I rattled you so much, for saying that you're carrying water for NATO

Lol, there is that european penchant for self flattery. Rich coming from someone supporting the man who set the death nail of communism in Russia.

All sources are biased and the bias has to be taken into account.

Lol, correctly naming dates where historical events occurred.... Biased as fuck dude.

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.

Lol, yes let's deconstruct the idea of a shared reality where skepticism of subjectivity is high we can't agree on events occurring on dates recorded by multiple parties. I'm sure that will help this historical discourse move right along.

Also, this is just an appeal to a eurocentric perspective of authority.

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

Lol, attacking the source of the evidence and not the evidence itself? Also, the last piece of "evidence" you cited was literally an opinion piece, one that didn't even support your argument.

Doesn't seem to be very intellectually honest from your side just to dismiss as pedantic.

Defacto literally means in fact. Demanding someone to say in fact a Russian coup rather than Russian coup is being pedantic.

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 I'm saying that you haven't given any evidence to support that theory, while I have given specific events of expansions by the Soviets. When NATO first formed the Soviet state was not the economic powerhouse that we know of post WW2. There's a reason why the lend and lease program was so important to Soviets after Barbarossa.

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?

Defacto annexation means annexation you dolt.

Yes the evidence for the buffer zone is molotov-ribbentrop?

Lol, this ignores the fact that as relations soured between germany and Russia they actually created a buffer zone in Poland. If all of Poland was supposed to be a buffer zone for an imminent attack, wouldn't he have moved more troops in the area?

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.

Yes, I threw away the brunt of my military power for logistical advantage...... despite the industrial centers being moved only happened as a reaction to the invasion.

What do you mean no western sources?

Read what you quote...... No nonwestern sources.

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?

Except they already took this position in 99 with Kosovo.....

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.

A long winded way to say truth is what I believe to be true.

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.

Ahh, fill the gaps with assumptions that suit your biases...

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

Lol, eurocentric trash. You should read more about dualism, you would benefit from learning about the mind body problem. Try Yukio Mishima.

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

Ahh yes, my interpretation is perfect because my brain was damaged by reading too much 19th century eurotrash whom separated the mind from the body because it made sense of their religious worldview.

Euro-brain, Euro-body, Euro-gaming chair, the perfect comrade. It's funny how much you hate the west, but embody all of its worst qualities. Right down to the dogmatic appeal to rhetoric that allows you to quantify the world into a false dichotomy of physical and metaphysical.

Go kick rocks, I'm done with you and your odd internal contradictions. How can someone be so eurocentric and hate the west so much? I mean I get hating the west..... But then believing the same flawed philosophy that caused all the reasons to hate the west, to be valid?Strange.