higher ups would oppose Putin’s decision on the basis of patriotic feelings – they are same wannabe capitalists, if the U.S. wants to pay, then it’s good for them.
> US didn't accept that as a payment and rejected the desired (by Russia) cooperation nevertheless.
@Grandtheftautism@p@11112011@FreedoingVlad@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@icedquinn From my school days I remember only the “framework”, and later I would find a lot of disconnected joints within it. Not long ago reading on HRE on my own (before those posts indeed) I was quite surprised that at one point in time, most of continental Europe was divided between Spanish Habsburgs and Austrian Habsburgs. And the lands of the Spanish spanned to Netherlands. (Which is very close to England, and this explains why the British felt very uneasy – the closest shores, read supplies, might’ve been occupied by an enemy empire).
Cramming into my head ever changing names and borders was stupid until I realised, that I remember stuff better, when there’s something, a subject, an idea, often – a question like “where did it start from?” “what was so important there?”, which makes you read and find a lot, connect the dots, and then, nicely tangled, it falls into memory naturally. Because brain works on connections between figures, intentions, places, etc.