2 edits
@no1marauder saidWell how self-righteous of the West; it's not like it would ever invade independent nations or slaughter civilians.
Well how self-righteous of the West; it's not like it would ever invade independent nations or slaughter civilians.
The head of NATO already announced that it intends to deploy what he termed sufficient forces in Russian bordering States to defeat any invasion. This presumably means hundreds of thousands of troops equipped with the most lethal weapons in areas where NATO deployed: 1) Zero troops and weapons before 2014: and 2) Token, "trip wire" forces since.
That's right - you've been around long enough to know that for better or worse, the "might makes right" rule usually applies, and hypocrisy is very often attached. It just happens to favor the west this time around.
@mchill saidDoes it?
Well how self-righteous of the West; it's not like it would ever invade independent nations or slaughter civilians.
That's right - you've been around long enough to know that for better or worse, the "might makes right" rule usually applies, and hypocrisy is usually attached. It just happens to favor the west this time around.
The West might just bluff itself into WWIII.
@no1marauder saidThe West might just bluff itself into WWIII.
Does it?
The West might just bluff itself into WWIII.
Yes, indeed. It should make for an interesting year. 😏
@zahlanzi saiddivegeester and zahlansi both continue to talk about the irrelevant thing. They work in tandem to produce noise to throw the attention away from what did I initially say.
that's on others to decide if the argument is ridiculous or not.(it is) He wanted to insult you and didn't want to argue any further. It is an insult, not an ad hominem.
@eintaluj saidWell said.
In 2021, NATO declared its decision that it might deploy nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe.
At the end of 2021, Russia made its security proposals to the US/NATO.
Russian main points were:
1) NATO's expansion at Russian borders is a strategic threat to Russia and must be stopped.
2) Russia will not tolerate deploying nuclear warheads and strategic missiles at i ...[text shortened]... e that we are moving towards WW3 and the leading forces who are triggering it are the US and the UK.
"2) Russia will not tolerate deploying nuclear warheads and strategic missiles at its borders. "
Agreed. This is also the reason I balk at the MAD (mutually assured destruction) believers. If the west was not seriously considering a nuclear war, why is the west deploying nuclear warheads and strategic missiles at Russia's borders?
The answer is simple. The assertion that nobody can win a nuclear war is either false or the west doesn't believe it. That is why your critics here are wrong. They bought into that MAD BS started by the anti nuclear movement.
https://www.businessinsider.com/guide-to-protect-yourself-nuclear-attack-before-after-bomb-2022-3
A man who lived through the Nagasaki (or maybe it was Hiroshima) suffered through radiation burns, but because he ducked and covered he lived to be 92 years old. Don't believe the MAD rhetoric. Most people can survive a nuclear war.
@mchill said""Russia will not tolerate deploying nuclear warheads and strategic missiles at its borders" is pretty weak since nuclear warheads can be launched at Russia just as easily from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean as they can from Ukraine."
I agree with some of this, but your argument that Russia's actions are justified because If Russia withdraws its military forces and stops killing innocent Ukrainians, I'm sure the west would be willing to pull back its nukes at an acceptable distance from the border of Russia, but that's not going to happen while Russian tank shells, missiles and bombs are raining down on Ukrainian hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings.
That is based on the assumption the west would not consider a first strike and start a nuclear war. Your assumption is wrong. Why do you think the USA put nukes in Turkey, starting the Cuba missile crisis? Why do you think the USA didn't like nukes in Cuba. History proves you wrong.
"If Russia withdraws its military forces and stops killing innocent Ukrainians, I'm sure the west would be willing to pull back its nukes at an acceptable distance from the border of Russia"
The USA and UK promised not to expand NATO and did it anyway. You are being extremely naive. There are no good guys. They are all black hats. Get it through your thick skull!
1 edit
@no1marauder saidSo you are admitting that NATO’s build up on its eastern flank is in response to Russias belligerent expansionist move westward into Ukraine🤷🏻♂️
Well how self-righteous of the West; it's not like it would ever invade independent nations or slaughter civilians.
The head of NATO already announced that it intends to deploy what he termed sufficient forces in Russian bordering States to defeat any invasion. This presumably means hundreds of thousands of troops equipped with the most lethal weapons in areas where NATO deployed: 1) Zero troops and weapons before 2014: and 2) Token, "trip wire" forces since.
That’s what your opponents have known all along, if Russia behaves like a civilised democracy all of this, including NATO on its border go’s away.
But if as I suspect Putin is committed to a constant state of war with the US and the west supported by an increasingly authoritarian and ambitious China then NATO and the west should consider themselves on a pre war footing with both regimes and just keep piling more and more weapons into Ukraine and pour more and more serious weaponry into our eastern flank.
@metal-brain saidWell perhaps it could retaliate by placing nuclear weapons right in NATO’s border in say Kaliningrad, oh no hang on it’s been doing that for years🙄
""Russia will not tolerate deploying nuclear warheads and strategic missiles at its borders" is pretty weak since nuclear warheads can be launched at Russia just as easily from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean as they can from Ukraine."
That is based on the assumption the west would not consider a first strike and start a nuclear war. Your assumption is wrong. Why do y ...[text shortened]... g extremely naive. There are no good guys. They are all black hats. Get it through your thick skull!
Russia will just have to tolerate fair play we are not going to give it any choice. We’ve tried the hands off step back approach and the Ukrainians are paying a terrible price but Russia will burn before the Estonians and Poles pay a similar one.
1 edit
@EintaluJ
So it is ok for Russia to have literally THOUSANDS of nukes but cannot stand the idea of anyone else doing so.
Putin got his job by accusing corruption probe investigators investigating Yeltsin of being pedophiles, a typical dictator tactic used many times over by Putin, who is by any standard a barbarian from the tenth century running a country with thousands of nukes and now attacking Ukraine on the pretense of ridding Ukraine of "Nazi's"
even though Zelensky is JEWISH. Sure, he is one TERRIBLE NAZI, lets attack his country so we can rid the world of those barbarian Nazi's.
Now Mariupol is laid waste, scorched earth policy of Putin.
If or when he takes over Ukraine and kills Zelensky, what country would be next?
My guess, Moldavia and then Poland.
Anyone who doesn't think Putin wants his old Soviet empire back is either nuts or working for Putin.
He already has the Russian population believing Ukraine is being liberated from Nazi's.
There were interviews with young Ukrainians having parents living in Russia, they call their own children nuts and crazy for daring to say there is even a war going on.
I saw those interviews and now families are split apart by Putin.
Putin is SUCH an altruistic GOD, with only the wellbeing of his people FOR SURE, right?
1 edit
@metal-brain saidActually, not only the nukes and their closeness are important. The MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is important. And it involves the retaliatory capability.
""Russia will not tolerate deploying nuclear warheads and strategic missiles at its borders" is pretty weak since nuclear warheads can be launched at Russia just as easily from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean as they can from Ukraine."
That is based on the assumption the west would not consider a first strike and start a nuclear war. Your assumption is wrong. Why do y ...[text shortened]... g extremely naive. There are no good guys. They are all black hats. Get it through your thick skull!
Suppose that the US gives a nuclear strike on Russia. And Russia is late to be able to retaliate. Then, Russia will be destroyed. The nuclear radiation originating from Russia is harmful, but 25% of Americans are able to survive. Then, perhaps the US will attack first.
Russia, however, has 5000 nuclear warheads, and many of them are underground, hidden and can strike from random points.
Now, it is important, how close are the NATO radars, early warning systems, and how close are the air defence missiles and other missiles to Russian borders. If they are too close and Russia is too surrounded by such systems, then the US can strike Russian weapons and radars with ordinary, but powerful and quick and exact missiles, then the atomic bombs are coming, and if anything is left and some missiles are starting from Russia towards America, they will be shut down or most of them will be shut down.
As a result, Russia will be destroyed and 10% of the Americans will survive.
Then, the US might start a nuclear war against Russia to strike first.
- Therefore, for Russia, it is dangerous if the US can deploy its radars and missiles all around Western Russia at its borders - even if these missiles do not carry nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what Putin was talking about. He also mentioned the details of the NATO missile systems. That logic itself, however, is not Russian propaganda or Russian logic. It is the Cold War-era logic of strategic thinking and both the Soviet Union and the US knew this logic.
Therefore, I regard it as natural that Russia became highly nervous when Ukraine aimed to join NATO, because Ukraine is very close to those strategic objects that are around Moscow.
I was not surprised at all when Russia started a war against Ukraine. I was surprised, instead, that the US and NATO neglected Russian security proposals. And, of course, I was surprised that Russia started to invade Ukraine, because I was thinking that 1000 missile strikes would solve that problem, destroying all NATO objects in Ukraine (there were many already).