uh, Sweden and Finland are joining NATO
and they’re right on Russia borders, yet Russia is doing nothing about it
so much for the “NATO provocation” theory
now we’re back to square one ... PUTIN STARTED IT BECAUSE HE”S A BLOODTHIRSTY WARMONGER
(the simplest explanation is always right)
“uh, Sweden and Finland are joining NATO”
Really, how many terrorists has Sweden sent back to Turkey? None, so far. So, no NATO for them!
> so much for the “NATO provocation” theory <
NATO did provoke Russia by moving eastward. I don’t think that can really be debated. And a check of my pre-invasion FR posts will show that I was quite sympathetic to Russia in that regard.
But here’s the thing. Any response to a provocation must be in proportion to the provocation. NATO did not invade Russia, or bomb any Russian cities. And neither did Ukraine.
Putin completely overreacted here. He is now killing civilians and terrorizing whole populations. He went way over the top. And so my opinion of him has changed since the invasion. I now consider him to be a war criminal.
“Sweden and Finland are joining NATO
and they’re right on Russia borders, yet Russia is doing nothing about it
so much for the “NATO provocation” theory”
So much for the Putin warmonger theory.
Putin is a mad dog killer. Period.
...Sweden and Finland are joining NATO...
... the “NATO provocation” theory...
...PUTIN STARTED IT BECAUSE HE”S A BLOODTHIRSTY WARMONGER...
...the simplest explanation is always right...
____________________________________________
Sweden just elected a new PM
“...a right-wing bloc that includes a nationalist, anti-immigration party won a narrow majority in Sweden’s parliament.”
We’ll see how that NATO membership proceeds.
Swedish publication/author:
“Shocking document: How the US planned the war and energy crisis in Europe
International
• In what appears to be an exceptional internal leak from the think tank RAND Corporation, known among other things to have been behind the American strategy for foreign and defence policies during the Cold War, a detailed account is given of how the energy crisis in Europe has been planned by the United States.
• The document, which dates from January, acknowledges that the aggressive foreign policy that was being pursued by Ukraine before the conflict would push Russia into having to take military action against the country. Its actual purpose, it contends, was to pressure Europe into adopting a wide range of sanctions against Russia, sanctions which had already been prepared.
• The European Union’s economy, it states, “will inevitably collapse” as a result of this, and its authors rejoice in the fact that, among other things, resources of up to $9 billion will flow back to the United States, and well-educated young people in Europe will be forced to emigrate.
• The key objective described in the document is to divide Europe - especially Germany and Russia - and destroy the European economy by placing useful idiots in political positions in order to stop Russian energy supplies from reaching the continent.”
NATO provocation was the enactment of RAND strategy
(yes, they deny it, but perpetrators always deny. Their supposed link to the real paper goes nowhere.)
To use your own format: Putin has not acted prior in a way that supports your accusation. So, obviously, your accusation lacks substance.
Cui Bono? You say: “The simplest explanation is _always***_ (my emphasis) right.” Estimates of $9B in assets flowing to the US plus educated youth emigrating are, at the least, intriguing.
9B seems too little. Is this some metric use where they actually mean $9Trillion?
I do not see where a white, educated workforce comports with
US immigration actions to date, especially since Sweden has just elected nationalistic populists. Perhaps RAND thought they would be *woke*?
This is breaking and with RAND’s denial, has become controversial.
I encourage everyone to research further into RAND and its funding.
*** Any extraordinary claims of “always” and “never” require extraordinary proof, or, at least, extraordinary evidence. At minimum, one should seek a weight of anecdotal/observational indications to support the claim and then search further.