@metal-brain saidHahaha
Russia slams US false flag claim
The allegations are reminiscent of fake claims in 2003 that Iraq had biological weapons, Moscow’s Washington embassy says
https://www.rt.com/russia/548293-allegations-iraq-biological-weapons/
They are loading up buses with refugees because Ukraine might attack that circa 200,000 combined Russian and Belorussian invasion force.
Stop lying and stop being stupid.
@shavixmir saidLatest estimate was 130,000 RUSSIAN forces and you don’t think Belorussian forces will be involved if Ukraine attacks the enclaves during their joint ‘training’ exercise.
200.000 already!
3 days ago it was 100.000…
Jesus you probably still think they are pulling their forces back.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@jimm619 saidSome people on the left, in whom I am sorely disappointed. Like Shav, who is usually left-wing, but now, for some reason I do not understand, defends this totalitarian, right-wing dictator.
HUH?
How do you reason that
the left is pro-Putin?
It's all the more of a mystery because most of the left does indeed see Putin for what he is.
@no1marauder saidReally you think we should have let Karadžić continue his genocide of the non Serb Bosnians. It’s telling that your having to cite nato success stories along with their failures like Libya, nato obviously has no business in the Middle East or North Africa but Afghanistan was a bit more complicated given that the twin towers probably did represent a declaration of war on a nato member but we should probably have invaded Saudi Arabia.
Everything in the Balkans since the early 1990s.
Libya 2011.
Afghanistan 2001-21.
The majority of nato members are in Europe which means that an expansionist Russia is definitely NATO’s legitimate business.
Why is it that Russia can form defensive alliances with a myriad of countries in the region but when anyone else does it it’s considered an aggression?
1 edit
@kevcvs57 said"Genocide" is a word to throw around whenever powerful countries want to interfere in the internal affairs of weaker ones. The detachment of Kosovo from Serbia, for example, was no more justified than the detachment of the Crimea from the Ukraine.
Really you think we should have let Karadžić continue his genocide of the non Serb Bosnians. It’s telling that your having to cite nato success stories along with their failures like Libya, nato obviously has no business in the Middle East or North Africa but Afghanistan was a bit more complicated given that the twin towers probably did represent a declaration of war on a na ...[text shortened]... with a myriad of countries in the region but when anyone else does it it’s considered an aggression?
NATO should have been disbanded when it became obvious it was no longer needed, if it ever was, as a military counterweight to the Warsaw Pact. The pushing of an aggressive military alliance to Russia's borders, including its intervention against a State (Serbia) allied with Russia, was always bound to result in increased tensions and possibly war.
The leader of Ukraine's largest opposition party, the "pro-Russian" Platform for Life's Viktor Medvedchuk has been under house arrest and under severe sanctions since last May though it does not appear formal charges have been filed against him. https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-medvedchuk-house-arrest-extended/31647523.html
Does this fact have any part of the equation?
@kevcvs57 saidYou seem to measure "success" by "were the militarily powerful countries successfully able to impose their will on the weaker one(s)".
Really you think we should have let Karadžić continue his genocide of the non Serb Bosnians. It’s telling that your having to cite nato success stories along with their failures like Libya, nato obviously has no business in the Middle East or North Africa but Afghanistan was a bit more complicated given that the twin towers probably did represent a declaration of war on a na ...[text shortened]... with a myriad of countries in the region but when anyone else does it it’s considered an aggression?
Afghanistan never declared war on the US nor did anything that happened on 9/11/2001 justify a 20 year occupation of that country by anyone, let alone a Europe based military alliance.
3 edits
@no1marauder saidThat's backwards. The Pact was created to counter NATO.
NATO should have been disbanded when it became obvious it was no longer needed, if it ever was, as a military counterweight to the Warsaw Pact.
Russia was still a military powerhouse even after the fall of the USSR. So there was still an argument for NATO to remain
1 edit
@vivify saidTo be precise, the Warsaw Pact was only formed after West Germany was allowed to join NATO, a most provocative decision to the USSR.
That's backwards. The Pact was created to counter NATO.
If you insist, change "Warsaw Pact" to the threat posed by " Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II. " https://www.britannica.com/topic/North-Atlantic-Treaty-Organization
Either way, this primary reason for NATO's existence evaporated in 1991.
@vivify saidVivify: Russia was still a military powerhouse even after the fall of the USSR. So there was still an argument for NATO to remain.
That's backwards. The Pact was created to counter NATO.
Russia was still a military powerhouse even after the fall of the USSR. So there was still an argument for NATO to remain
How? Russian troops, unlike Soviet armies, were not poised in Central Europe within striking distance of NATO members. Western leaders had assured Soviet ones that NATO would not be expanded eastward as I have already shown.
Given these facts, NATO served no useful military defensive purpose for Western Europe. And it hasn't; it has been used as an arm of neo-colonialist policies in Northern Africa and the Middle East and as a weapon against Russian interests in the Balkans and elsewhere. In short, it is now an instrument of aggressive policy, not a defensive alliance.
@shallow-blue saidI do see Putin as a psychopathic narcissist.
Some people on the left, in whom I am sorely disappointed. Like Shav, who is usually left-wing, but now, for some reason I do not understand, defends this totalitarian, right-wing dictator.
It's all the more of a mystery because most of the left does indeed see Putin for what he is.
What’s your point?
You fail to see the capitalist West for what it truly is and their agenda they’re pushing.
You disappoint me!
1 edit
@no1marauder saidRussia was still an aggressive, expansionist threat, like when they invaded Chechnya. I'll assume you already know of Russia's meddling in Georgia, which was already mentioned in this thread.
How? Russian troops, unlike Soviet armies, were not poised in Central Europe within striking distance of NATO members. Western leaders had assured Soviet ones that NATO would not be expanded eastward as I have already shown.
Given these facts, NATO served no useful military defensive purpose for Western Europe. And it hasn't; it has been used as an arm of neo-coloniali ...[text shortened]... ans and elsewhere. In short, it is now an instrument of aggressive policy, not a defensive alliance.
Russia didn't just lay down and behave after 1991.