₦airaland Forum

emae009:
Not every country in Europe is part of NATO. Something so simple can elude you guys but sure come up with some conspiracy to make sense.
While the person the made that comment for finally understood what I was trying to imply.
If you don't, I can't help you.

Don't be daft. I asked you to ponder and answer the question: why did they refused Russia's request to join NATO?

I will be waiting. Don't run in circles.

Appleyard:
Don't be daft. I asked you to ponder and answer the question: why did they refused Russia's request to join NATO?

I will be waiting. Don't run in circles.

Not every country in Europe is part of NATO. Something so simple can elude you guys but sure come up with some conspiracy to make sense.
what did you think I meant by this.

As with any organization, NATO reserve the right to accept or reject your request.
Whether that makes sense to you doesn't change that fact.

Like I said, come up with a conspiracy theory. FYI, this isn't the first time Ukraine requested to join. They were rejected the first time and required to make some internal adjustment before they can be considered.
Does that mean NATO was planning something against Ukraine??

emae009:
Not every country in Europe is part of NATO. Something so simple can elude you guys but sure come up with some conspiracy to make sense.
what did you think I meant by this.

When folks like you come up with the "conspiracy theory" nut case mantra, it just put to show their inability to reason logically. Any one who bring this up as an excuse isn't what debating with because it's clear that he don't even know that the term was coined to derail the Truth Movement.

As with any organization, NATO reserve the right to accept or reject your request.
Whether that makes sense to you doesn't change that fact.

This just shows that you simply do not understand geopolitics. If you understood the political historical Dynamics at play between the East (Russia and the formal Soviet space) and the West (the US-led NATO), you wouldn't have come up with this lame excuse. And if this is suppose to be your answer to why Russia's request to join NATO was rejected, then I must say I'm completely disappointed. But, on a second though, I shouldn't be disappointed really because it's all conspiracy theory after all.

Like I said, come up with a conspiracy theory. FYI, this isn't the first time Ukraine requested to join. They were rejected the first time and required to make some internal adjustment before they can be considered.
Does that mean NATO was planning something against Ukraine??

Nonsense! The NATO plan to expand Eastwards was already in motion even before Bush came to power. NATO Eastwardexpansion is a project to achieve strategic advantage, but I guess folks like you don't even know it. In 2002, Ukraine formally asked NATO for MAP, and President Bush welcomed it but did not lobby other NATO crucial members to push for it because he and they understood that UKRAINE IS Russia's REDLINE. Stop painting another picture.

Even as war-proned as the Bush family was, and crazy as Trump was, all of them (including Germany and France) understood the reality of geopolitics and crossing a Russian Redline. But folks like you who cherry pick sides create their own world of fantasy and when confronted with reality, they sing the conspiracy theory mantra.

Friend,you will do well to stay within your league.

Appleyard:
When folks like you come up with the "conspiracy theory" nut case mantra, it just put to show their inability to reason logically. Any one who bring this up as an excuse isn't what debating with because it's clear that he don't even know that the term was coined to derail the Truth Movement.



This just shows that you simply do not understand geopolitics. If you understood the political historical Dynamics at play between the East (Russia and the formal Soviet space) and the West (the US-led NATO), you wouldn't have come up with this lame excuse. And if this is suppose to be your answer to why Russia's request to join NATO was rejected, then I must say I'm completely disappointed. But, on a second though, I shouldn't be disappointed really because it's all conspiracy theory after all.




Nonsense! The NATO plan to expand Eastwards was already in motion even before Bush came to power. NATO Eastwardexpansion is a project to achieve strategic advantage, but I guess folks like you don't even know it. In 2002, Ukraine formally asked NATO for MAP, and President Bush welcomed it but did not lobby other NATO crucial members to push for it because he and they understood that UKRAINE IS Russia's REDLINE. Stop painting another picture.

Even as war-proned as the Bush family was, and crazy as Trump was, all of them (including Germany and France) understood the reality of geopolitics and crossing a Russian Redline. But folks like you who cherry pick sides create their own world of fantasy and when confronted with reality, they sing the conspiracy theory mantra.

Friend,you will do well to stay within your league.

Sometimes it baffles even the feeble mind how you guys think.
Let's leave aside which side you're on for now and focus on what is and what isn't.

You ask why Russia was rejected. I gave you my answer which is the answer you'll get anywhere because it just doesn't make sense why Russia should even want to join NATO in the first place.
If my answer is so cherry picked and blinded. How come you didn't give us, this honorable forum the real reason why they were rejected.
here lies what you wrote:
This just shows that you simply do not understand geopolitics. If you understood the political historical Dynamics at play between the East (Russia and the formal Soviet space) and the West (the US-led NATO), you wouldn't have come up with this lame excuse. .
In what universe does this explain anything?
Sure, what you were trying to portray is how NATO hates Russia and probably wants to invade it.
Cool, now why would Russia want to join an organization whose sole purpose is its destruction? Does that even make sense.
That's like the US wanting to join Chino-Russian alliance. It makes no sense as the alliance was created to push back the US.

That's the question you ask and you have the audacity to say I don't understand geopolitics.

Nonsense! The NATO plan to expand Eastwards was already in motion even before Bush came to power. NATO Eastwardexpansion is a project to achieve strategic advantage, but I guess folks like you don't even know it. In 2002, Ukraine formally asked NATO for MAP, and President Bush welcomed it but did not lobby other NATO crucial members to push for it because he and they understood that UKRAINE IS Russia's REDLINE. Stop painting another picture.

You'll write long epistle just to make no point or any reasonable sense at all.
NATO in its formation was to simply put stop communism from expanding into mainland Europe. After the fall of Germany, the Soviet Union was a strong force and so the alliance was formed with the US.
The Soviet Union broke up, those new independent countries start requesting to join NATO. If you're not so hung up on Russia being the victim you'd see from a neutral stand that for an organization whose sole purpose was to stop Russia expansion, that's a dream scenario.

NATO don't go about or I haven't heard or seen where they go into a country and try to lobby them to join the organization.
Those countries request to join and they are either accepted or rejected.
There are still countries in Europe that holds a neutral stand.

This is what you guys keep avoiding to answer because you can't see pass Russia as the victim.
Before you come back at me with another long epistle without saying anything useful. Think critically not as Pro-Russia or Pro-West. Look at it from a neutral stand and answer this question:
"What would make countries that have more in common with Russia to request to join an organization whose sole aim was to stop Russian expansion?"
Keep in mind that these countries would have chosen to be neutral as others or Pro-Russia as others also. What pushed them to make those decisions..

Let's see if you can think critically for once

emae009:
Sometimes it baffles even the feeble mind how you guys think.
Let's leave aside which side you're on for now and focus on what is and what isn't.

You ask why Russia was rejected. I gave you my answer which is the answer you'll get anywhere because it just doesn't make sense why Russia should even want to join NATO in the first place.
If my answer is so cherry picked and blinded. How come you didn't give us, this honorable forum the real reason why they were rejected.
here lies what you wrote:

In what universe does this explain anything?
Sure, what you were trying to portray is how NATO hates Russia and probably wants to invade it.
Cool, now why would Russia want to join an organization whose sole purpose is its destruction? Does that even make sense.
That's like the US wanting to join Chino-Russian alliance. It makes no sense as the alliance was created to push back the US.

That's the question you ask and you have the audacity to say I don't understand geopolitics.

I termed your answer as cherry picked because you refuse to see or want to see anything wrong with NATO and it's Eastwards expansion.

In fact, the moment you raised that "conspiracy theory" thrash point, it dawn on me you're just one of those western pro fanatics whose minds and soul is sealed from reality. This is the sole reason others have ceased from taking you serious.

Nice try in wanting to sound neutral, but you're not.

You'll write long epistle just to make no point or any reasonable sense at all.
NATO in its formation was to simply put stop communism from expanding into mainland Europe. After the fall of Germany, the Soviet Union was a strong force and so the alliance was formed with the US.
The Soviet Union broke up, those new independent countries start requesting to join NATO. If you're not so hung up on Russia being the victim you'd see from a neutral stand that for an organization whose sole purpose was to stop Russia expansion, that's a dream scenario.

NATO don't go about or I haven't heard or seen where they go into a country and try to lobby them to join the organization.
Those countries request to join and they are either accepted or rejected.
There are still countries in Europe that holds a neutral stand.

Your writing reeks of sheer ignorance. How many nations have asked to join NATO and were rejected? Name them. NATO was formed explicitly to counter and prevent any futuristic drive by the Soviet Union and it's Warsaw Pact allies into Western Europe. But today, the Cold War has ended and the Soviet Union and it's Warsaw Pact is no more. What is NATO still doing around? Who was or is threatening to invade Europe? (Maybe your village people.)

They rejected Russia's request to join then because without Russia, the premise for NATO relevance and existence is dead. There must be an enemy called Russia for NATO to thrive and remain relevant. This was why Russia requested to join because their membership would have buried the perception of 'you are my enemy' and erased the dividing line between West and East, and bring together the whole of Europe under one security pact devoid of suspicion and fear of invasion that characterize the Cold War era. But the US rejected it because it would have put their dream of global dominion to a halt. Moreover, NATO without a common enemy called Russia would have meant no more business for the MIC, for the corrupt politicians and contractors who milk the American government dry in contracts for weaponry.

So, since that had been the case, Russia have to exploit every means to ensure its own security because the US-led NATO umbrella still sees it as an enemy. The Cold War is over but the mentality never died. Like Putin said, it would be criminal negligence if they fail to guarantee their own safety, and that include stopping any further NATO encroachment near it's borders, of which Ukraine is the chief corner Stone.

Did I hear you say NATO don't go about lobbying? If what happened in Georgia 2008 and in Ukraine 2014 doesn't open your eyes to realities, then I'm sorry you have been propagandized beyond redemption.

Victoria Nuland's "Bleep the EU" was all over the place. NATO lobbyist working under the shadows of US secret services and CIA sponsored NGOs like USAID, NED, etc, were in Georgia working overtime to drum support for the country's to lean towards NATO.

The last 7 states from the formal East to join NATO didn't just wake up one day to say they wanted to join, the underground work had already be done, the leaders they need to say 'yes' and the legislative drive needed to push it through were already in place...to be fair, American covert operation planners are very effective and the best. So when the 'invitation' for them to join in 2002 came, they just said yes and was quickly ratified by the US Senate. Bush couldn't hide his excitements. It would interest you to know that Germany and France opposed it because they knew what was happening. So most of them did not actually request to join in the real sense. Rather, US covert operations (coupled with some other reasons) played a major role, and upon invitation, they simply said yes. The same trick was played in Ukraine but unfortunately, it didn't went as planned, and it's during the coup debacle it came to light that the US foreign department has spent $5 billion in Ukraine through NED. Ask yourself, what was that money being used for?

Like I said, this is geopolitics, if you don't know, you don't know.

Adieu.

Appleyard:
I termed your answer as cherry picked because you refuse to see or want to see anything wrong with NATO and it's Eastwards expansion.

In fact, the moment you raised that "conspiracy theory" thrash point, it dawn on me you're just one of those western pro fanatics whose minds and soul is sealed from reality. This is the sole reason others have ceased from taking you serious.

Nice try in wanting to sound neutral, but you're not.



Your writing reeks of sheer ignorance. How many nations have asked to join NATO and were rejected? Name them. NATO was formed explicitly to counter and prevent any futuristic drive by the Soviet Union and it's Warsaw Pact allies into Western Europe. But today, the Cold War has ended and the Soviet Union and it's Warsaw Pact is no more. What is NATO still doing around? Who was or is threatening to invade Europe? (Maybe your village people.)

They rejected Russia's request to join then because without Russia, the premise for NATO relevance and existence is dead. There must be an enemy called Russia for NATO to thrive and remain relevant. This was why Russia requested to join because their membership would have buried the perception of 'you are my enemy' and erased the dividing line between West and East, and bring together the whole of Europe under one security pact devoid of suspicion and fear of invasion that characterize the Cold War era. But the US rejected it because it would have put their dream of global dominion to a halt. Moreover, NATO without a common enemy called Russia would have meant no more business for the MIC, for the corrupt politicians and contractors who milk the American government dry in contracts for weaponry.

So, since that had been the case, Russia have to exploit every means to ensure its own security because the US-led NATO umbrella still sees it as an enemy. The Cold War is over but the mentality never died. Like Putin said, it would be criminal negligence if they fail to guarantee their own safety, and that include stopping any further NATO encroachment near it's borders, of which Ukraine is the chief corner Stone.

Did I hear you say NATO don't go about lobbying? If what happened in Georgia 2008 and in Ukraine 2014 doesn't open your eyes to realities, then I'm sorry you have been propagandized beyond redemption.

Victoria Nuland's "Bleep the EU" was all over the place. NATO lobbyist working under the shadows of US secret services and CIA sponsored NGOs like USAID, NED, etc, were in Georgia working overtime to drum support for the country's to lean towards NATO.

The last 7 states from the formal East to join NATO didn't just wake up one day to say they wanted to join, the underground work had already be done, the leaders they need to say 'yes' and the legislative drive needed to push it through were already in place...to be fair, American covert operation planners are very effective and the best. So when the 'invitation' for them to join in 2002 came, they just said yes and was quickly ratified by the US Senate. Bush couldn't hide his excitements. It would interest you to know that Germany and France opposed it because they knew what was happening. So most of them did not actually request to join in the real sense. Rather, US covert operations (coupled with some other reasons) played a major role, and upon invitation, they simply said yes. The same trick was played in Ukraine but unfortunately, it didn't went as planned, and it's during the coup debacle it came to light that the US foreign department has spent $5 billion in Ukraine through NED. Ask yourself, what was that money being used for?

Like I said, this is geopolitics, if you don't know, you don't know.

Adieu.

If you can't see things from a neutral perspective then this conversation is done.
Since from the beginning, you've so wanted to rope America into the conversation.

The Georgia you mentioned, their first request was rejected, Ukraine and Russia make it 3 yet you are asking how many has been rejected.

Conversing with you is of no point actually. Cause all what you wanted to do was blame the US for Russia mistake. But how can Russia make a mistake when they are always the victim right?

In the same Europe, there are countries that are Pro-Russia, there are Neutrals also in the same Europe but you're not interested in that. You just wanted to shift the conversation to rope America in and have a villain you so hate.

At least I'm sure you're not only one what will read this so for posterity sake.
Let's examine one of your conspiracy theory.
So America since they don't have what to do didn't just Institute a regime change in a country but somehow managed to get a majority of parliament to be elected just so they can request to join NATO. Then they also have to lobby around for these countries to then be accepted into the organization.
All these had to happen because saying Russia were aggressive to this states which played a large part in them wanting to join NATO will somehow not make America the big bad wolf you so desperately want it to be.

As a wise man once said "sometimes the simplest solution is the best answer"

that's all I will leave you with.

emae009:
If you can't see things from a neutral perspective then this conversation is done.
Since from the beginning, you've so wanted to rope America into the conversation.

The Georgia you mentioned, their first request was rejected, Ukraine and Russia make it 3 yet you are asking how many has been rejected.

Conversing with you is of no point actually. Cause all what you wanted to do was blame the US for Russia mistake. But how can Russia make a mistake when they are always the victim right?

In the same Europe, there are countries that are Pro-Russia, there are Neutrals also in the same Europe but you're not interested in that. You just wanted to shift the conversation to rope America in and have a villain you so hate.

At least I'm sure you're not only one what will read this so for posterity sake.
Let's examine one of your conspiracy theory.
So America since they don't have what to do didn't just Institute a regime change in a country but somehow managed to get a majority of parliament to be elected just so they can request to join NATO. Then they also have to lobby around for these countries to then be accepted into the organization.
All these had to happen because saying Russia were aggressive to this states which played a large part in them wanting to join NATO will somehow not make America the big bad wolf you so desperately want it to be.

As a wise man once said "sometimes the simplest solution is the best answer"

that's all I will leave you with.

America and it's hegemonic quest is the number one threat facing the world's peaceful order today.

Your lovely America is in the Philippines where they have been asked to live but they refused. So much for America not maltreating others. One day, the fowl of the bully will come home to roost.

Appleyard:
America and it's hegemonic quest is the number one threat facing the world's peaceful order today.

Your lovely America is in the Philippines where they have been asked to live but they refused. So much for America not maltreating others. One day, the fowl of the bully will come home to roost.

My whole point, argument, debates and comments was between Ukraine and Russia. Two neighbors but you guys will always somehow twist and turn just to bring America into the conversation.

Now you're trying to steer the argument into the SCS.

while here's an extract on the Philippines American relation at the moment:
“The evidence for that includes recent visits by top U.S. military leaders, the Philippines' endorsement of the AUKUS defense pace between Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S., and plans for expanded bilateral military exercises next year, Grossman wrote.

In July 2020, Duterte authorized his Department of Foreign Affairs to call on China to recognize an international tribunal's rejection in 2016 of Beijing's claims to areas of the South China Sea inside the Philippines' exclusive economic zone.

He told the U.N. General Assembly two months later that the ruling was "beyond compromise."

During an online conference in September, Philippine Ambassador to the United States Jose Manuel Romualdez said the U.S. and the Philippines "plan to move fairly quickly" on facilities for U.S. forces at five Philippine bases that were authorized under the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.

The head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. John Aquilino, visited the Philippines in late August and last month said the U.S. wants to "increase the complexity and scope" of exercises in the islands and invite new partners to join, Bloomberg reported Oct. 14.”

Doesn't sound like rejection or does it?
I don't know again with you guys

emae009:
k

comprehension is really the problem.
I ask a simple question and I'm sure you know the answer will expose your stand badly hence why you're dodging it and trying to engage in tattle tales.
I may be pro west but on this post. I haven't look to push any agenda just asked a simple question and you're all over the place.

What would make Ukraine that shares a lot more with Russia to go Pro West?.
I'm just asking for the cause and you're branching all over the place like it's Marvel multiverse.
Just answer the simple question

ukraine going pro-west is simply cox of russian aggression, putin is a landgrabbing dictator...always looking 4 territory to annex. just like he did in crimea.

What I know for sure is that, USA will not risk a direct war with Russia because of Ukraine. Period.

Max na to sanction them economically.

And same goes for other EU countries. Nobody want to risk a major war with Russia because of one Ukraine sha.