♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Right which is the reason we will never invade Russia no matter how weak it's Army/Navy/Air Force get. So Russia's nuclear stockpile does have strategic value for them.
Why is NATO attempt to recreate Cuban missile crisis inside the Europe?
- Thread starter [size/HUGE] boobs [/size]
- Start date
Right which is the reason we will never invade Russia no matter how weak it's Army/Navy/Air Force get. So Russia's nuclear stockpile does have strategic value for them.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Which begs the question why would Russia be worried about us invading them in the first place. It is a circular argument now.
Self defense pacts anyone?
Let us say something goes down between China and Japan or Russia and Lithuania (only 2 of a half dozen scenarios I can think of off the top of my head) and they end up at war. If that happens the U.S. has two options.
1. War with China and/or Russia
2. Not honor our treaties and make all our allies abandon us because they can no longer trust us
Either is a disaster scenario in its own way. I am not arguing that America has or has not strong armed other countries. I am saying that if the tension continues to build the likelyhood of a Russia/China alliance grows as does the chance that you end up at war with them. That is where my America is in trouble statement comes in.
NATO
Poland, a NATO member, has been extrememly aggressive towards Russia. What happens in a shooting war between the two and NATO gets pulled in? Russia nuclear stockpile ensures that the Russian Homeland stays uninvaded.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
No it isn't. Countries that don't have an effective nuclear weapons arsenal are at risk of being invaded by the US. Countries that do have them aren't. We might have defended Georgia or the Ukraine if it wasn't for Russia's nukes. So to say that it is a ridiculous reason for Russia's armaments is not even trying to understand their perspective and motives.
Change "the U.S." and put larger countries. Want an example? Kuwait, Ukraine, South China Sea...America might do it the most but let's not pretend it is only the U.S.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Was I passing judgement or pointing out the motives for Russia's nuclear weapons stockpile? I never said Russia was the moral actor in this story.
Yeah that came off stronger than intended, my bad. Just pointing out that it is not only a U.S. thing.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
For sure it isn't. That's the motive for our nuclear deterrent.
Putin makes a lot of sense to me, when I listen to him talk.
So yeah I can understand a little Russian, and I know some history. Our conservatives like Mark Levin call him a mob kingpin/thug/every-imaginable-evil, and yes there are people in this country and around the world who side with him over, say, London fascists/Royals.
But Putin points to the agreement we made with Russia some years ago regarding Ukraine "non-alignment", meaning we promised not to seek to induct Ukraine into NATO. Now we have broken that promise and it is a threat against Russia. I heard Putin speaking about it in terms of UN world arrangements, and he asked the question, "So, what kind of a world are we going to have if important agreements and treaties mean nothing?"
We have our little band of sociopathic militarists who have Obama's brains twisted behind his back, and it is so insane words fail.
So yeah I can understand a little Russian, and I know some history. Our conservatives like Mark Levin call him a mob kingpin/thug/every-imaginable-evil, and yes there are people in this country and around the world who side with him over, say, London fascists/Royals.
But Putin points to the agreement we made with Russia some years ago regarding Ukraine "non-alignment", meaning we promised not to seek to induct Ukraine into NATO. Now we have broken that promise and it is a threat against Russia. I heard Putin speaking about it in terms of UN world arrangements, and he asked the question, "So, what kind of a world are we going to have if important agreements and treaties mean nothing?"
We have our little band of sociopathic militarists who have Obama's brains twisted behind his back, and it is so insane words fail.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
To be fair
Russia broke the same treaty and they broke it first. They were supposed to guarantee the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine, not annex part of it. Putin is playing the game same as the US is. Point to the rulebook when it's in your favor, ignore the rulebook when it's not.
How have we broken that promise? Ukraine has been hollering for several years to join NATO and they keep getting rejected. Ukraine wanting something and America pushing it are not one and the same. Current NATO/Ukriane training is in response to Russia annexing Crimea and trying to take another 3rd of the country.
If I have missed something showing otherwise than please give me a link.
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]
Banned
We have enough nukes to insinerate entire world 500 times. You will never disarm Russia. This is main reason for building city on Mars. This is not for science it is a high tech bomb shelter to ensure humanity survives when USA invasions finally start nuclear termination on earth.
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]
Banned
My friend. I get same reaction in real life. They always come to me, say Boris tell us the dog farts story Boris tell us about Siberian Forest more. Then they laugh my accent.
To be honest, fair and factual:
Russia did not break the treaty first. The move on Crimea occurred long after overt efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO became news.
So there are some different twists on the facts. For example, I've followed an ultra-conservative analyst who was writing about this years ago. That information base goes like this. When Ukraine became recognized as "independent", there were few name changes on the plaques on government office doors. So much so that the "independence" was derided as a hoax. Under the USSR, overtly loyal backers of Moscow held all the relevant government posts, in fact the only "candidates" for elections were approved from Moscow. As an "independent" nation, the same people continued to rule Ukraine.
So I've also followed some analysts who speak from a position supportive of Putin, as well as others, including CFR and other western experts. I had a niece in Kiev, and a friend who was on the task force inspecting compliance with the disarmament treaty who was in Ukraine several times.
It is likely true that western interests have carried intentions to lead the satellite republics of the old USSR into the western camp generally, and Putin likely knew and expected that to be the fact. But the parties all signed the deal.
In the year before Ukraine became a news item, western interests were funding fascist remnants supportive of fascist ideals from the Hitler era. Well, at least according to Russian-supportive sources of that time. Western money, Western media, even Western agents sent into Ukraine from NATO countries were all at work. The ultra-conservative analyst was hooting it up about how it was all a puppet show, a grand little diversion of public sentiments intended to put us into a frame of mind to be supportive of a new war being planned cooperatively by "higher ups" on both sides, sometimes termed a "bowery war" like the Aztecs used to have with their "enemies". According to the history, Aztec royalty and their counterparts from surrounding kingdoms would march their armies out to face each other, and they would assemble their royal asses on a lookout hilltop, both sides' highest elites, together under a nice shady bowery, and proceed with some drinking and other pleasures, and watch the armies at the foot of the hill, cheering impartially for warriors of merit. The prevailing forces would wax and wane, and both sides would retire with a nice take of "prisoners of war", which both sides respectively would induct into their service staffs as slaves. So it has been with the world under the UN governance era, with perhaps the new twist that rather than take slaves, we take technology. And support our military-industrial financiers and corporatists.
But, be that as it may be, there was a "regime change" in Ukraine that installed putative pro-Western government, which however again failed to replace the old Soviet bureaucrats. . . . which had my source still talking puppetry, smoke and mirrors, and brainwashing through posturing and media, on both sides of this issue, more or less advancing the "crisis" as a war threat.
And after the move to induct Ukraine into NATO, contrary to the alleged "treaty", Putin did move to assert control over some areas of Ukraine deemed strategic militarily, or where it could be credible there was public sentiment supportive of Russia.
Russia did not break the treaty first. The move on Crimea occurred long after overt efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO became news.
So there are some different twists on the facts. For example, I've followed an ultra-conservative analyst who was writing about this years ago. That information base goes like this. When Ukraine became recognized as "independent", there were few name changes on the plaques on government office doors. So much so that the "independence" was derided as a hoax. Under the USSR, overtly loyal backers of Moscow held all the relevant government posts, in fact the only "candidates" for elections were approved from Moscow. As an "independent" nation, the same people continued to rule Ukraine.
So I've also followed some analysts who speak from a position supportive of Putin, as well as others, including CFR and other western experts. I had a niece in Kiev, and a friend who was on the task force inspecting compliance with the disarmament treaty who was in Ukraine several times.
It is likely true that western interests have carried intentions to lead the satellite republics of the old USSR into the western camp generally, and Putin likely knew and expected that to be the fact. But the parties all signed the deal.
In the year before Ukraine became a news item, western interests were funding fascist remnants supportive of fascist ideals from the Hitler era. Well, at least according to Russian-supportive sources of that time. Western money, Western media, even Western agents sent into Ukraine from NATO countries were all at work. The ultra-conservative analyst was hooting it up about how it was all a puppet show, a grand little diversion of public sentiments intended to put us into a frame of mind to be supportive of a new war being planned cooperatively by "higher ups" on both sides, sometimes termed a "bowery war" like the Aztecs used to have with their "enemies". According to the history, Aztec royalty and their counterparts from surrounding kingdoms would march their armies out to face each other, and they would assemble their royal asses on a lookout hilltop, both sides' highest elites, together under a nice shady bowery, and proceed with some drinking and other pleasures, and watch the armies at the foot of the hill, cheering impartially for warriors of merit. The prevailing forces would wax and wane, and both sides would retire with a nice take of "prisoners of war", which both sides respectively would induct into their service staffs as slaves. So it has been with the world under the UN governance era, with perhaps the new twist that rather than take slaves, we take technology. And support our military-industrial financiers and corporatists.
But, be that as it may be, there was a "regime change" in Ukraine that installed putative pro-Western government, which however again failed to replace the old Soviet bureaucrats. . . . which had my source still talking puppetry, smoke and mirrors, and brainwashing through posturing and media, on both sides of this issue, more or less advancing the "crisis" as a war threat.
And after the move to induct Ukraine into NATO, contrary to the alleged "treaty", Putin did move to assert control over some areas of Ukraine deemed strategic militarily, or where it could be credible there was public sentiment supportive of Russia.
Here is the ultimately relevant link:
https://www.cfr.org/nonproliferatio...t-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484
here is the ultimate relevant text of that agreement:
The issue is whether joining a mutual defense pact whose entire purpose from the outset was to join together in any fight against Russia should be viewed as maintaining "the political independence:" of Ukraine. No NATO nation has the relevant "political independence" because they are bound to support militarily any member nation who resorts to use of military force against Russia.
You cannot seriously assert "political independence" means that the US and Great Britain aren't breaking this agreement while seeking Ukrainian alliance against Russia.
Yah, well, not honestly.
Last edited:
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Babe the US did not send forces into Ukraine. Russia did. The US did not "threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine". Russia did. Ukraine did not join Nato. Maybe you could make an argument that the US has exerted economic pressure on Ukraine but you can definitely make that argument for Russia.
It just doesn't make sense to paint the US as the primary aggressor in this instance.
It just doesn't make sense to paint the US as the primary aggressor in this instance.
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]
Banned
Yes this right here is start of war. USA promised to keep buffer zone between NATO and Russia. They keep attempting to take Ukraine sovereignty from her like they Germans and French did to Greece. You do not understand this Stoked? Why Russia has to strike back to take Crimea?