US Credibility Crash as world swings to support Russia

[Toddsterpatriot]

The world supports Russia??

I sense someone has been on the cannabis oil !!

In his case, vodka....lots of vodka.

 

[Flash]

Agreed.

IMO? I don't think any of the oligarchs, in any of the nations, can be trusted.

I don't care for any of them. The ruling classes in every nation, don't give a shit about any of their people, and they are all only looking out for number one. Duh.

That is what the point of the thread it about, "credibility crash." None of them are credible anymore, they are all even using their own research and polling outfits, to "prove," it at this point.

International Attitudes Toward the U.S., NATO and Russia in a Time of Crisis

Most say U.S. is reliable partner, and ratings for Biden are mostly positive – although down significantly from last year.

www.pewresearch.org

International Attitudes Toward the U.S., NATO and Russia in a Time of Crisis​

Most say U.S. is reliable partner, and ratings for Biden are mostly positive – although down significantly from last year​

View attachment 795429

US seen as bigger threat to democracy than Russia or China, global poll finds

Belief in importance of democracy high in 53 sampled countries but inequality and big tech companies seen as biggest threats

www.theguardian.com

US is seen as a bigger threat to democracy around the world than Russia or China, new poll finds​

US is seen as a bigger threat to democracy around the world than Russia or China, new poll finds

Four years of Donald Trump dings the United States’ reputation

news.yahoo.com

Who gives a shit what these shitheads think?

I see the UK thinks the US is a threat but was damn glad when the US saved their Limey asses in two world wars and the Cold War.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They don't want to face the recent history of eastern Europe, Beale, Couchpotato.

They don't want to admit that Russia dismantled the Iron Curtain, the Soviet Union itself and extended an olive branch to the West only to get hostility, NATO expansionism and Cold War revanchism in return.

In 1991 the West could have chosen to treat Russia as a partner, starting a process to integrate the country with the European Union and NATO. Instead, the US and Europe decided to treat Russia as the loser of the Cold War, excluding the country from the political, economic and military structures of western Europe. They decided to keep Russia as a source of cheap raw materials and subject the country to a military encirclement.

The reality check says:

Russia didn't commit any aggression against its neighbors from 1991 to 2008 (first reaction to NATO expansion).

If they recognize this fact they will be forced to admit that the military enlargement was a completely gratuitous, unprovoked act of hostility towards a country that had just peacefully dismantled an empire.

This is the crucible super patriotic american clowns find themselves in:

They desperately want to believe NATO expansion was a reaction to post-soviet Russia's military aggression against her neighbors so that the West/NATO can't be portrayed as a bully but the REAL RECENT HISTORY OF EASTERN EUROPE stubbornly keeps rubbing on their faces there was no russian aggression after the "great reset" of the end of the Cold War.

So what do they do when they are forced to concede that the narrative they love so much does not correspond to THE REAL HISTORY OF EASTERN EUROPE that happened outside their heads?

Instead of adjusting their narrative to the real history of Europe, they "adjust" the real history of Europe to their narrative.

In other words, they create an imaginary history of eastern Europe, a history that only exist in their heads in order to portray post-soviet Russia as the aggressor.

That's why message boards, despite being good fun, are a big waste of time.

Nobody can ever hope to convince anybody of anything.

How can you ever expect to convince anyone of anything when most people are willing to create an entire parallel universe complete with an alternate history of eastern Europe in order to "validate" their narrative?

They don't want to admit that Russia dismantled the Iron Curtain, the Soviet Union itself and extended an olive branch to the West only to get hostility,

Out of the kindness of their black commie hearts.

 

[Couchpotato]

The disparity is not great enough to topple the nation, nor is it without remedy. Look into what's really going on with the Uyghur.

Ummmm. Their population is already shrinking. Their population dropped by nearly a million people last year. Their birthrate is well below replacement level, like half of replacement.

Russia was still a country and that’s who we made our agreement with.

Nobody signed that agreement with Russia.

Yeah. So you're fine with the US and the western world not holding to their word? Good to know. I cant imagine why a country like Russia wouldn't believe the west when it says NATO isn't a threat to it...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah. So you're fine with the US and the western world not holding to their word? Good to know. I cant imagine why a country like Russia wouldn't believe the west when it says NATO isn't a threat to it...

What word? There was no agreement.

Poor Russia, biggest country in the world, never did nothin' to nobody, everyone picking on her.

Let's all shed a tear for poor Russia.

 

[Couchpotato]

What word? There was no agreement.

Poor Russia, biggest country in the world, never did nothin' to nobody, everyone picking on her.

Let's all shed a tear for poor Russia.

I posted a link to the agreement dumb ass. That there was an agreement isnt even in dispute.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Dummy. Russia was still a country and that’s who we made our agreement with. Acting like that’s not what happened doesn’t change it. The USSR was Russia and a bunch of satellite countries. Those countries kept their “sovereignty”. It was t one big country, even if it acted in large part like one.

Link to our agreement with a country that doesn't exist anymore. I haven't seen you do shit.

What I found was this:

Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Russian authorities claim that agreement on non-expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe took place orally[1] and the alliance violated it with its expansion[1][2][3][4] while the leaders of the alliance claim that no such promise was made[5] and that such a decision could only be made in writing.

And it states that such an agreement would ONLY be valid in writing. So show me the written agreement otherwise it's invalid. Funny Russia is pointing to a non existent verbal agreement from 33 years ago as to why they are invading Ukraine. And what's hilarious is idiots like you suck it up like Putin jizz.

 

[Couchpotato]

Link to our agreement with a country that doesn't exist anymore. I haven't seen you do shit.

What I found was this:

Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Russian authorities claim that agreement on non-expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe took place orally[1] and the alliance violated it with its expansion[1][2][3][4] while the leaders of the alliance claim that no such promise was made[5] and that such a decision could only be made in writing.

And it states that such an agreement would ONLY be valid in writing. So show me the written agreement otherwise it's invalid.

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

We made promises. We meaning the US and the west. We then broke those promises. Don’t really care whether you believe that or not as it’s irrelevant to whether it happened.

 

[airplanemechanic]

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

We made promises. We meaning the US and the west. We then broke those promises. Don’t really care whether you believe that or not as it’s irrelevant to whether it happened.

Show me the promises IN WRITING. That is the ONLY way something like that is valid. I've produced proof and links showing no such promise was made. You can't produce proof of anything. A promise like that has no validity off of what one person is saying they "heard."

I win.

The proposal not to expand NATO eastward, which was one of the ways Western countries took the initiative on the issue of German reunification and reducing the possibility of the Soviet Union's influence on this process,[12] was based on the provisions of the speech of German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in Tutzing, announced on January 31, 1990.[13] In it, the minister, among other things, called on NATO to unequivocally state: "no matter what happens in the Warsaw Pact countries, there will be no expansion of NATO territory to the east, that is, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union."[16][17] Genscher's speech was prepared by him without coordination with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, to whom he was a political competitor on the eve of the upcoming parliamentary elections and from whom he sought to "seize the laurels of the unifier of Germany",

The speech was made by a german foreign minister 33 years ago on the eve of an election without permission from the German Chancellor and with which holds ZERO weight in any form or fashion with the US or NATO as a whole. He called on NATO to state that they wouldn't expand East. NATO never stated that, so it never happened. So no promise was made.

Thanks for playing.

I win.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I posted a link to the agreement dumb ass. That there was an agreement isnt even in dispute.

You posted a link to an agreement? Who signed it?

 

[Couchpotato]

Show me the promises IN WRITING. That is the ONLY way something like that is valid. I've produced proof and links showing no such promise was made. You can't produce proof of anything. A promise like that has no validity off of what one person is saying they "heard."

I win.

The proposal not to expand NATO eastward, which was one of the ways Western countries took the initiative on the issue of German reunification and reducing the possibility of the Soviet Union's influence on this process,[12] was based on the provisions of the speech of German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in Tutzing, announced on January 31, 1990.[13] In it, the minister, among other things, called on NATO to unequivocally state: "no matter what happens in the Warsaw Pact countries, there will be no expansion of NATO territory to the east, that is, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union."[16][17] Genscher's speech was prepared by him without coordination with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, to whom he was a political competitor on the eve of the upcoming parliamentary elections and from whom he sought to "seize the laurels of the unifier of Germany",

The speech was made by a german foreign minister 33 years ago without permission from the German Chancellor and with which holds ZERO weight in any form or fashion with the US or NATO as a whole. He called on NATO to state that, NATO never stated that, so it never happened. So no promise was made.

Thanks for playing.

I win.

Win what? Dumbass of the year? Congrats.

 

[BackAgain]

Irrelevant only if you take a juvenile approach to international relations. Run along kiddo, clearly you are out of your depth.

You wouldn’t grasp the first thing about relevance or international relations. In fact; you don’t.

Go play in traffic, you pathetic imbecile.

 

[Couchpotato]

You posted a link to an agreement? Who signed it?

Yes all agreements are a signed document. No one has ever entered into an agreement in any other way ever. No one has ever made promises in any way other than through a signed contract. Moron

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes all agreements are a signed document. No one has ever entered into an agreement in any other way ever. No one has ever made promises in any way other than through a signed contract. Moron

It was secret? A pinky swear?
Was it a verbal agreement?
Who said it? Was it Bush?
How do you know? A strong feeling?

When people ask you for evidence, do you always whine? Baby.

 

[Couchpotato]

Show me the promises IN WRITING. That is the ONLY way something like that is valid. I've produced proof and links showing no such promise was made. You can't produce proof of anything. A promise like that has no validity off of what one person is saying they "heard."

I win.

The proposal not to expand NATO eastward, which was one of the ways Western countries took the initiative on the issue of German reunification and reducing the possibility of the Soviet Union's influence on this process,[12] was based on the provisions of the speech of German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in Tutzing, announced on January 31, 1990.[13] In it, the minister, among other things, called on NATO to unequivocally state: "no matter what happens in the Warsaw Pact countries, there will be no expansion of NATO territory to the east, that is, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union."[16][17] Genscher's speech was prepared by him without coordination with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, to whom he was a political competitor on the eve of the upcoming parliamentary elections and from whom he sought to "seize the laurels of the unifier of Germany",

The speech was made by a german foreign minister 33 years ago on the eve of an election without permission from the German Chancellor and with which holds ZERO weight in any form or fashion with the US or NATO as a whole. He called on NATO to state that they wouldn't expand East. NATO never stated that, so it never happened. So no promise was made.

Thanks for playing.

I win.

Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. | National Security Archive

nsarchive.gwu.edu

“Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: “The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process” of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Later in the conversation, Baker poses the same position as a question, “would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote.”

 

[airplanemechanic]

Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. | National Security Archive

nsarchive.gwu.edu

“Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: “The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process” of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Later in the conversation, Baker poses the same position as a question, “would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote.”

Cute, that's not an agreement. That is not a signed agreement. I already posted links that show you're a dumb fucking dickwad.

Fuck off you shithead fucking asshole.

 

[Rogue AI]

You wouldn’t grasp the first thing about relevance or international relations. In fact; you don’t.

Go play in traffic, you pathetic imbecile.

Wow, how diplomatic of you. Go drink some Draino.

 

[BackAgain]

Wow, how diplomatic of you. Go drink some Draino.

I didn’t claim to be a diplomat, you contemptible twat rash.

Fuck off. Play in traffic. Come down with Fire-AIDS.

 

[Rogue AI]

I didn’t claim to be a diplomat, you contemptible twat rash.

Fuck off. Play in traffic. Come down with Fire-AIDS.

Clueless as usual. No surprise there.

 

[BackAgain]

Clueless as usual. No surprise there.

I agree that you’re always clueless.