Regardless of "Western Propaganda", what is happening is worse than what they say.

"Often Dead as the first victim of the war!"
Wow, Brilliant. Did you think of this yourself?

I am creating a NEW DRINKING GAME!!!

Every time they say something about PUTIN, that they have ALSO SAID ABOUT TRUMP... you have to Drink!

So Far,
- He has no support (simply not true, probably 70% support him in Russia, 99% in Donbass Region)
- He is afraid of Covid-19 and is hiding like a germophobe
- He is not maintaining normal human contact
- He is out of control
- He must be stopped

And that's without me paying any attention to the news. I've heard this.

Where are the comments that:
Unlike AMERICA, Russia doesn't have 5,000 military bases around the world...
The US has been putting missiles in Ukraine, and heavy war making equipment... Putin didn't move until this started.

Doesn't Ukraine share a PHYSICAL border with Russia.
Are these acts SIMILAR to the Russian Missile Crisis.

I trust MY OWN MEDIA to LIE and MISREPRESENT what is going on!

Ukraine is of ZERO interest. But if there are (and have been) Human Rights Violations against the Donbass region (A region that are Russian, and speak Russian, not Ukrainian)... And it has been ignored, or at least not reported on... What gives?

Somewhere between 2 extremes lay the truth... Often Dead as the first victim of the war!

So, they called Rittenhouse wrong, The other teens wrong, the BLM movement wrong... The Syrian Gas Attacks wrong (ambulances were there from HOURS away, IMEDIATELY), and SOMEHOW I am supposed to believe... THIS TIME, we have the facts right...

When EVERY MEDIA channel says the same thing... It's a PLANTED STORY!

It wasn't a written treaty, but was a key part of the discussion as de-classified documents have shown around the re-unification of Germany. Per the documents we "intentionally misled" the Soviets into thinking that NATO would be subsumed entirely into a broader "new European security structure" that would include Russia. The agreement was that NATO would not expand and would become instead part of a new political-focused entity that covered all of Europe and included Russia, being no longer aimed at Russia as a military opposing force.

We broke all of those. Now, that is arguable only in the sense that we made those promises and didn't act on them, but that is also part of the problem - we had no intention to do so.

The underlying issue for Russia was that NATO was designed to isolate them - a policy we called "containment." This is why they wanted what they did - no expansion and for NATO to no longer be an anti-Russian military force. It was also important, as noted by then-President of Czechosolovakia Vaclav Havel wrote to Bush:

"It is a question of prestige. This is the reason why I talked about the new European security system without mentioning NATO. Because, if it grew out of NATO, it would have to be named something else, if only because of the element of prestige. If NATO takes over Germany, it will look like defeat, one superpower conquering another. But if NATO can transform itself – perhaps in conjunction with the Helsinki process – it would look like a peaceful process of change, not defeat."

There was a ton of back and forth about how rapidly withdrawal of troops would happen that I wish was talked about more in history classes and in discussion about that era as they are important to understanding. For example most Americans don't know that Gorbachev was against rapid removal of U.S. forces in Europe.

We also know much of the veiled animosity and duplicitousness in these conversations and agreements came from Bush himself as he refused to treat the Russians as anything less than a defeated enemy - arguably something we are paying for to this very day.

Honestly anyone interested in how such a major event as the fall of an nuclear superpower was managed really should look into the declassified documents as they are amazing. The discussions around Germany's involvement in NATO specifically as a means to make it want to give up its NBC capabilities and much o fits military is eye-opening at the very least, especially when combined with the claim by the US that NATO would cease being a military-political organization and be replaced by a "whole of Europe" political one.

In many ways the re-unification of Germany was a continuation of the Allied powers' conquest of Germany at the end of WWII, even Gorbachev himself referred to the powers in the negotiations as the "four victorious powers" and four side even brought up the Potsdam agreement.

The inclusion of Germany in NATO, the Warsaw Pact, or neither was a major sticking point for everyone involved, and this is sorely unknown. It was more important for the Russians than the other parties, and in the end they feel (rightly based on the docs) that they were screwed over on it. It is unrealistic to think that this didn't affect their internal politics heavily and still carries influence today.

The promise to subsume NATO and make it non-military and non-existent as a military entity began under Regan, but Bush seemed quite opposed to it (not a surprise, really). Baker repeatedly assured Gorbachev that they were still committed to it as part of the German reunification. For Russia it was both about internal politics as well as their sense of security, something even Thatcher publicly acknowledged.

For decades since there has been this back and forth about Eastern European nations joining NATO - going against virtually all of the agreements made with Russia in the early 90s not just in spirit but in letter. It carried across administrations from both parties. At every turn the Russians were concerned about being more and more isolated from Europe. At every turn we continued to isolate them - from Bush through Clinton. By the end of Clinton's administration it was clear to the Russians that the West had no intention of honoring its agreement to get rid of NATO and build a full-European institution that was political rather than military and included Russia, and they were right.

Most, if not all, commentators on Ukraine and NATO are ignorant of these things, and for this reason they are wrong about Putin's response to the idea of Ukraine in NATO. We've had three decades to get rid of NATO and make a full, non-military European security organization that included Russia and have not only not done it we've added to NATO and insisted on it being a "peacekeeping force", and excluded Russia. The Bush and Clinton administrations made the messy bed we see today.

In the Clinton era it was referred to as "neo-isolationism." Yeltsin had, even publicly, noted that America was rapidly expanding NATO and refusing to build the new European security structure it had promised would replace NATO, and again their emphasis was on not "re-dividing Europe" - which is exactly what NATO was doing. Internal documents release have shown that the Clinton administration had decided to oppose Russian inclusion due to it not having "a western culture." Indeed Kornblum and Hearst wrote a memo dismissing as specious Russian talk about the agreements our own documents show we made repeatedly.


Note that I am not commenting on the merits of what went down either way. Merely on the fact that we made promises over and over, and broke every single one - even going to the extent of claiming we never even suggested such things. These were clearly and unmistakably serious concerns and issues for the Russians, as we openly acknowledged. Yet we tossed them aside like Bush tossing broccoli.

Just because our current administration is ignorant or in denial about these events, that does't mean the clearly slighted party is. Indeed they've made clear publicly that they remember and are still pissed about it. And, frankly, on that specific aspect I will say they have every right and reason to be. Especially given that our own declassified documents confirm we never intended to follow through.

Regarding the MSMM, is it just me or are they currently collectively starting to describe the Russian advance into Ukraine a bit like Baghdad Bob's description of the American advance in Iraq? I do think it took longer than 72 hours for the US and coalition forces to roll into Baghdad.

All civilian casualties should be abhorred, but consider the civilian casualties in Ukraine are almost up to a Chicago/Detroit/Baltimore weekend!

Priceless observation, starguy! LOL

Where did you hear that "the British were the ones doing the gassing"?

What is this agreement? Can you cite it?

The media is covering the oil/ & gas aspect with a pillow because it exposes a massive problem in the narrative. It also runs into the already circulating video of Trump predicting this problem exactly.

Of course, neither are they even mentioning that when the cold war ended, the agreement was made that both The Warsaw Pact and NATO would be abolished as no longer needed. The Soviets ended the Warsaw Pact and, well when Trump legitimately questioned why NATO still exists he was lambasted for it. Imagine how the west would feel if NATO went away but the Warsaw pact remained.

Hmm, I don't recall them traveling to 1984 mah dude. >.<

Just another consideration...

Sorry, but you're asking a woketard to "think"?
😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄

War Is Excellent! Bodacious!
It stimulates the economy by destroying stuff!
(with consultation from Bill and Ted, dude)

I believe this. For me the turning point on this, the big wakeup call, was when they reported that Assad had gassed his own people. It was HOW IT WAS REPORTED that tipped me off. As I sat down for dinner (prime time!) with my family they put images across the tv screen of dead babies lying in the dirt. I've never seen such a thing in my life on prime-time tv. Faces weren't blurred. Some of the kids looked half-buried (I don't know how gas does that). i got up and turned off the tv - thoroughly pissed off. I have since heard that the British were the ones doing the gassing (false flag). It was clearly propaganda by the Obama administration to build support for going into Syria (and basically switch sides). Will never forget that slip up...

a real effort to attack Russia economically would be for the US got go back to being an energy exporter

they claim climate issues
ok
how good for the "climate" is war??