It's funny how I rattled you so much, for saying that you're carrying water for NATO (while seem to be viewing yourself as leftist lol)

Lol, so first you were “libs automatically discount any non western sources”, now you’re claiming that all western sources are biased.

Both statements are true? Did I claim something to the contrary? All sources are biased and the bias has to be taken into account.

You’ll notice when I quote from wikipedia I’m not quoting subjective opinions, I’m quoting dates and primary sources. While you have done nothing but source from opinion pieces that don’t even back up your claim. Embarrassing.

Wikipedia for example has a heavy western/nato/neoliberal bias. It's fine to quote it, but it's not "actual events recorded in history" or not "subjective opinion". The moment you have an author writing phenomena there's bias to it. Try Derrida or Foucault sometime.

And normally when someone presents evidence that supports their affirmation and you don’t agree with it, you would submit your own evidence that supports your rebuttal. You have done nothing but rely on nonsensical rhetoric.

Wikipedia is counted evidence I see, while heavy biased sources that have articles not supporting their current current narrative is just opinion. Ok.

And I’ve linked plenty of supporting evidence to show that’s not true. I understand pretext, but there are clear historical accounts of action and reaction, something that wouldn’t exist if you were operating solely on pretext.

You copy pasted wikipedia. You're right there are clear accounts, but these have been done on thin pretext? Just because it happened how it happened doesnt mean it was right to happen? And when the thin pretext is pointed it's:

Lol, no I’m fine with the original statement. I was just attempting to not argue about such a pedantic dispute.

Details matter. Especially with history, because it can shift narrative. Doesn't seem to be very intellectually honest from your side just to dismiss as pedantic.

Soviet good, NATO bad does not mutually exclude NATO from being formed from a genuine reaction of the west.

Mf NATO is a reaction of the west ('s capital class). It's what I'm saying the entire time. It's a reaction to an economic powerhouse that was forming in the east. And forming a defensive alliance to counter that is a major escalation in threat. And it resulted in forming the warsaw pact. You keep reversing cause and effect. When I called you out that "annexing" of CSSR didn't formally happen and you admitted it, you hopefully do understand how the formation of NATO is at the root of the problem, do you? I don't understand how you are so obtuse and thick about it?

Ahh I see, so your claiming the Soviets invaded Poland to create a buffer state between that Nazi Poland and Russia? Do you have any evidence to support this? It doesn’t seem likely considering just how caught off guard Stalin was when operation Barbarossa started.

Yes the evidence for the buffer zone is molotov-ribbentrop? And no Stalin wasn't caught off guard as the M-R was a way to buy time to shift the USSR Industrial center closer to the Urals/Crimea. USSR needed the time because shifting Industrial centers takes time. Nazi Germany was europes economic powerhouse at the beginning of WW2, mind you. You also saw at the beginning of the war how the USSR was taken by the Blitzkrieg. Once the SU industrial centers fully formed to support the war effort you saw how the USSR was starting to crush the nazis.

Lol, so no non western sources then?

What do you mean no western sources? I've been providing western sources. But when you do quote at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge their bias. i.e. NATO biased source saying NATO did a humanitarian action is not the same as a NATO biased source admitting their humanitarian action killed a bunch of people in passive voice.

Also, what does this have to do with Bosnia, which happened in the 90s? Another mistake with keeping your timeline together?

You do understand that after the dissolution of the SU, Russia was friendly and tried to join NATO so they did these operations together? Russia was aspiring to join NATO? 2007 Putin munich speech marks a shift as Putin starting to realize that they cannot get into the big boy imperial club, when he's making demands on NATO and not privatizing Russias SOEs?

You can claim there is no subjective truth and all facts are viewed subjectively to support ones own argument.

Fighting strawmans I see.

Yes there is subjective and an objective truth (which only can be experience, but not materialize as it will become subjective), but to arrive closer at the objective truth you need to take multiple perspectives (subjective truthts) into account , but regardless how many subjective truths you view, there's no way of ever fully claiming that it is "objective" as there always will be contradictions to resolve. The variety of subjective truths are a mere lense/abstraction of the objective truth. And one's own is also one as such.

The "art" of reading subtext is to having to have understood multiple contexts (subjective truths) in order to "fill gaps" of what is not being told in the text that you're reading, and trying to get a skewed glimpse of the objective truth.

There's no "objective" perspective as you seem to think, in the sense that you can read about it on wikipedia.

You comprehend the natural world dialectically/"objective", and interpret it materially. Once it's materialized, it has been interpreted and thus is subjective.

Reading Derrida, Foucault, Hegel/Marx, Stalin, etc. might help.

You seem to have accepted that the NATO perspective is the "truth" when it's one skewed/subjective truth of many.

You gave no answers to these simple questions:

The overall argument is that NATO is a reaction. First there was the creation of NATO and then came the Warsaw pact chronologically. The USSR, mind you, was an economic alliance. Arguing that the "annexations" is valid pretext to form NATO is carrying water for imperalists, when you yourself admitted that it wasn't officially annexed. Even if we assume NATO saw the USSR as a threat (it actually was for it’s capitalists as I admitted before) and was created as a result, why keep it, if not for imperialism after the dissolution of the USSR? Seeing the "serious demilitarization" efforts from NATO in the 90s is just naive to keep it around (Could the forces of the MIC be at play?) The US even handpicked Putin so it was all friendly back then, why increase members? For what threat? USSR is dissoloved and Putin was friendly at the time. If you had signs form Putin that expansion is seen as aggressive, why agitate? Saying now that the threat came true is a fucking joke.

You seem to read a lot, but don't seem to be understanding the things that you read.