So they argue that they're the good guys but conveniently forget that their side (countries) are primarily interested in geo-political gains just like every country on Earth.

Undeniable Fact --> NATO was founded after WW2 to counter / contain the USSR. We all know that promises were made that NATO wouldn't expand East after the USSR dissolved but NATO has been expanding East for 3 decades.

Every time someone shows up talking shit like saying they're the good guys or the other side's arguments are not true I'm happy to repeat it




Read my reply to Norlander

This post was edited by Djunior on Oct 5 2025 08:05am

I mean gas in the American context, i.e. petrol and diesel, not gas in pipelines.

Sometimes you gotta dumb down your posts so our American friends can follow.

There is a chronic lack of logical thought in responses, which is why i helpfully provided western fairy tales to refute comments like yours. on that note, i am copy/pasting in order to ensure that there is health debate of the two narratives.

A central tenet of the Russian and realist critique is that the West, particularly the U.S., took advantage of Russia's post-Soviet weakness in the 1990s, humiliating the nation and recklessly expanding NATO into a strategic vacuum during this period of American triumphalism. From the Western perspective, this fundamentally mischaracterizes a voluntary process. The expansion of NATO and the EU was driven by the sovereign choice of former Soviet satellites who, freed from Moscow's domination, actively sought their own security guarantees and democratic futures. This was not an imposition on a prostrate Russia, but the fulfillment of the very right to self-determination that the end of the Cold War promised. The West argues it was responding to the aspirations of independent nations seeking to escape a sphere of influence, not orchestrating a containment strategy against a defeated foe. While the confident assumption of a perpetual, peaceful U.S.-led order has been definitively challenged by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the principle that sovereign nations have the right to choose their own alliances remains a cornerstone of the Western defense of Ukraine's path

hmmm maybe i should have a section addressing the verbal agreement bit. here i guess?

A central point of contention that fuels the Russian and realist critique revolves around a purported verbal agreement from the West in the early 1990s that NATO would not expand eastward. This narrative asserts that as a condition for Soviet consent to German reunification within the NATO alliance, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and other Western leaders assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move "one inch eastward."

From the Russian perspective, this was a fundamental, albeit informal, guarantee that was subsequently betrayed by the waves of NATO enlargement in 1999, 2004, and beyond. This perceived betrayal is cited as evidence of Western bad faith and is central to the claim that the U.S. exploited Russia's post-Soviet weakness, creating a deep-seated sense of humiliation and encirclement that directly informs current Russian policy.

The Western position, supported by declassified transcripts and official statements, firmly denies that any such binding agreement was ever made. Officials contend that the discussions between Baker and Gorbachev focused exclusively on the status of East Germany in the context of reunification, not on a blanket prohibition against future NATO expansion. They argue that no formal treaty or written commitment was ever signed, and that the subsequent accession of Eastern European nations was a sovereign, democratic choice by those countries, not a violation of a prior accord.

Thus, this disputed understanding exists in a historical gray zone. For Russia, it is a broken promise that invalidates the West's moral high ground on the principles of self-determination. For the West, it is a misrepresentation of history used to justify an imperialistic foreign policy. The irreconcilable nature of these two positions underscores the profound lack of trust and the competing interpretations of history that continue to fuel the current conflict.



my bad

This post was edited by ferdia on Oct 5 2025 08:11am

I am late to this thread, but you know me my brothers

, , ,

Yeah, I'm numb to it all by now. You can't shock me with anything- be it good wishes or drone finish-off videos. But, gotta admit, no scooters so far.

It’s a sobering thought that, as we speak, the U.S. has deployed numerous KC-135 and KC-46 Stratotankers to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar - just as they did a few months ago before bombing Iran, which suggests that another attack on Iran could be imminent. What’s strangely comforting, though, is the knowledge that this is not expected to be an attack on Russia or China.



i saw your fg count was stuck at only 13.37, i fixed it for you and raised it so you can buy gas. no need to tank me hohoho

was 14.88 a pivotal year? i dont get it. all i am seeing is :

1488 - Political shifts in Europe – Various minor but regionally significant changes were happening: for example, in Eastern Europe, the Ottoman Empire was continuing its expansion into the Balkans. In Western Europe, monarchies were consolidating power, setting the stage for later conflicts and explorations.

This post was edited by ferdia on Oct 5 2025 08:27am

Since you are a nazi a bit I sent some back

did you just call me the R word that sounds like Regarded??!

Rewarded actually

ohhhh