re: Putin Warns ‘Globalist Terrorist’ Klaus Schwab His ‘Days Are Numbered’

I normally don’t support Putin. But I’m 100% behind him on this.

quote:

---

Do you believe “Soviet Union” is synonymous with “Russia”? Yes or no?

---

oh please. I believe you were wrong and told you so repeatedly in the face of your loutish retorts

You were wrong - now its up to you to admit it Sparky

quote:

---

The chaos is what brought Putin to power. He had the support of the state police and intelligence community.

---

Here is my understanding:

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990 that NATO jurisdiction would not move "one inch eastward" if the Soviets accepted German reunification within NATO. Thatcher, Mitterand, and Helmut Kohl gave similar assurances to Gorbachev. These assurances were provided on the condition that Soviet forces withdrawal peacefully from Eastern Europe and allow Germany reunification under NATO. USSR/Russia kept its end of this arrangement.

Though Russia argued that NATO's addition of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic violated both the spirit and substance of these 1990 assurances, Yeltsin was initially relatively acquiescent to it. He took a cooperative stance with the West likely in hopes of financial and advisory support, and for building a partnership with the U.S.

However when NATO announced intent to expand into the Baltic states, encroaching directly on Russia's border. It played to nationalist anxieties, and politically crippled Yeltsin. Amidst the "War of Laws" opposition parties and remnant communists, especially in Parliament, exploited NATO expansion portraying Yeltsin as selling out Russian interests to the West.

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 exacerbated Russian public animosity over expansion, and at that point Yeltsin was politically screwed.

While trying to maintain largely cooperative ties with the U.S., Yeltsin was skewered in Russia as subservient to the West, and perceptions were that Russia was being marginalized globally. Putin capitalized on popular dissatisfaction, perception of Yeltsin's subservience to the West, and NATO expansion in particular. Putin presented himself as a restorer of Russian prestige.

His claim was Yeltsin failed to protect Russian interests against Western encroachment destroyed appeal of liberal, pro-Western politicians associated with Yeltsin. Yeltsin's health and prestige tanked simultaneously. He resigned.

Putin and nationalist factions within Russia's security establishment regarded NATO enlargement as threatening Russian security. The Bucharest Summit Declarations in 2008 sealed that premise.

Ultimately, tensions over an adversarial NATO bloc encroaching on Russian interests has served Putin nicely.

Now clearly there were other factors at play. But my interest is in what we might have done differently during the Yeltsin years. Because what we ended up with -- Putin -- is obviously a far poorer option.

Thing Putin Never Did To Me.

1. Never called me "Deplorable"

2. Never stole a US election.

3. Never censored my speech.

4. Never opened my border.

5. Never tried to convince my children the they should mitilate their sex organs.

6. Never took money from hostile nations while serving as my VP.

7. Never politically persecuted US political opposition.

8. Never decided that I'm to ride bicycles and eat bugs.

9. Never debased my currency.

10. Never labeled me "the greatest domestic terrorist threat"

Maybe Putin hasn’t done those things to you (although I’m pretty sure he’s done some of them but you don’t know it), but there is something he’s doing to you right now.

He’s aiming several thousand thermonuclear warheads at you and your family.

Can he add Soros to that list?

I'll not join with your thugs in D.C. on their constant misadventures.

Let's fix our own house and secure our own liberties.

quote:

---

NATO upheld its side of the agreement with the USSR.

---

I appreciate the nuance. You'd have made a good lawyer.

quote:

---

Once the Soviet Union dissolved, the U.S. and NATO decided the agreement was no longer valid.

---

The question is why?
Why expand NATO after seeing Russia democratically elect a President for the first time in history? Why would we would we undercut Yeltsin that way? Why would we do that when he was concomitantly struggling mightily with "old-school" communist factions in Parliament?

quote:

---

The Baltic States joined NATO in 2002 which was 3 years after Putin came to power.

---

Yes, and I know you know all this, you were there; but formal public requests for the Baltic States to join NATO were issued in 1997, during Yeltsin's regime, amidst the "War of Laws", the financial instabilities you alluded to earlier, and Yeltsin's failing health. Yeltsin had tried to explain away Poland et al.

The Baltics were a different matter. He was flattly opposed, and so in 1999 the Baltic States Membership Action Plan was deferred. Subsequently though, in 1999, German Chancellor Schroeder publicly endorsed Baltic membership in NATO during a visit to Lithuania. Other European leaders (i.e., Tony Blair) also voiced support for Baltic NATO membership. It was the stuff that forced Yeltsin to prove his Russian nationalistic bonafides.

To paraphrase an old saying ... The proof was in the Putin.

quote:

---

The angst Russia had over NATO’s bombing of Serbia (not Yugoslavia) was a red herring issue. Neither Serbia nor Yugoslavia was ever a member of the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet Union and thus was never part of the agreement between NATO and the USSR.

---

Serbia was not a member of the Triple Alliance or Triple Entente in 1914 either. Yeltsin warned that NATO's 1999 action could spark a "world war." He saw the campaign as Western aggression against a Slavic, Orthodox country allied with Russia. He considered military intervention, but a combination of illness and pragmatism led him to convince Milosevic to accept a peace deal. Two months later, with angst about him kowtowing to the US, Yeltsin surprised the country by naming a relatively unknown avowed nationalist, Vladimir Putin, as his new prime minister.

Yeltsin resigned 4mos afterwards.

quote:

---

NATO entertained the idea of allowing Russia ... to become a member of NATO.

---

That was at Putin's suggestion.
But in another opportunity lost, NATO applied conditions for the union which it knew Russia would not accept. It played perfectly into Putin's nationalistic messaging. NATO made it clear it was not interested in Russia as an ally. There were/are a military alliance designed to oppose Moscow. Therefore they are the enemy.

Commensurate with that stupidity, the US approved permanent normal trade relations with China, and in short order admitted China to the WTO ... with Russia still being denied. Ironically as you know, Russia was eventually admitted into the WTO about a decade into Putin's regime.

Just seems like repeatedly retarded policy decisions on our part.

quote:

---

My belief is if Putin is allowed to subjugate Ukraine again, the Republic of Georgia is next and after that, Azerbaijan.

---

I agree that Putin would move that way if he could. Though you and I don't share in our opinions of likelihood of it transpiring.

First, because the West validated for itself the dangerous stupidity of the NATO Bucharest Declarations. I don't see any NATO push in the future to fulfill its guarantees of admittance to Ukraine and/or Georgia.

Second, Putin thought he would Blitzkrieg Ukraine akin to what the US did in the second Iraq War. He thought he'd take Kyiv, then generously give it back, but with a Russian-loyal government installed. It didn't workout quite the way he expected. Putin may be sinister, but he's neither insane nor stupid. I don't think he'll be making the same mistake in Georgia or Azerbaijan.

---

I have to also add, IMO our interests in Ukraine likely have less to do with Putin than they do with interest in money laundering opportunities, and money filtering back to US politician and affiliated PACs.

quote:

---

Serbia was not a member of the Triple Alliance or Triple Entente in 1914 either. Yeltsin warned that NATO's 1999 action could spark a "world war." He saw the campaign as Western aggression against a Slavic, Orthodox country allied with Russia. He considered military intervention, but a combination of illness and pragmatism led him to convince Milosevic to accept a peace deal.

---

In trying to find info about geopolitics of the 90's and Russian dissolution I was taken by how much news was concerning Yugoslavia and the Serbian military actions. I had not even considered much about those days in quite a while.. intentional?

and I ask myself 'Was this a part of globalist forever war in some way'?

I was apparently too busy raising a house full of kids at the time to study it much. I also seem to recall more trust in my government at that time - my biggest mistake

quote:

---

Your signature is a moronic absurdity

---

Well, my signature quote is YOUR words, so...