@no1marauder saidOkay, they're a part of NATO's "Partnership for Peace program". I was wrong here.
Moldova is not a member of NATO nor is it seeking membership. There have been Russian "peacekeeping" forces in Moldova for about 30 years. https://www.newsweek.com/moldova-monitoring-russian-troops-already-its-soil-we-are-alert-1684701
@vivify saidI never said Crimea's annexation was justified though its occurrence must be placed in the context of the 2014 coup that overthrew the Ukraine's supposedly pro-Russian elected President.
Which means what? That Crimean annexation was more justifiable?
But rushing such a substantial number of troops next to a war zone increases the chance of war beyond question.
Agreed. My point: are NATO's actions not justified?
Maybe this question is pointless. Whether NATO is justified or not, potential WWIII in the nuclear age isn't worth it. Maybe that's your overall point as well.
Crimea's annexation was no more justified then say Kosovo's detachment from Serbia by military force.
@vivify said(Shrug) So is Russia. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_82584.htm
Okay, they're a part of NATO's "Partnership for Peace program". I was wrong here.
@earl-of-trumps saidPutin has provoked exactly what he wanted to avoid.
NATO leaders set to OK ‘major increases’ of troops in response to Putin’s war on Ukraine
"NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday the alliance is likely to bolster troops along its eastern flank, deploying four new battle groups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia."
...more
[i]"Since the Kremlin’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, N ...[text shortened]... ders-slated-to-bolster-troop-presence-in-bulgaria-hungary-romania-and-slovakia.html
interestink
@earl-of-trumps saidYou were just in the wrong century. And the wrong dictator. It was Napoleon.
I stand corrected, Moscow was not lost to the Germans, WWII. Close... but not quite.
@no1marauder saidNo, no they are not, they are going to prevent one by ensuring that even Putin will not be stupid enough to attack a nato country and even if he does we will not have to resort to nukes in order to fend him off.
These idiots are going to get us into a nuclear war with such actions.
Get your thinking head on, this is a very serious issue.
@metal-brain saidThey are constantly shelling and bombing civilian areas and turning them to rubble just like Grozny snd Aleppo you lying little treacherous 💩head.
I don't believe Russia is attacking Kiev unless it is to bomb weapons there. They surround cities and deny them shipments of food and goods first. They are not foolish enough to lose soldiers in urban warfare so soon.
Russia is just surrounding the city or at least trying to. After that they can be patient as the city dwellers run low on food. They will surrender in time.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidWhy are you pretending that it’s either let Putin stomp his way across Europe or have a nuclear war, do you think that Russia is any more suicidal than the Soviets?
What do you propose? A nuclear war?
Are you off your bloody rocker?
Why do you think people pussy-foot around the US when they have mad-hatter leaders saying and doing unspeakable things? Or China?
Because when nutters are in charge, it’s difficult to estimate rationality. One nuclear war and climate change is gonna look like a fresh walk in the bloody park.
The t ...[text shortened]... is.
That is, however, the reality when dealing with the US, China or Russia for the last 60 years.
This is effing surreal, suddenly the west has to capitulate to the ass wipe Putin or we’re all gonna die. Get a grip of yourself. Putin has to be faced down with conventional forces or there most certainly will be a nuclear war when he crosses into NATO territory.
As one analyst aptly put it “Putin is a poker player not a chess player”.
Ukraine continues to kick his ass in combat and all he can do is bomb and shell civilians from a distance.
@kevcvs57 saidYes sir.
Why are you pretending that it’s either let Putin stomp his way across Europe or have a nuclear war, do you think that Russia is any more suicidal than the Soviets?
This is effing surreal, suddenly the west has to capitulate to the ass wipe Putin or we’re all gonna die. Get a grip of yourself. Putin has to be faced down with conventional forces or there most certainly will ...[text shortened]... e continues to kick his ass in combat and all he can do is bomb and shell civilians from a distance.
You’re obviously correct.
Hence that NATO with their trillions in weapons are intervening.
@kevcvs57 saidYou're nuts plain and simple. If the Russians are really losing in the Ukraine as you seem to think, they are in no condition to attack any NATO countries and sending in a massive number of troops is utterly unnecessary.
Why are you pretending that it’s either let Putin stomp his way across Europe or have a nuclear war, do you think that Russia is any more suicidal than the Soviets?
This is effing surreal, suddenly the west has to capitulate to the ass wipe Putin or we’re all gonna die. Get a grip of yourself. Putin has to be faced down with conventional forces or there most certainly will ...[text shortened]... e continues to kick his ass in combat and all he can do is bomb and shell civilians from a distance.
But you seem to actually believe that a general war with Russia is now a great idea based on your paranoid delusion that otherwise Putin will march to the English Channel. You think the West can "call his bluff", attack his forces and he will simply back down.
Your thinking if put into practice has a high probability of nuclear war.
@earl-of-trumps saidI strongly disagree. In the case of a general war between NATO and Russia, neither side would accept the defeat of their conventional forces. Should a situation arise where that seemed inevitable, the temptation to use tactical nuclear weapons would be overwhelming. And then what? The other side would surely retaliate in kind leading to the type of scenario of escalation that strategic planners have always thought to be the most likely one that would lead to an all-out nuclear exchange.
@kevcvs57 says -
"Putin has to be faced down with conventional forces or there most
certainly will be a nuclear war when he crosses into NATO territory."
---------------------
Not agreeing here. Putin can cross into London and neither NATO nor anyone else will use nukes.
There is presently a near zero chance that Russia would invade a NATO country but if the alliance puts a massive number of troops in neighboring countries, seemingly to protect the delivery of lethal weaponry to the Ukraine, the chance of conflict will increase exponentially.
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidFunny you should mention that. The US anticipated Russia's move ahead of time and armed Ukraine knowing he would invade much like a good chess player would. A trap was set for Putin and now he is stuck in what looks to be a long war. I think it may end with Ukraine being a smaller nation than it was before.
Putin is not a chess player, he's a poker player.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-doubles-battlegroups-eastern-flank-states-bulgaria-hungary-romania-slovakia
The danger here is that Putin may expect a NATO invasion of Russia since NATO is doing the same thing he did before he invaded Ukraine. He is not going to believe any assurance that NATO is not going to go to war against Russia either. After all, Putin lied about his plans to invade Ukraine (if he didn't get any concessions), so he expects lying from others. NATO already lied by saying to Russia they would not expand east. Everybody lies.